Views & Estimates :: March 16, 2001

Additional Democratic Views and Estimates on the Budget for Civilian Science and Technology Programs, Fiscal Year 2002

Introduction

Like last year, it is difficult to take a position on the Majority's Views and Estimates for FY2002 since the report fails to meet its legislative mandate of providing a five-year funding recommendation for agencies under our jurisdiction. Perhaps the Majority's lack of detail reflects the lack of specificity in the President's budget document A Blueprint for New Beginnings. Despite its failings, however, many of us signed the Majority's Views and Estimates to show support for our new Chairman, and because the content of that report was both inoffensive and generally pointed in the right direction.

However, our deference to the Chairman should not be viewed as indifference to the fate of Federal research funding. What we know of the new Administration's budget concerns us. We are pleased to see a healthy increase for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the request. Defense basic research may also fare well once the final budget is submitted. But the numbers available on the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) cause us deep concern. Neither of these premier science agencies receives a requested increase that even keeps pace with inflation. Lest some view our reaction to this request as overly partisan, we will rely on the reaction of another New York Republican to summarize our view: James Walsh, the House VA-HUD-IA Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman, dismissed the NSF request as falling surprisingly far short fiscally.

Almost three years ago, the Majority released the oft-cited Science Policy Study. That document says that "...to build upon the strength of the research enterprise we must make federal research funding stable and substantial." What that document didn't say is whether that steady and substantial funding should trend upwards or downwards in absolute terms over time. After all, a Federal research portfolio which slowly declines from $90 billion to $80 billion does show a steady and substantial funding profile. Unfortunately, the Majority's Views add no clarification to the vague language of that report. Such ambiguity and indecision, in the newly tightened budget climate, is dangerous.

We want to clearly state that we believe - along with such diverse sources as Allan Bromley, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Andy Grove of Intel, and the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security - that Federal funding for research is a necessary precondition for continued economic success and security in our high technology economy. We also believe that funding for our science agencies - all of our agencies, not just a select set - must be increased.

National Science Foundation

In light of the essential role research plays in driving the economy and serving national security, it is disappointing that the Administration's requests for NSF and other civilian science agencies (with the exception of NIH) are at or below appropriations levels for the current fiscal year. For NSF, the budget request proposes a total increase of only $56 million (1.3%), and all of that and more goes to education programs rather than research. Adjusted for inflation, this request will result in a three to four percent decline in NSF's budget for competitive research grants.

Within this declining budget, NSF is instructed to launch a $200 million initiative in science education, introduce a new program in mathematics research, and maintain existing research initiatives in information technology, bio-complexity and nanotechnology. The core, discipline-based research programs at NSF will be eroded both by inflation and by these new initiatives.

Of course, the Majority understands the importance of Federally supported research and no doubt agrees that NSF plays a vital role in support of basic research and education across all fields of science and engineering. Unfortunately, their budget guidance fails to follow through. We were surprised that the Majority did not recommend a robust funding level for NSF. At a bare minimum we believe they could advocate a funding increase for the Foundation that keeps pace with inflation for all the programs at the agency.

Vowing to work with the Administration to ensure that funding is in line with the agency's importance is an inadequate position in a document that will guide the Budget Committee in its mid-March markup of a Budget Resolution. We too will work with the Administration, but we believe it is necessary to increase the NSF budget for FY 2002 by at least 15% to enable the Foundation to carry out adequately its vital role in support of science and engineering education and research. We agree with Dr. D. Allan Bromley, former President Bush's science advisor from 1989-1993, who made the following statement regarding the Administration's FY 2002 funding request in a March 9 New York Times op-ed:

"The Bush budget includes cuts, after accounting for inflation, to the three primary sources of ideas and personnel in the high-tech economy: NSF is cut by 2.6 percent, NASA by 3.6 percent, and the Department of Energy by an alarming 7.1 percent. The proposed cuts to scientific research are a self-defeating policy. Congress must increase the federal investment in science. No science, no surplus. It's that simple."

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

With regard to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration there are several points that need to be made if the Budget Committee is to have a proper context for its deliberations. We would note that the proposed percentage increase in NASA's funding level is half the average increase proposed for the Federal government's discretionary accounts. This increase, which is lower than inflation, when coupled with the dismal requests for other civilian R&D agencies, sends a negative message about the relative priority that the Administration attaches to Federal investments in cutting-edge research and development.

It is discouraging that the Administration is intent on cutting NASA's aeronautics programs, would eliminate two planned space science projects (the Pluto-Kuiper Express and Solar Probe missions), discontinue remote sensing and environmental applications projects, and "reduce" information technology programs. No convincing rationale for those cuts is provided other than the implicit one of attempting to meet an artificially low funding level for NASA as a whole. The Administration's budget request proposes making significant changes to the International Space Station program. We strongly believe that the Administration needs to ensure that any actions taken to mitigate the effects of cost growth do not wind up undermining the utility of the research facility in which we have invested so many taxpayer dollars. At a minimum, we would advise the Budget Committee to provide a budget increase to NASA that tracks the rate of technical inflation.

Other Agencies

What we are hearing about the treatment of research accounts at the Department of Energy and Interior also concerns us. The budget lacks much detail on these areas, but rumors of cuts up to 20 percent seem to be dominating the specialized press for these agencies.

One specific example that has received wide treatment in the press can be found in the reports of a seven percent cut to the renewable and efficiency energy research programs at the Department of Energy. Such a step would be an unwise approach to reducing our dependence on foreign oil and diversifying our energy production portfolio. The Bush budget and the Majority Views claim an increase in this account, but it would not materialize until FY04 and then only under the far-from-certain scenario of oil extraction from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We would ask the Budget Committee to recommend that these programs continue to grow at a rate equivalent to that approved by the Republican Congress over the past several years.

Conclusion

Finally, many in the science and education community have begun to ask whether there is an "imbalance" in our research portfolio, with too much funding being concentrated in the biomedical sciences. The Administration, by flat funding NSF while moving NIH along the path towards its five-year doubling goal, exacerbates this problem. We don't pretend to know what the exact balance among science investments should be, but our intuitive sense is that there is already an imbalance, and making it worse is not a productive step.

The Majority's promise to work with the Administration to see "if" the portfolio is too heavily weighted toward the NIH is too weak. Frankly, this is a step back from last year's views, when the Majority condemned an over-investment in biomedical work to the exclusion of other fields. The FY2001 Committee Views stated that "contributions of computer science, physics, mathematics, engineering and other fields to biomedical research illustrate the need to secure funding for fundamental science as part of the Federal Government's overall research agenda." This language is more in keeping with our views.

We stand ready to work with the Majority in the effort to educate the new Administration on the importance of Federal R&D to our economic vitality and national security. We stand ready to engage the Administration in an ongoing dialogue about the best way to invest in the future of our Nation. However, we know that the Budget Committee cannot wait for that day when the Administration comes to understand the obvious - that R&D is the lifeblood of innovation and underlies economic growth. Therefore, we have tried to provide at least minimal guidance on how to responsibly treat civilian research accounts in the FY2002 budget.