House Science Committee Members Express Concern for Administration’s R&D Priorities

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Members of the House Science Committee today questioned whether the Administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year (FY) 2004 provides enough funding for research and development (R&D), particularly for basic research.  The concern was expressed at a hearing in which administration witnesses made their first appearance before Congress to explain the proposed budget. 

House Science Committee Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) said, “I understand that this is a very tight budget, but I think we should be able to invest more in basic research, particularly in the Energy Department’s Office of Science.”

Rep. Ralph M. Hall (D-TX), Ranking Democratic Member of the Science Committee said, “I have been concerned for some time that research funding levels for the physical sciences and engineering are too low.  This budget request makes some progress in reversing this trend, but I am disappointed that DOD’s basic and applied research activities, which are a major source of support for these research fields, fare so poorly and that the total funding level for the DOE Office of Science remains flat for the third year in a row.  Also, I remain concerned that funding for oil and gas development programs continues to be cut while domestic production continues to decline at an ever increasing rate and industry research programs have been largely closed out.  If the federal government doesn’t step into breach, then how can we expect to minimize our dependence on foreign oil in the next 10 years?”

Boehlert noted that since FY ’03 appropriations had not been completed, the Administration based its FY ’04 budget on the President’s requested levels for FY ’03.  This gap in budget cycles made a true comparison of priorities very difficult.  For instance, while the National Science Foundation (NSF) received a 9 percent increase over the FY ’03 requested level, the request is only about 3 percent above the final FY’03 appropriation for NSF the House is expected to approve today.

“While I understand the bleak overall budget outlook and support the President’s efforts to reign in spending, I am disappointed in the R&D budget,” said Research Subcommittee Chairman Nick Smith (R-MI).  “For example, the request for the National Science Foundation appears quite strong at nine percent, but using the more reflective baseline appropriations numbers that were approved yesterday, it is only three percent.  I think we need to do more to strengthen NSF, which year after year has demonstrated itself to be a model government agency.”

When asked if the Administration would consider submitting an amended budget request in light of completion of the FY ’03 budget process, the President’s Science Adviser, Dr. Jack Marburger explained that the 2004 request is a starting point.  Marburger added,  “It is the base of numbers that we all have to deal with and it does have important signals, important changes of emphasis.  It gives, I think, a very good direction for establishing priorities for funding.”

 “It is absolutely essential to fund basic research adequately for the future of our country. While the president’s budget is a good start, Congress should be striving to ensure that NSF is on a path toward doubling its funding,” said Environment, Technology and Standards (ETS) Subcommittee Chair Vernon Ehlers (R-MI).

Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL), Chair of the Energy Subcommittee added, “Scientific research may not be as politically popular as health care and education, but it is as important to progress in these two areas as it is to ensuring America’s economic, energy, and national security.  More funding will help the Office of Science attract the best minds and educate the next generation of great scientists and engineers.”

“The level of funding proposed in the FY ’04 budget for research and development, especially basic research, is far from adequate,” said Congressman Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-MD), a senior member of the Science Committee and one of only three scientists in the Congress.  “There’s a direct connection between investments in basic research today and advances that will ensure America’s continued world leadership in technology, our national security, and future economic prosperity.  I’m a farmer as well as a scientist.  If you eat your seed corn in the spring instead of planting it, then there will be nothing to harvest in the fall.”