| |
House Science Committee / Out Year Budgets for R&D
July 23, 1996
With the Administration and the Congress each claiming
that R&D budgets generated by the other branch
fall victim to larger cuts over the next six years,
the stage was set for a showdown in hearings in the
House Science Committee on July 23 and 24. For the
most part, however, the anticipated clash of dueling
budgets failed to materialize. Although there were
some minor skirmishes, general agreement by both sides
about the importance of federally funded research,
combined with the fog of future economic assumptions,
resulted in both sides withdrawing without serious
casualties.
On July 23, the Committee called as witnesses James
Blum of the Congressional Budget Office, which is
responsible for providing reality checks to both Congressional
and Administration budgeteers, and Al Teich from AAAS,
which has provided analyses of projected R&D budgets
for the past two decades. CBO's recently completed
mid-year review of the economy projected more rapidly
declining deficits than had been the case when either
the Administration or the Congressional budgets were
originally prepared. When this adjustment was factored
into the AAAS analysis, the Administration budget
was estimated to reduce R&D funding by 19.1 percent
over the next six years and the Congressional budget
would reduce it by 23.0 percent. Much of the hearing
was spent clarifying assumptions, noting differences
in larger budgetary policies, acknowledging the difficulties
inherent in economic forecasting, and discussing the
appropriate level of investment in research as a percentage
of GDP.
The following day the hearings resumed with testimony
from Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO), followed by
a panel of administration witnesses: NSF Director,
Neal Lane, NASA Administrator Dan Goldin, and the
Department of Energy Director of the Office of Energy
Research, Martha Krebs.
Senator Bond, Chairman of the Senate VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, detailed the
difficulties his committee had encountered in getting
specific information from the administration about
how projected budget savings would be accomplished
through the year 2002.
Dan Goldin led off the administration witnesses by
asserting his strong support for the President's budget
in the out years and stating his unqualified support
for increased research funding in each of those years.
NASA has already undertaken a number of steps to do
more with less by changing the organizational culture
and incorporating emerging technologies sooner. Dr.
Krebs echoed the Department of Energy's support for
the Administration's budget projections and noted
the large-scale reductions in both contract and federal
employees that had already occurred at DoE. Dr. Lane
closed out the panel by noting the difficulty of predicting
out-year budget environment, but stating his willingness
to live within the caps set for domestic discretionary
spending, while at the same time making the strongest
possible case for maintaining the highest possible
level of investment in science and engineering research
and education.
Chairman Walker asked the witnesses why the research
community responded so negatively to Congressional
proposals for reducing research spending but no similar
outcry when the President's budget, with similar --
and in some cases larger cuts -- was met without criticism.
Goldin reminded the committee that his proposals to
cut $5 billion from projected NASA budgets was met
with criticism from all quarters. The key to effective
control of budgets, he said, was near term stability
and long-term identification of priorities and elimination
of inefficient habits of doing business.
Early sparring over current and past administration
budget efforts gave way to endorsements by several
members of federally funded research activities in
general and a the need to set future priorities within
a framework of overall declining budgets. Chairman
Walker concluded the hearing by remarking that adequate
future funding for science will be possible only if
Congress and the Administration agree on larger budget
issues, including entitlement spending and tax policies.
|
|
