Views & Estimates :: March 18, 1996

Democratic Views and Estimates on the Budget for Civilian Science and Technology Programs, Fiscal Year 1997

The annual Views and Estimates report of the House Science Committee should lay out a vision of how the next year's budget supports the nation's goals for civilian science and technology programs. Over the past year, it has become clear that the vision of the Democratic members of this Committee differs significantly from that of the Republicans.

Democrats have steadily pursued a policy path that seeks to continue the partnership between the federal government and those in the higher education and industrial sectors. This continuing partnership is necessary to advance the Nation's efforts in science and technology. We recognize the need for reform and change in these efforts as we work to control budget deficits. But we have sought reform and change as part of an open, rational process that retains the strengths of the government-university-industry partnership that has brought such bounty to our Nation over the past fifty years.

We are therefore dismayed at the Republican approach taken last year. The hearing record is scant and what passed for policy debates were in reality orchestrated justifications for budget cuts. The vision of science and technology that drives the Republican leadership calls into question the survival of the government-university-industry partnership after the ill-understood Republican cuts are put in place.

It is impossible to create the kind of detailed Views and Estimates report that has traditionally been produced by this Committee. We lack a budget for FY1996; most of our agencies lack appropriations for FY1996; most of our agencies have seen their work interrupted by government shutdowns, disrupting research agendas and awards. On top of all that, the Republican leadership of the Science Committee failed to do their work in 1995 - work that would allow reasoned, rational priority setting in a FY1997 Views and Estimates report.

Some may suspect this claim to be nothing more than partisan posturing. However, a review of the Views and Estimates report produced by Chairman Walker reinforces our claim. The Chair's report presents only a selected set of numbers, ignoring the work of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. It also presents numbers at such a gross level of detail that it hides his chosen losers in broad budget categories. It is very much a spun, "good news" document that bears little relationship to reality and no relationship to the full responsibilities of the Science Committee.

Instead of the normal detailed numbers that have been the hallmark of past Views and Estimates produced by the Democrats, our report this year will explore the underpinnings of the Republicans' dark vision of science and technology, trace the failings of the Republican leadership of the House Science Committee, look in a detailed fashion at the victims of the Republicans' new orthodoxy and offer up guidelines that underpin Democratic policy on science and technology.

I. The Dark Vision of Republican S&T Policy

A year of Republican control of the House Science Committee has made clear that the new Majority is driven by a dark vision of science and technology. They are hostile to science they neither understand nor trust and they view civilian R&D programs as a "cash cow" to be milked to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.

The Republican majority's ideologically-driven approach to setting policy priorities has been built upon terminating important technology programs that form the basis of job creation and retraining in an information age economy. Further, these same blinders have led them to use the funding process to block important science whose findings may conflict with the Majority's deeply held beliefs. Good science is being smothered in its crib because the Majority fear what that science may tell us when it grows up.

The Republican FY1996 budget plan demonstrates that they are willing to cut investments in our Nation's future to finance tax cuts today. A graphical representation of the Republicans' plans for science and technology programs can be seen below (Chart One). This chart, based on American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) analysis of all civilian R&D, shows the Republican budget plan reducing all civilian R&D investments by 33% by the year 2002. These reductions come as the United States slips towards the lowest level of investment in Federal civilian R&D in the last 40 years (A chart demonstrating this trend may be obtained by e-mailing the Committee's Democratic staff office or calling (202) 225-6375). As the Director of NSF, Neal Lane, has said:

"In essence, this nation is getting ready to run an experiment it has never done before - to see if we can reduce the federal investment in R&D by one-third and still be a world leader in the 21st Century. Nobody knows the outcome. But it seems pretty high risk..."[1]

Chart One: AAAS Projections of Republican FY1996 Budget

Source: AAAS. All data are in FY 1995 dollars.

Research and development lie at the heart of economic growth and job creation. New knowledge and concepts, new processes and products are necessary for a vital economy that creates good, high-paying jobs. In the competitive global economy, those who resist change are swept aside while the innovative and creative reap the greatest rewards. Democrats understand that we need the strongest, most advanced educational system in the world to help prepare today's workers for tomorrow's work environment. We also know we need the most creative and productive research enterprise in the world to insure that our companies and our workers have a competitive edge in world markets.

Last year, the majority of House Democrats backed a 7-year plan that would have both balanced the budget and maintained a much higher level of investment in domestic science and technology programs than those contained in the Republican plan. These two goals, a balanced budget together with sustained investments, will lead to much higher increases in productivity and economic growth. The Democratic alternative provided almost $2 billion more for programs under the Science Committee's jurisdiction than did the Republican budget for FY1996. Democrats believe that a careful husbanding of resources would allow both a balanced budget and an adequate level of investment in programs that contribute to future jobs and a higher quality of life for all of our citizens - not just the wealthy and influential.

As we noted in our report last year, economic studies show that between 25% and 50% of economic growth is attributable to scientific discoveries and technological advancements resulting from R&D investments. Roughly half of the Nation's R&D effort is funded by the public. Public support of R&D is required to realize the economic and social returns from R&D that, due to appropriability and other market failures, cannot be captured by a single firm. Without this support, the work would not be done or would be done at a pace or scale that would not yield broadly applicable results. It is essential that there be a balance in our national investment in R&D in which public funding, private resources and joint public-private partnerships play major roles.

The U.S. is the world leader in aircraft manufacturing, computers and software, communications, biotechnology and many other high growth industries. Each produces high-quality, high-wage jobs and are the source of significant export earnings. Innovations associated with each of these sectors have made our lives better. Each of these sectors has developed as a result of Federal financial support. As in the past, R&D investments made today will determine the industries and job opportunities of tomorrow.

Without these investments we will have to stand by helplessly as more and more high-paying jobs move to more attractive labor markets, as new products are invented and produced elsewhere and as our standard of living erodes at an ever accelerating rate. The Republican's latest version of Voodoo Economics hinges upon eliminating regulations that protect our communities and our workers and providing tax relief for the wealthy. They would do absolutely nothing to create good jobs for hard-working Americans or a better life for our children.

Without investments in science and technology by the Federal government, our higher education system will be weakened and our research enterprise crippled. These costs of the Republican's ill-informed slash and burn approach to budget balancing are difficult to calculate because the effects will weigh most heavily on the next generation, but the costs will be real, profound and lasting. Ironically, for reasons that we explain below, the failure of the Republican Majority to do their work has made this slash and burn approach easier to carry out.

II. Failures of the New Majority

This year, it will be very difficult, if not impossible to produce the kind of reasoned, informed Views and Estimates report that has been the standard document for this Committee in the past. Halfway through the fiscal year we still lack a budget; most of our agencies do not have appropriations but limp forward from one Continuing Resolution to another; our agencies' work has been derailed and delayed by successive government shutdowns. On top of all that, the Republican leadership of the Science Committee failed to do their work in 1995 - work that is necessary for reasoned, rational priority setting for a FY1997 Views and Estimates report.

No Budget, No Appropriations, and Government Shutdowns

There is a great uncertainty about what the current year's (FY1996) funding levels will be for programs under the Science Committee's jurisdiction. With the exception of the Department of Energy's energy research and development and science programs, none of the agencies under our jurisdiction have full FY1996 funding. Instead, they lurch ahead from one continuing resolution to another. The uncertainties that come with this style of funding damage morale, disrupt programs and impose unnecessary costs and inefficiencies on every agency involved. This hidden, indefensible waste of taxpayer's dollars compounds the Republican Majority's effort to discredit the Federal government by crippling agencies' abilities to do their work.

The stop-start-stop gyrations of funding for our agencies makes it difficult to know how much progress their programs will make in FY1996 for a reasonable FY1997 recommendation to the Budget Committee. This situation is not simply an accounting inconvenience, it will impact the health and safety of every American. For example, the Federal shutdown had a substantial impact on EPA's long term research efforts. Because of spoiled samples, missed life-cycle study opportunities, and inconsistencies resulting from interruptions in critical projects, many important studies will have to be redone. Experiments dealing with lead, mercury, dioxins, cardiographic response to particulate matter, and ecological toxicity have been particularly impacted.

The FY1996 budget and appropriations process was irrevocably crippled by the "Contract with America" effort that ate up the energies and focus of the first session of the 104th Congress. During the time that the Committee, indeed the entire Congress, should have been reviewing programs, looking at authorization levels, and debating appropriations levels, we instead were distracted by the misguided agenda contained in the "Contract." Democrats understand that responsible government sometimes involves hard work and goes far beyond just influencing public opinion polls and focus groups.

Now foundering upon the shoals of cooler reasoning, the "Contract" lies in shambles. Time spent on the "Contract" was time wasted, stolen from the normal business of Congress and its responsibilities to the American public for the orderly conduct of the Federal government. Now, like profligate celebrants groggily greeting the morning's light, the Republican leadership faces the dawning of another fiscal year, having failed to finish the work of the last one but with no notable "Contract" results to point to. One result of this hangover is that this Committee is crippled in its ability to provide a responsible analysis of the direction and funding of our programs.

No Authorizations or Hearing Records

Even without the continuing budget confusion of FY1996, there is a very slim factual record for evaluating and recommending budget priorities in the Committee's jurisdiction. While the average American works harder for less, the Republican Congress has simply worked less. The underachieving pattern for the Science Committee is but a microcosm of a Congress that Kevin Phillips, the conservative commentator, has described as the "worst Congress in a half-century."[2]

In the 18 Congresses from the 86th to the 103rd, the Science Committee has never failed to have at least one measure signed into law during the first session. The Republican Science Committee of the 104th breaks that record by having none of its authorizations signed into law. Between 1985 and 1994 the Committee averaged 95.9 days of hearings and markups prior to the August recess. In 1995, the Committee met for just 33 days - a decline of 66% from the 10 year average under Democratic leadership.

A statistical picture of the decline in the work of the Committee can be found in Table One below.

Compiled by the Science Committee Democratic Staff

Exclusionary Processes

The first session of the 104th Congress witnessed a profoundly disturbing pattern of Committee procedure and process that has marginalized the roles of Democrats and rank-and-file Republicans alike. When the Committee has moved legislation, it has often been on the basis of a very weak, sometimes contradictory, sometimes empty, hearing record.

For example, the Chairman acted in H.R. 1175 to reduce Sea Grant Program funding. The Ranking Democrat, Mr. Brown, challenged this action noting that there was no hearing record to justify this reduction. The Republicans responded that the administrator for NOAA had appeared before the Committee, which gave members an opportunity to ask questions about Sea Grant if they had been so inclined. Of course this appearance came in the context of another subject, came before there was any knowledge on the part of Members that we would be moving legislation on Sea Grant and without mention of Sea Grant in the hearing charter, staff briefing memorandum or staff questions.

Mr. Brown responded to this explanation with the following:

"Mr. Chairman, I very strongly resent a situation in which we do not have a hearing record on a subject, it is not mentioned in the hearing record that purports to deal with it, and we're told that this constitutes the hearing record on the subject. The fact that there was an option to present something or somebody could have asked is irrelevant actually. There's no hearing record on this subject."

During full Committee markup of a bill authorizing programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Mrs. Morella, chair of the Technology Subcommittee from which the bill was reported, offered an amendment setting in place a new program on which hearings were scheduled for the following day. This prompted the following exchange:

Ms. Lofgren: "Isn't this the subject of our hearing tomorrow at 9:30?"

Mrs. Morella: "It is the subject of it, the report, and frankly, Ms. Lofgren, that's a very good question because we had arranged this earlier, but because of trying to get these bills marked up in Full Committee, the bills came before that particular hearing."

Ms. Lofgren: "As I said earlier, I'm new here, but ordinarily I would assume the hearings would precede the bills. And this may be an excellent amendment. I don't know, I'm not saying that it isn't. But it seems to me, if we're going to act on this tonight, why are we having the hearing tomorrow?"

The full Committee markup of the National Science Foundation authorization saw the Chairman offer an amendment to strike one of the operating directorates at NSF. An earlier statement by the Chair made it clear that he intended that the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate be eliminated. While there was no testimony received in support of eliminating the directorate, the Chairman assured members of the Committee that he had a private conversation with Dr. Neal Lane, director of NSF, and Dr. Lane had indicated that he could live with this amendment.

This theme of private conversations replacing testimony or public debate recurred in Science Committee markups. Time and again, members were assured that the Chairman had received a phone call, or had a conversation, or was in possession of a letter that justified whatever action the Majority proposed. For example, the Chairman proposed major cuts to the Mission to Planet Earth program at NASA based, not on testimony or public reports, but upon private conversations. Mr. Walker, in explaining his proposed cut stated:

"It is true that we are making cuts prior to having that particular review (by the National Academy of Sciences) before us, but based upon conversations that I have had on-going, I have no doubt that the National Academy of Science will suggest that there are some ways to restructure this program."

Oddly, despite these ongoing conversations, the report subsequently issued by the NAS panel endorsed existing Mission to Planet Earth science priorities and implicitly rejected the Chairman's policy directives.

Finally, even in complying with Committee rules, the Chair has replaced accountable public actions with private conversations. The Republicans added a provision to Science Committee rules that requires the Committee to report to the Appropriations Committee by May 15 on any programs under its jurisdiction that are not authorized. This is important, because under House rules appropriations made to an unauthorized program may be subject to a point of order on the floor and struck from the bill. This "report" was apparently delivered orally by the Republican Chairman and no written copy exists. This situation was summed up during an inquiry by Mr. Doggett in a full Committee mark-up.

Mr. Doggett: "Is that (the report) something that is being done with reference to programs or has been done with reference to programs that we will not have any authorization legislation on?"

Mr. Walker: "Well, that has also been complied with. We have been in a process of consultative reports throughout the process, something that I have been surprised to hear the minority complaining about during the period of time. We have in fact informed each of the Committee chairmen, the subcommittee cardinals, of the bills that are not authorized at the present time. That has been an on-going process."

Mr. Doggett: "Is there something in writing on that in the way of a report."

Mr. Walker: "There is not a written report on it, no."

Mr. Doggett: "So there'd be no way for any member of the Committee, not privy to those consultations, to know whether Rule 44 (the reporting requirement) had been complied with?"

It is impossible for members of the Science Committee to understand the basis of Committee actions because so much of the rationale for those actions exists as sub rosa communications. If members of the Committee cannot know what information and intent drives Committee actions, how can the public understand our actions? The Majority have yet to understand how important a failing this is: it is no less than a fundamental failure to live up to the standards of transparency necessary for the rational functioning of democracy. Such behavior tears at the confidence the public must have in the integrity and motives for legislative action. Instead, the Republican leadership offers arbitrary actions and privileged information that must be pried out one kernel at a time.

No Oversight

Another measure of the failures of the Science Committee under Republican leadership can be found in a review of the Committee's formal oversight agenda. Under the rules of the House, the Committee must adopt an oversight agenda and submit that to the Committee on House Oversight. The Science Committee adopted an oversight plan that consisted of 72 separate items on February 8, 1995.

On February 13, just five days later, the Energy and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing on R&D priorities at NOAA, EPA and the Department of Energy. This hearing was simply a budget overview hearing - hardly the context for meaningful oversight work. According to an end-of-session report prepared by the Republican staff for the House Oversight Committee, that single hearing met the oversight goals, in part or in total, of 19 issues - fully 26% of the entire oversight agenda for the 104th Congress. The list of items that were subjected to this withering oversight includes (asterisk denotes the only work on subject in the first session):

• Clean Car Program
• High Performance Computing and the National Information Infrastructure
• Academic earmarking
• International scientific cooperation
• National Performance Review activities
• Federal Technology Transfer
• Supercomputers at NSF
• Human Genome Project^*
• International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor^*
• High Energy and Nuclear Physics^*
• Environmental Restoration and Waste Management^*
• Health and Safety Issues at DOE Facilities
• National Weather Service Privatization^*
• NOAA Fleet^*
• Polar Satellite Program^*
• Environmental Technologies^*
• Examination of DOE Organization
• Fusion Energy^*
• Environmental and Marine Biotechnologies

Many of the claims for having conducted oversight are fatuous. For example, the Technology Subcommittee is supposed to have reviewed the Clean Car Program in a March 16, 1996 hearing. There was no Technology Subcommittee hearing on that date. However, the Technology Subcommittee did hold a March 23 hearing to review the performance of the ATP and MEP programs at NIST. Those programs were favorably reviewed during that hearing, but the Republican report to House Oversight claims that both the role of the Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) in budget priority setting and the Technology Reinvestment Program were also reviewed. There were no questions nor testimony on the role of OSTP in setting priorities. There were no questions nor testimony on the Technology Reinvestment Program. It is hard to understand how these items were subjected to oversight in light of the hearing record produced on March 23.

This failure to conduct adequate oversight of the billions and billions of dollars in programs under the Committee's jurisdiction is also reflected in the investigation record of the Committee. To date, the only investigations launched by the Republican Committee Leadership have focused on the behavior of Presidential appointees: Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown and Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary. Despite authority over more than $25 billion in federal programs, the Committee has not done any consistent, across-the-board work to eliminate waste, fraud or abuse through the Congressional powers of investigation. Instead, there are high-profile, media-driven efforts built on questionable assertions and involving, at the most, hundreds of thousands of dollars in disputed expenditures.[3]

Reliance Upon Industry Lobbyists

In some of the most important legislation moved by the Committee, we have relied upon industry lobbyists rather than hearing records or staff expertise to produce the legislation. The most noxious example was the Science Committee's handling of the Risk Reduction Act, a component of the Republican "Contract" which - if the Republican Senate agreed to move a bill - would fundamentally change the way health and safety regulations could be promulgated. Expertise on that bill was provided by industry lawyers, who were granted access to Committee computers the night before the mark-up to help rework text that neither Democratic nor rank-and-file Republican Members saw until the time of the scheduled mark-up.

During the mark-up of the risk bill, industry attorneys sat behind Republican counsel at the witness table and were consulted repeatedly by counsel as Members asked questions regarding the implications of the legislation. Democratic staff seeking clarifications or negotiating amendment language were directed to these lobbyists. This behavior went beyond the historical consultation that always goes on between legislative staff and groups affected by proposed legislation. In this instance, those with a direct interest in the legislation were actually writing it.

Of course the point is that with so few hearings, with so many subjects packed into so few hearings, with so much back-channel communications, with so much dependence upon industry lobbyists, the Members of the Science Committee, almost half of whom are new to the Committee, know next to nothing about the programs their leadership wants them to kill. Calculated ignorance combined with an ideological hostility to anything marked "Federal" has enabled the chair to get a majority of Committee members to support cuts to science and technology programs.

The failures of the House Science Committee to do its work simply emphasizes how difficult it would be to produce a meaningful Views and Estimates report. What would that report be based upon? What record? What oversight? What expertise? But even if the Committee were to match its past efforts in developing Views and Estimates, such a document would be of minimal utility since the Republicans seem to have predetermined views about which programs to cut and do not want to be distracted by alternative views or new information.

Victims of this orthodoxy, an orthodoxy reinforced by ignorance born in indolence, are easily identified from a review of Committee authorizations, legislative language, budget actions and appropriations activity by the Republican House. The main victims can be found in higher education, environmental research and regulation, applied research and technology programs, space sciences and energy.

Education

The Nation's system of higher education is facing a major challenge. To offset declining support from federal, state, and local governments over the last twenty years, higher education has increased tuition an average of 8% per year over that period. Student debt has increased to record levels: the amount of student debt incurred so far in the 1990's equals the total student debt from the 1960's, 70's, and 80's combined.

But if the Republican budget proposals become law, higher education's problems will get much worse. The Republicans are proposing major cuts to federal student aid, and research and development (R&D) programs. The Republican Budget proposals for 1996 cut billions from student aid programs, and proposed a 33% cut to federal R&D programs, over the next seven years. These cuts would dramatically alter the nature of higher education and the conduct of research threatening, as an official from the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated, to "dismantle a coherent scientific enterprise."

All agree that budget reductions are needed, but any cuts should be made after careful examination. The spending cuts proposed by the Republican leadership of this Committee were made without any public testimony on the impact they would have on our system of higher education, especially at research universities. The effect of these cuts on the future health of the Nation's science and technology efforts was not discussed. Vital research and education investments were lumped together with every other Federal outlay and all treated the same. University research and graduate training were unconnected as graduate student assistance was cut at the same time that the Republicans were promising to hold harmless basic research conducted at universities.

In summary, beyond a need to reduce federal spending, there is no apparent priority-setting system in place, leaving unclear what vision of higher education drives the Republican agenda. Former Republican Governor Thomas Kean put it best when he said, "If the whole priority is just reducing the budget, you're just crunching numbers and you don't have a guiding philosophy and that's not governing."

The higher education system both produces and employs graduates in the science and engineering disciplines and is central to the future vitality of our science and technology efforts. Since this sector is facing a number of challenges that will force major changes in its operations, the Science Committee has a major responsibility to help the higher education community develop responses to these challenges, and fashion federal policy to support the changes being made. The Science Committee should not be blindly cutting budgets without benefit of hearings and making policy proposals that threaten the future viability of higher education in this country.

We suggest that the Committee re-evaluate its budget proposals with an eye toward the health of higher education and university-based research. We suggest that the Republican majority hold comprehensive hearings on the future of university-based research before they make cuts in programs that are vital to that future. We are simply asking for a return of reason to the Congressional process.

Environment

The new Republican Majority took power demanding that environmental laws and regulations be based upon "sound science." However, this same majority voted for an omnibus science authorization bill that cut environmental research at nearly three times the rate of other federal research programs. Where the environment is concerned, the Republican majority consider no science to be "sound" science.

During the opening 100-day legislative spree of the 104th Congress, the House passed H.R. 9 increasing the requirements for analysis in support of regulations. These new, burdensome requirements included expansion of the scope and number of risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses that agencies would be required to perform in order to issue a regulation to protect public health, worker safety, or the environment. Regulations issued by EPA, OSHA, and the Fish and Wildlife Service were most frequently cited as those which were based upon faulty or weak science and in need of "reform."

However, research budgets of these same agencies were targeted for drastic cuts in the House-passed appropriations bills and continuing resolutions. Authorization levels for environmental research programs were also cut, in some cases to levels below those contained in the appropriations bills. In the case of EPA, the research budget would decline by $55 million below FY95 levels. At this funding level, EPA's Office of Research and Development would be forced to lay off 250 scientists. Legislative and report language within science authorization bills explicitly prohibited agencies, especially EPA, from pursuing particular areas of environmental research.

Cynical is too mild a description of this approach to gutting environmental, health and safety regulations. In essence, the Republicans in the House wrapped themselves in the flag of good and sound science in raising the analytical requirements for actions by regulatory agencies. These same Members then took the lead in trying to eliminate or cripple the very programs these agencies rely on to do their science. Later, as our air and water deteriorate, as species disappear at an accelerating rate, as workers' safety and our children's health are all put at risk, they hope the press and the American people will blame agencies for failing to act rather than blame the Republican majority for crippling those agencies.

Ironically, the Republican's hostility to environmental protections has even spilled over into attacks on non-regulatory efforts to achieve environmental goals. The assault on the indoor air research program is a perfect illustration of this.

Indoor air pollution has consistently been identified as a significant health risk and as an area that needs additional research by EPA's Science Advisory Panel. The indoor air program was authorized by the Science Committee under Title IV of the Superfund Amendments of 1986. For nearly 10 years this program has generated information that has been used by state indoor air programs and by building owners and managers to avoid and mitigate indoor air quality problems.

EPA has worked with industry to develop voluntary methods to reduce the health risks associated with indoor air pollution. Yet the EPA FY1996 research authorization (H.R. 1814) contained specific language blocking further research on indoor air pollution. Democrats attempted to strip out this language in a floor amendment; however, the House Science Committee Republicans fought the amendment and portrayed it as a backdoor way to initiate regulation of indoor air quality in private homes. This was simply false.

The truth is that the indoor air research program provides information which has beneficial impacts on human health through non-regulatory means. During floor debate on this issue, Chairman Walker opposed the amendment to allow EPA to engage in this work. He indicated that this research should be done by OSHA which had regulatory authority over indoor air in the workplace. However, the FY96 House HHS Appropriation bill, which had already passed the House, zeroed out funds for the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (an arm of OSHA). Clearly, the real agenda was to prevent this research from going forward.

The debate and struggle over the indoor air research program at EPA reveals the Republicans' deeply held belief that research and knowledge would lead to government action to protect the public from danger; without such knowledge there would be no action. They ban or refuse to fund programs that they fear. This is even true of a program such as the indoor air research program which is explicitly designed to not lead to regulatory solutions for the health problems they identify - or would identify if they could do the research.

It is not just the environmental research programs at EPA that have been victimized. Within NASA, the Mission to Planet Earth program was strongly opposed by the House Science Committee leadership. Chairman Walker proposed that there be an independent National Academy of Sciences review process to reexamine the Mission to Planet Earth and review the scientific priorities contained in that project. When the panel returned a report supportive of the existing program, the Chairman proposed that a Congressionally-appointed task force be assigned the task of developing a different set of priorities more responsive to the Republican leadership's views on the environment. Six of the nine task force Members would be appointed by Republicans.

For all the Republican leadership's talk about letting scientists set priorities and keeping politics out of science, it is clear that they are intent on intervening where and when they please to try to convince the science community to tell them whatever they want to hear at a particular moment in time.

For NOAA, the FY1997 Appropriations Conference provided $226 million for R&D overall, a reduction of $45 million below the President's request. Within that amount, environmental programs relating to climate change were targeted with a 36% reduction below the $90 million requested and NOAA was banned from engaging in any long-term global warming research. Coastal zone programs were also heavily impacted. These cuts and inhibitions imply that important new work will be delayed, including that aimed at forecasting natural phenomena such as El Nino so that long term climate variability can be better understood.

A major initiative within the Department of Interior (DOI) in 1995 was to establish a National Biological Service to consolidate biological activities carried out by separate agencies and reduce administrative overhead costs. House Republicans strongly opposed this initiative and proposed terminating the program altogether. They contended that such an organization would constitute a violation of property rights since it might invite the participation of "vigilante" style environmental activists.

The last Continuing Resolution provides $137 million for DOI's biological programs, a reduction of $36 million below the requested level and places all of these activities within the United States Geological Survey. This reduction will necessitate the termination of important scientific work dealing with exotic species and fisheries research, off-shore environmental studies, and Pacific Northwest Forest Plan work. The bill also prohibits USGS from using volunteers and requires land owner permission for any surveys.

Technology

The Republicans lack a sophisticated appreciation of the relationship between science, technology and Federal funding. The Republican focus on basic, university-based research is grounded in an idealized vision of a world that has never existed - a world in which basic research magically leads in a linear fashion to new technologies. This view ignores the history of today's chemical, telecommunications, computer, aerospace, and pharmaceutical industries (among others) all of which have developed into powerful civilian industrial sectors because of Federal investments in technology development.

Republican technology policy also ignores the economic realities which face U.S. industry. They ignore the sophisticated technological enterprises that have been built in Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Brazil, India, China, Taiwan as well as Europe. They also remain blissfully unaware of the pressures Wall Street places on companies to pursue short-term returns rather than make long-term investments.

From the beginning days of the 104th Congress, the Republican Science Committee leadership has targeted the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP) and the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) at NIST for elimination. Rather than engage in a review of these programs, they were simply tarred with the label of "corporate welfare" and set up for elimination in the House FY1996 budget.

If there had been a detailed review of these programs, we would have found that the MEP focuses on helping small businesses to modernize and compete in the demanding marketplace of the 1990s. The 44 MEP centers in 32 states have reached 25,000 customers and each project saves or adds an average of 5 jobs, increases sales by $360,000 and saves $430,000 in labor and material. Total benefits to manufacturers amount to a return of $8 for every federal dollar invested. Well over half of ATP's technology development grants go to small or medium-sized firms. While the economic returns from the ATP will require more time and analysis to specify, the program has been found to help fill a gap in private capital markets. Private investors shy away from making long-term investments on emerging technologies - the very targets for ATP funding.

Republican hostility to these programs kept the Science Committee from authorizing the ATP program at any level. Further, appropriations in the second Continuing Resolution for ATP are at a level just sufficient to meet the government's obligations to 1994 grant recipients. Competitions had been held in 1995, and private sector companies were selected for partnerships, but 1995 winners will be left in the cold and no further competitions are funded. MEP fared somewhat better in the appropriations process, receiving approximately 60% of the President's request. However, this came only after a concerted campaign by Democratic Members and with heavy lobbying by small businesses writing to their Representatives to educate them to the benefits that come from MEP.

Space Policy

NASA's activities over the last 38 years have had a positive impact on our lives here on Earth. NASA has helped bring communications satellites, weather satellites, remote sensing, development of advanced biomedical telemetry systems and diagnostic tools from the realm of dream to reality.

The space program has also delivered a rich scientific treasure. Almost every week, stunning new images and data are being returned from the Hubble space telescope, the Galileo spacecraft in orbit around Jupiter, and a host of earth-orbiting and interplanetary spacecraft, with ever more challenging missions planned for the years ahead. These images and data are spawning new scientific insights and controversies that are likely to lead to fundamental advances in understanding in the years ahead.

Among these insights are ones that bear directly on the health of Planet Earth - knowledge that will allow us to be responsible stewards of the Earth's resources and environment while at the same time helping us to avoid imposing unnecessary burdens on our economy.

Finally, this renaissance in space and Earth science is helping to inspire the next generation of our best and brightest students to acquire the skills that will help America to compete in the technologically challenging global marketplace of the 21st century.

All of these results have been achieved by maintaining a balanced space program that features rational investments in human space flight, science and technology, and aeronautics, and by continuing to push NASA to streamline its activities and make the most efficient use possible of taxpayers' dollars.

However, all that has been achieved to date is now being jeopardized by the misguided policies of the Republican majority. This Nation has invested significant resources in building our world-class capabilities in space and aeronautics over the last four decades, but the short-sighted budgetary priorities and extreme ideological biases reflected in the Republican budget plan could well undo what so many on both sides of the aisle have worked so tirelessly to put in place.

The Republicans say that they are the party with a vision of the future, the party that understands the promise of science and technology. Yet they would relentlessly cut NASA's budget over the next seven years - cutting billions more than the President's plan. They would dismantle NASA's Mission to Planet Earth program of environmental research because global climate change is just "liberal claptrap". They would cut significant funding from NASA's aeronautical research program because it is "corporate welfare." They would "cherry pick" a few pet projects like the Space Station and the Single-Stage-to-Orbit rocket for funding and leave the rest of NASA's programs to limp along on the remaining scraps of funding.

However, we are not supposed to be concerned with this wholesale assault on the viability of the Nation's civil space program. Why not? As with so many other areas of public policy, the Republicans have a simple solution: business will take care of the problem! Thus, instead of making tough though necessary investments required to preserve a balanced program of scientific research, environmental monitoring, and technology development, the Republicans are content to propose legislation that would exempt non-existent products manufactured in non-existent orbiting factories from taxation. They would "apply free-market principles," whatever that means, to the use of the Space Station - a facility that is being developed at considerable taxpayer expense.

It appears that the Republican vision of the future is of a brave new world where the limited and precious resources of a Space Station built with an expenditure of at least $30 billion of public funds are to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. If a researcher from the National Institutes of Health with a biomedical experiment is displaced by a private company doing product development, the marketplace has decided priorities.

Since much of this fanciful space commercialization legislative agenda is unlikely to be enacted into law, their plans could be viewed as simply harmless distractions if it weren't for the very real damage that their budgetary proposals for NASA will do.

Consider their proposal to cut $2.7 billion from NASA's Mission to Planet Earth, a key contribution to the national and international research effort to understand the Earth climate and environment. As the NASA Administrator stated in June, 1995,

"such a cut would dismantle the national approach to U.S. global change research priorities established over the last three Administrations and undercut U.S. leadership in this important area. It would destroy this program's basic feature - comprehensiveness - and turn an integrated global program into a series of disconnected and fundamentally less effective measurements.

These cuts would cripple the core of the program - the Earth Observing System (EOS) - the first integrated satellite and research system designed to observe the linkages among all the components of the Earth system - the land, oceans, atmosphere, ice sheets, and ecosystems… [F]urther cuts to Mission to Planet Earth - and environmental research in general - seriously jeopardize an investment in the future that will return economic and quality of life benefits far in excess of what we spend today."

Other parts of the Republican budget plan would slash funding available for NASA's advanced subsonic aeronautical research program in order to match a selectively applied standard of ideological purity, a standard that appears to be applied to programs the Republicans don't like while ignored for programs they do like. In reality, the proposed cuts would do significant damage to the long-standing and highly productive partnerships that NASA has forged with U.S. industry to advance the state of aeronautics. In the real world, as opposed to the hot-house environment of extreme policy think tanks, cutting research that benefits an industry that contributes one million high-quality jobs to the U.S. economy and $20-30 billion in aerospace exports annually defies logic.

The Republican budgetary plan, with its selective funding of a few big programs, no matter how laudable, like the Space Station, Shuttle, and the Reusable Launch vehicle, while at the same time slashing the overall NASA budget, will also inevitably eliminate NASA's ability to undertake the new scientific missions that could well rewrite the textbooks of the next century. NASA's efforts in technology development are likely to suffer the same fate.

In sum, the misguided and shortsighted Republican budget plans will do incalculable damage to the Nation's space program, one of America's technological "crown jewels," and we will oppose them.

Energy

Among the Department of Energy's many responsibilities is to take steps to guarantee this nation's energy security. Our continuing dependence on imported petroleum, which played a major factor in our involvement in the Persian Gulf War of 1991, leaves our economy and society vulnerable to future disruptions in the supply of oil.

Republicans have gone after programs designed to provide alternative sources of energy, and sources that may do far less harm to the environment. They have cut the solar and renewable energy programs for FY1996 by almost 30 percent. They also cut fossil energy research - research designed to increase the efficiency and cleanliness of fossil fuels - by about 15%. Finally, energy conservation programs, which are far cheaper to fund than to build new energy capacity, were cut by 10%.

The majority offered no justification for these cuts other than vague claims that they could be absorbed by administrative overhead savings - though there was no basis for this claim. Statements made by the Committee leadership also imply that because oil and coal are in abundant supply and the prices are low and steady, there is no need to make expenditures today to prepare for an uncertain future.

It has been estimated that about $25 billion of the annual U.S. defense budget is attributable to the need to protect the supply of Middle East oil. It is the height of folly to cut programs - costing a few hundred million dollars - designed to reduce our dependence on resources that cost $25 billion to protect. Another way of looking at this is to recognize that the United States spends approximately half a trillion dollars a year on energy. DOE's R&D programs represent a minuscule investment towards reducing those bills in the future.

The Democratic Members of the House Science Committee wish to state as clearly as possible: the major flaw with the Republican Committee's current reasoning is the lack of distinction between investments and consumption. This is like a household seeing no difference between spending money on a new red convertible and spending money to invest in a child's education.

Simply slashing programs to balance the budget, as the Republican leadership would have us do, is no guarantee that we will create a stronger, more vigorous economy. It takes wisdom, experience and knowledge to be able to tell the difference between funding for investments that will pay off in the future and funding that simply underwrites current consumption. The Republican leadership has not shown the willingness to do the work to make these distinctions.

It is the intent of the Science Committee Democrats to continue to support policies which maintain critical investments in R&D within an overall balanced budget context. We will develop this through legislative proposals of the type we advanced in the first session. Clearly, the extreme, ideologically based proposals advanced by Committee Republicans failed to attract a consensus last year and do not constitute a serious effort to fulfill the responsibilities of an authorizing committee.

The Democrats intend to focus on R&D priorities which balance public investments in basic and applied research, which meet the Nation's needs in education, the environment, aerospace, technology and energy development and which will prepare us for a productive and economically secure future.

In our efforts to support R&D we are guided by the following principles:

1. We don't fear knowledge. Our research portfolio should be shaped, in part, by the challenges facing society; nothing should be out of bounds simply because it may provide an answer that is viewed as being ideologically inconvenient.
2. We believe in maintaining a broad, diverse portfolio of investments in our Nation's future. The government should not fund work that the private sector can and should do on its own. But there are a broad range of activities which fit between pure research and product development that require effective cooperation among the government, industry and universities.
3. We are committed to maintaining the strength of our education and research system.
4. We understand that the purpose of research and development programs is not to produce technological gadgetry, but to build a stronger, more just society through the opportunities that education and technology can bring.
5. We stand against uncontrolled social experiments in which slash and burn budget cutting of this Nation's investments is matched with rhetoric about how reducing regulations and taxes on the wealthy will lead to increased R&D.

[1] Remarks by Neal Lane, Director of the National Science Foundation, to the American Astronomical Society, Thin Ice Over Deep Water: Science and Technology in a Seven Year Downsizing, January 15, 1996.

[2] "Consider This the Worst Congress in a Half-Century," Kevin Phillips, Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, February 7, 1996.

[3] Without carrying through these investigations and before any facts were collected - based solely upon two articles that appeared in the Wall Street Journal - Chairman Walker signed a letter demanding the resignation of Secretary O'Leary.