Congressional Response, Media Reports on Podesta R&D Press Briefing

This Wednesday’s speech by White House Chief of Staff John Podesta has generated considerable media coverage about the House of Representative’s proposed $1.8 billion cut in the Administration’s FY 2000 civilian research budget request. It also generated a swift response from Capitol Hill. These media reports and the congressional debate about R&D spending are well- timed as Congress and the Clinton Administration move toward a resolution of how much the federal government should spend on research and development in the next fiscal year.

Podesta is not someone who is ordinarily in the public’s eye, so his appearance on Wednesday at the National Press Club sent a strong signal about the importance the Administration places on R&D. “Priority” is going to be the name of the game during the next few weeks as administration and congressional officials decide the final figures for FY 2000. Some of the proposed appropriations could go up, others could hold steady, and others could fall. “It’s about prioritizing” said a House Appropriations Committee spokesperson, quoted in a New York Times article describing the proposed R&D cuts Podesta criticized at his briefing. The committee staffer explained that House appropriators had decided to substantially increase funding for VA health programs, reducing the money that was available for research budgets in the same bill (such as NASA and NSF.)

The Podesta remarks received nationwide attention. Among the other media that ran articles on the pending R&D cuts were The Associated Press, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, The San Diego Union-Tribune, Sacramento Bee, Austin American-Statesman, and The News and Observer (Raleigh, NC).

As expected, House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) looks at the situation differently than Podesta. He issued a statement criticizing the administration and its approach to budgeting, and reiterated past congressional actions. This statement offers few clues about Sensenbrenner’s views of the pending FY 2000 R&D cuts, and what future action he might take. Sensenbrenner is a key figure in the House in the determination of R&D policy and spending, and would be instrumental in urging House appropriators to review their actions. His statement, important both for what it said, and did not say, is thus presented in full:

“I am encouraged by the Administration’s sudden interest in science funding. Over the last seven years, overall science budgets, which include both defense and civilian R&D, when indexed for inflation, have been flat or decreasing. Science needs a boost.

“Unfortunately, the President’s Fiscal Year 2000 (FY2000) budget depends on budgetary tricks such as tax hikes and user fees that will never be enacted. In fact, the House of Representatives defeated the President’s FY2000 budget request by a vote of 426- 2 and the Senate defeated it 97-2. This gimmickry significantly overstates the amount of money that can be made available for R&D.

“Now the President’s Chief of Staff is complaining about the levels of science funding, which a few short years ago the Administration thought too generous. Mr. Podesta claims that programs within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) would be severely under-funded in the Congressional appropriation process. However, in the Administration’s FY1997 budget, Vice President Gore proposed a NASA budget of $11.6 billion for FY 2000, $1 billion below the House Appropriation Committee’s current recommendation.

“Mr. Podesta also included in his list of grievances the lack of adequate funding for a new standards laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Ironically, just two years ago, in its FY1998 budget request, the Administration proposed no funding for the construction of this important laboratory while Congress appropriated $78 million for it.

“In total, the Republican Congress has appropriated more for R&D than the Administration requested in three out of the last four years. Those in Congress who have been advocates of increasing science funding welcome the Administration to our cause. We hope, however, the President’s staff view science funding as a priority, not a short-lived political gimmick.”

Raising the profile of R&D and the appropriate budget for it is very important in the next few weeks. Sensenbrenner’s statement that “Science needs a boost” and “increasing science funding” are positive words. So is the statement of John Podesta, who concluded his Wednesday remarks by saying:

“Although it is virtually impossible to predict specifically how today’s basic research results will eventually improve our quality of life, or to imagine the new industries and markets that will emerge, there is no question that such improvements and industries will arise. Just as we now reap the harvest from past discoveries, the work of researchers and scientists will transform our lives as we move into the 21st Century.”

Also to be remembered, since they so accurately describe the legislative process, are the words of the House Appropriations spokesperson: “It’s about prioritizing.”