Views & Estimates :: March 20, 1997

Additional Democratic Views and Estimates on the Budget for Civilian Science and Technology Programs, Fiscal Year 1998

The Democratic Minority of the Committee on Science generally supports the Views and Estimates contained in this document [the complete Views and Estimates may be found on the Committee's Republican Web site]. Indeed, these views may signal the re-emergence of a broader base of bipartisan agreement over the Federal role in R&D.

The expressed rationale for the Committee's support for R&D is that it constitutes an important investment in the future. That is, stable funding for research and development will generate both intellectual capital and direct economic activity in the future. This recognition leads directly to the need for a growth path for R&D that, as a minimum, keeps pace with inflation. This goal will help to return stability and balance to our science and technology portfolio and stem the recent decline that has already had substantial adverse effects on our Nation's R&D enterprise.

Another appropriate goal which has received ample discussion of late is a growth path for R&D that actually keeps pace with the Gross Domestic Product - that is, an annual increase of about 5% per year. This goal is relevant to a broader view of R&D as an economic input directly linked to productivity and growth. A growth of 5% per year would ensure that our investments in R&D will remain in balance with the overall economy and will maintain their positive influence on productivity.

Legislation has also been introduced in the Senate that seeks to double R&D during the next decade - a rate of growth (7%) which would both amplify the impact of R&D on economic performance and help us once again surpass our international competitors in overall R&D investments.

The 104th Congress was a crucial turning point in addressing the Federal deficit. The White House, the Republican Majority, and the Democratic Minority have all committed to achieving a balanced budget by the year 2002. While a balanced budget will remain a political imperative, there is not yet a coherent or unifying policy to guide the process for achieving balance. Past proposals considered by the Congress range from artful accounting exercises to ideological and social blueprints. None have fully addressed the underlying imperative to create an economy that can sustain growth after the year 2002. R&D can play a central role in creating such a sustainable economy.

The Committee's Views and Estimates underscore the priority that should be placed on R&D within the balanced budget that Congress and the Administration will develop over the coming year. Other investments such as capital infrastructure and education and training bear similar characteristics that establish these as high priorities for a growing economy. In general, however, the present budget process does not adequately distinguish between investment and consumption. Without a fundamental restructuring of the Budget Resolution and Appropriations allocation process, such investments will continue to compete with near-term, politically popular programs that have little or no relationship to future economic growth and productivity. We recommend that the Committees of jurisdiction review ways of more clearly identifying investments in the budget and focusing the decision-making process on future economic growth.

Notwithstanding our broad support for the Committee's Views and Estimates, some differences are likely to emerge in the Committee over specific priorities. For NASA, we support a balanced program that includes the priorities identified in NASA's strategic plan. In addition to those NASA activities highlighted in the Views and Estimates, NASA's strategic plan includes a strong commitment to Mission to Planet Earth, a comprehensive environmental research and monitoring program that will significantly increase our understanding of the Earth and its climate. Since its initiation in FY 1991, Mission to Planet Earth's development cost through FY 2000 has been reduced by nearly a factor of three, with the potential for additional savings in subsequent years. We encourage NASA's continued efforts to maximize the value of the scientific return we will reap from Mission to Planet Earth, and in turn, we are confident that Congress will maintain its traditional bipartisan support for this important initiative.

For the Federal Emergency Management Agency we note the concern expressed in the "Views" for expanding the mission of FemA to include counter-terrorism without a fully developed supporting budget. We would also note, however, that the Nation's firemen, our first responders to any disaster, must be adequately trained in the event of terrorist attack. Within the past year, the danger to firemen was clearly illustrated by the Atlanta bombings and the Japanese saran attack, and firemen across the country have given voice to their keenly-felt need for more training. While we are concerned about the impact of anti-terrorism training on the Fire Academy's core training programs, authorization of funds for anti-terrorism training of civilians was provided in the FY 1997 Defense Authorization bill, and we recommend allocating those or other funds to FemA to meet this urgent need.

For DOE, there was much dispute over "near-term, low-risk research" and "commercial activities" in the 104th Congress. While we agree that the Federal Government has no place in funding research that would otherwise be carried out by the private sector in a timely way, there is still a substantial question over where to draw the line between that kind of research and other research worthy of Federal support. This issue will need to be fully explored by the Committee in order to reach a consensus on priorities and goals for DOE and its laboratories.

For EPA, the Views and Estimates note the complexity of the budget request necessitated by conformance with appropriations accounts and the timing of the budget submission. Although the Committee will need to resolve this through oversight hearings, programs that may not be adequately explained in EPA's budget documents do not necessarily constitute lower priority programs.

For the Technology Administration and NIST, we recognize that the Federal role in funding technology programs such as the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Program will continue to be debated. Because of their long-range relationship to competitiveness and productivity, near-term metrics for ATP and MEP that could support budgetary decision-making are difficult to develop (NIST is doing an exemplary job, in fact, in attempting to develop these very metrics). We continue to believe that these programs are investments that directly benefit the taxpayer in future jobs and a growing economy.

We agree that there is a need to prioritize the Federal Government's investments in technology programs such as ATP, CRADAs and SBIR. A bipartisan comprehensive review would help the Committee develop a coordinated and seamless R&D investment policy. We support the Secretary's decision to conduct a 60-day review of ATP and anticipate that this may be helpful in forging a consensus within Congress over the pace and significance of this program.

For NOAA, we have long supported reasonable cost constraints for weather modernization programs such as AWIPS. However we continue to view the modernization of the National Weather service as a high- priority activity that merits Congressional support given the long-term savings in life, property, and economic efficiency which it will achieve. In addition, we view weather service personnel as a high priority human resource. Recent reductions in National Weather Service staffing that have resulted from budgetary shortfalls may have a severe effect on the basic mission of the weather service to provide for the safety and protection of life and property. We recommend that the Budget Committee take special cognizance of the needs of NOAA and the National Weather Service.

In addition to these issues, there are certain cross-cutting programs administered by the agencies within the jurisdiction of the Science Committee that merit special attention. The Next Generation Internet program seeks to develop a national infrastructure to enable high-capacity internet transmissions that will aid the scientific community and the public in general. The Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle seeks to focus various agency capabilities on a more efficient, environmentally acceptable automobile. These programs relate to multiple agency missions but should be considered high priority as overall Federal responsibilities.

Finally, the Democratic Minority has joined the Majority in developing an agenda to oversee the implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act. We believe that the development of program metrics and agency strategic plans will have a positive impact on the ability of the agencies under our jurisdiction to carry out their missions. This initiative will help to define more meaningful long-range agency budgets and to crystallize a coherent Congressional perspective on oversight issues. Although there may be differences in priorities among Democrats, Republicans, and the White House, all have a stake in ensuring that there is a consensus on what is to be expected from the agencies under our jurisdiction.

GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., Ranking Democratic Member
BART GORDON
JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR.
ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, JR.
JAMES A. BARCIA
PAUL MCHALE
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
ALCEE L. HASTINGS
LYNN N. RIVERS
ZOE LOFGREN
MICHAEL F. DOYLE
SHEILA JACKSON LEE
BILL LUTHER
WALTER H. CAPPS
DEBBIE STABENOW
BOB ETHERIDGE
NICK LAMPSON
DARLENE HOOLEY