Speaker Gingrich on Science

Washington is still pondering the implications of House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s decision to resign from Congress. Gingrich has a strong interest in federal science policy and spending. The following selections are from FYI since his party assumed control of the House four years ago:

1994:

One week after the election, there is speculation that incoming Speaker Gingrich will defy the long-entrenched seniority system and skip over moderate Rep. John Myers who is in line to chair the powerful House Appropriations Committee. In December, Gingrich names Rep. Bob Livingston as the appropriations chairman, making Myers the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. Rep. Robert Walker, Gingrich’s closest friend, becomes chairman of the newly named House Science Committee.

1995:

Gingrich promises Republican freshman they will be given an opportunity to vote on legislation to abolish the Commerce Department.

FYI notes, “Robert Walker...is a self-described techno-nut,’ as is his friend, House Speaker Newt Gingrich.”

An impasse over the FY 1996 budget leads to a shutdown of some parts of the federal government. The Commerce Department furloughs over 25,000 employees, while NASA maintains its operations with only 6 percent of its workforce. NSF is staffed by 22 employees. Gingrich warns, “If we have to shut down government for a month, we will.”

1996:

The shutdown continues into January, with Gingrich declaring it may take November’s election to resolve the impasse. Myers, named chairman of the energy and water appropriations subcommittee a little over a year before, announces his retirement, declaring, “There used to be a civility.... The camaraderie is destroyed.”

In describing an NSF appropriations hearing, FYI reports, “Subcommittee chairman Jerry Lewis began by recounting a meeting held in Speaker Newt Gingrich’s office, at which the Speaker spoke of his fondness for science, instructing appropriators to do everything possible to avoid cutting funding for science and research.’ Lewis added that the Speaker’s sentiment had been very helpful to the subcommittee in its deliberations over FY 1996 funding.”

1997:

In October, Gingrich appears before the House Budget Committee to testify on how best to use the anticipated budget surplus. He declares, “First of all, I am willing to renegotiate the budget numbers for science and defense because I think there you ought to respond to the opportunity in science and to the demand in defense.” He also states, “Now, I believe that we are a nation that has the inevitable responsibility to lead the planet....” “And in order for us to lead, we have to first invest in science and in research....” "...the entire world is going to look to America for leadership. And our children are going to have the jobs, and we’re going to do fine in the world market because we will have the highest value added jobs, or the highest productivity, giving us the highest take-home pay and the best qualitative future.” “And that means that 20 years from now, we have to have made a rational investment in defense and in science that enables us to sustain that leadership.”

Gingrich and House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner ask Rep. Vern Ehlers to write a new forward-looking federal science policy.

1998:

Sensenbrenner says that usually “catastrophic” future R&D budget projections were improved following conversations he had with Gingrich and Livingston.

During a university commencement address, Gingrich speaks of doubling the science investment budget, and then says, “We have to be at the forefront of investing in science, if we are going to in fact create the knowledge and the jobs of the twenty-first century.” Citing the two cultures of science, and literature and art, the speaker comments: "...if you truly are interested in science you probably aren’t very articulate on the Today Show, and if you’re really articulate on the Today Show, you probably don’t know what you’re talking about scientifically. And the result is that we have a hard time talking with ourselves about the extraordinary opportunities that are available.”

Livingston is quoted: “The fact is the [FY 1999 spending] caps keep us at $2 billion below last year in overall spending, so we’re having to reduce most of our budget. But an emphasis on science, at the request of the speaker, means that science is going up.”

In October, Gingrich declares the Ehlers’ science policy report “a very good start” for a national dialogue on science and technology. Gingrich cites the importance of physics to biology, and how findings in these fields could be related to social science issues. He criticizes math and science education and the cost of space flight. The Speaker calls Russian involvement in the space station an “absolute disaster,” and contends NASA has made “space as boring as possible.”