[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E860-E862]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1997

                                 ______


                               speech of

                       HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 16, 1996

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the concurrent resolution 
     (H. Con. Res. 178) establishing the congressional budget for 
     the U.S. Government for fiscal year 1997 and setting forth 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1988, 1999, 
     2000, 2001, and 2002:

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget 
resolution continues the assault on civilian research and development 
initiated in the first session of the 104th Congress. As compared to 
the President's request, House Concurrent Resolution 178 cuts over $3 
billion in fiscal year 1997 and nearly $18 billion over the 6-year 
period from civilian science agencies. A summary of some of the 
anticipated impacts follows:


             national aeronautics and space administration

       If implemented, the Fiscal Year 1997 Republican Budget 
     Resolution would have a deeply negative impact on the 
     nation's civil space program. Not only does it cut the 
     national Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) budget 
     by almost three quarters of a billion dollars more than the 
     Administration over the six-year period, but it makes those 
     cuts in a manner that would fundamentally destroy the 
     balanced program that has been a hallmark of the space 
     program since its inception almost four decades ago.
       Specifically, the Budget Resolution would slash the funding 
     for the Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE)--a major national 
     environmental research and monitoring initiative--by a third 
     (i.e., by almost $2.8 billion over six years), effectively 
     canceling the project as currently conceived. In addition, 
     the Budget Resolution would cut NASA's aeronautics budget by 
     almost $900 million over the same period. A cut of that 
     magnitude will jeopardize important research initiatives in 
     aircraft safety; improvement of the nation's air traffic 
     management system; development of quieter, more fuel-
     efficient aircraft; and many other important areas. The 
     aeronautics funding cut is particularly troubling in view of 
     the fact that the aviation sector has traditionally made a 
     huge positive contribution to the U.S. trade balance and has 
     been the source of hundreds of thousands of high-tech 
     jobs for American workers. In sum, implementation of the 
     Budget Resolution would do damage to NASA and to the 
     nation's R&D capabilities.


                      national science foundation

       Although the Republicans have proclaimed that they assign 
     the highest priority to basic research in the federal R&D 
     budget, NSF, the agency with the broadest charter for support 
     of basic research and science education, would decline in 
     actual buying power. Although there is proposed a 3% growth 
     for NSF's research accounts, the resolution provides for no 
     growth in its education directorate and other critical 
     operations. In addition, the increase proposed for the 
     research account is about $40 million below the President's 
     request, which would provide 4.7% growth. This translates 
     into nearly 500 fewer research projects being funded in 
     fiscal year 1997.
       The Budget Committee's report language continues the 
     indirect assault begun last

[[Page E861]]

     year on the social and behavioral sciences at NSF. The report 
     endorses the elimination of one scientific directorate and 
     states that ``no reductions are assumed to NSF basic research 
     on the physical sciences''. This position is taken despite 
     the widespread support for the social and behavioral sciences 
     from the scientific community. The President of the National 
     Academy of Sciences, Dr. Bruce Alberts, has stated that 
     research in these areas have made significant contributions 
     to the store of knowledge and to the ability to meet critical 
     societal challenges and that NSF supported projects in these 
     disciplines have contributed significant advances in 
     research. In contrast, the President's budget request for NSF 
     places no restrictions on areas of inquiry in the basic 
     research programs, relying instead on the agency's merit 
     review processes through which scientists select the most 
     promising research directions to advance fundamental 
     knowledge.


                          department of energy

       The budget resolution would cut energy efficiency and coal, 
     oil and natural gas R&D by 50% from FY 96 levels in the first 
     year and would terminate them altogether in four years. It 
     would make a 48% cut in solar and renewable R&D programs in 
     FY 97 and larger unspecified cuts in the out years. [Although 
     not considered energy R&D, the budget resolution would also 
     cut Energy Information Administration programs by 42% from 
     the FY 96 level.]
       Now that the Nation's attention is once again focused on 
     the vulnerability of America's energy supplies, it is ironic 
     that the resolution eliminates those very programs that offer 
     some potential for avoiding or ameliorating future situations 
     like this year's sudden and sharp increases in oil and 
     gasoline prices. These programs help Americans develop new 
     energy resources, use energy in increasingly efficient ways, 
     and otherwise keep our cost of using energy as low as 
     possible. Beyond these energy security and economic benefits, 
     these programs provide environmental benefits by reducing our 
     use of energy resources and by developing economically 
     attractive and cleaner ways to produce and use existing and 
     new energy resources.
       Also included herein is a letter signed by nine Republican 
     Members of the Committee on Science expressing a desire for 
     alternative levels of funding for these programs than 
     contained in the Budget Resolution or those contained in the 
     Committee's authorization bill.


                    environmental protection agency

       The guidance provided in this Budget Resolution and its 
     accompanying report paint a clear picture of the Republican's 
     hostility towards environmental protection issues and the 
     illogical basis for some key Republican policy positions. The 
     budget resolution assumes that elimination of funds for EPA's 
     science programs will result in greater availability and use 
     of sound science by the Agency in its attempts to protect 
     public health and the environment. Appendix 2 of the report 
     makes clear the Republican position that all regulations are 
     simply a drain on the budget and on our economy. Clearly, 
     this is no endorsement for the utilization of agency 
     regulatory authority to achieve environmental protection 
     goals.
       In theory, one logical alternative might be the use of non-
     regulatory initiatives, in cooperation with business, to 
     achieve public health and environmental goals. However, here 
     too, the Budget Resolution concludes that non-regulatory 
     programs are also unacceptable. Three of EPA's Office of 
     Research and Development non-regulatory programs: the 
     Environmental Technologies Initiative, climate change 
     research, and indoor air research are singled out for 
     elimination.
       Environmental technologies create jobs, generate trade 
     surpluses, and result in economic activities with fewer 
     negative effects on the environment. These are the things 
     that Republicans have asserted can be achieved without 
     regulation. Apparently they also think this can be achieved 
     without funding or participation by the agencies charged with 
     protecting the environment.
       The evidence that our climate may be impacted by human 
     activities has been increasing, not decreasing over time. 
     Rather than approach this situation from an informed 
     position, the Republicans choose to ignore the problem by 
     shutting down the flow of information. History has taught us 
     that ignorance does not come cheap. The small amount of money 
     saved by eliminating global climate change research will not 
     balance the budget and puts us at risk of huge expenditures 
     in the future.
       The cancellation of indoor air research in EPA is justified 
     by assuming that this is a responsibility of OSHA. There are 
     two major flaws in this assumption. First this assumes that 
     there are no health problems associated with air quality in 
     residences--this is not supported by the facts. Second, 
     barely 30 pages further in the report the Budget Resolution 
     calls for the termination of the National Institute for 
     Occupational Safety and Health.
       Drastic cuts in environmental research funding and 
     termination of voluntary, non-regulatory initiatives done in 
     cooperation with industry are unlikely to achieve a cleaner 
     environment and adequate human health protection at lower 
     costs. Although the majority's rhetoric declares solid 
     support for environmental protection, the policies and 
     funding priorities contained in this resolution make it clear 
     they are unwilling to back up their rhetoric with real 
     resources.


            national oceanic and atmospheric administration

       Although the proposed reductions in FY 97 are largely 
     absorbed by an elimination of Congressionally earmarked 
     programs and the Administration's own plans to phase out the 
     NOAA fleet and corps, reductions in later years can only be 
     accommodated by a substantial cutback in NOAA's core missions 
     relating to weather services, environmental and resource 
     management, and research and development. The Budget 
     Resolution would cut over $2.7 billion, or 20%, from NOAA's 
     core mission over the six year period. Under these 
     circumstances, NOAA would need to:
       Delay the ongoing installation of new technologies and 
     field restructuring to support Weather Service Modernizaton;
       Cut in half future weather satellite coverage resulting in 
     a blackout should a working satellite fail.
       Withdraw from its participation in supporting DOD in 
     critical meteorological services including the converted 
     polar meteorological satellite program and in providing 
     nautical charts and data for safe naval operations;
       Scale back fishery management nationwide leading to 
     increased overfishing and allocation conflicts;
       Scale back on coastal programs that protect productive and 
     diverse habitats for fish and wildlife, promote cleaner 
     coastal waters for recreation and seafood production, and 
     foster healthy coastal ecosystems;
       Eliminate nautical charting activities and navigational 
     services that provide for safe and efficient seagoing 
     commerce;
       Reduce research activities relating to improving operations 
     for predicting severe weather including hurricanes and 
     tornadoes; and,
       Reduce research activities relating to atmospheric and 
     oceanic monitoring that supports long-term climate forecasts.
       These proposed reductions and the resulting impacts on 
     NOAA's programs will sacrifice American lives, property and 
     the national security by crippling weather service 
     modernization and operations, preventing the recovery of 
     fisheries and protected species, severely curtail vital 
     research, and jeopardize safe and efficient seagoing 
     commerce.


               department of commerce technology programs

       This resolution again calls for the cancellation of the 
     technology partnership programs within the Department of 
     Commerce. The elimination of the Advanced Technology Program, 
     the Manufacturing Extension Program, and the National 
     Information Infrastructure Grant Program would result in a 
     cut of $330 million in R&D from the FY 1996 level and $526 
     million from the FY 97 request level.
       Elimination of the Advanced Technology Program would result 
     in the cancellation of new program competitions expected to 
     yield over 100 new awards. To date, ATP has yielded over $1 
     billion in private sector matching funds. In addition, the 
     Government would be forced to renege on out year commitments 
     to over 500 innovative companies. ATP is a rigorously 
     competitive, cost-shared program that fosters technology 
     development, promotes industrial alliances, and creates jobs.
       Elimination of the Manufacturing Extension Program would 
     force the closure of 75 MEP centers across the country that 
     provide valuable technical assistance to our Nation's 381,000 
     smaller manufacturers. Surveys of client data from MEP 
     indicate an 8:1 return on the Federal investment.
       Elimination of National Information Infrastructure Grants 
     would result in no funding for roughly 165 projects designed 
     to ensure access to advanced innovative telecommunications 
     and information applications across the country.


                                Congress of the United States,

                                      Washington, DC, May 7, 1996.
     Hon. John Kasich,
     Chairman, Committee on Budget, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kasich: As Republican Members of the House 
     Science Committee, we are writing today in support of 
     continued funding for research and development programs which 
     provide our nation with a sound alternative energy policy.
       On Wednesday, April 24, 1996, the House Science Committee 
     marked up our FY'97 Authorization bill without including the 
     title on the Department of Energy, specifically the Energy 
     Supply Research and Development programs. Since it is 
     unlikely any new authorization actions will occur on these 
     critical programs before the Budget Committee markup, we 
     wanted to go on record as strong supporters of alternative 
     energy research and development programs. As a number of 
     Asian and European countries develop significant global 
     economies, the United States will be forced to compete for an 
     ultimately smaller share of the world's finite oil supply. 
     These programs hold the key to our nation's future energy 
     needs.


                renewable energy and efficiency programs

       Between FY'95 actual spending and FY'97 proposed budget 
     levels (based upon the FY'96 budget resolution), domestic 
     discretionary spending has been reduced by 9.2 percent. 
     However, the House Science Committee draft mark and the 
     potential budget resolution mark would result in a 62 percent 
     reduction in renewable energy programs during a two year 
     period. Renewable energy and efficiency programs are vital to 
     both a healthy environment and a sustainable future energy 
     policy. With that in mind, these programs

[[Page E862]]

     should not suffer dramatically disproportionate cuts in 
     comparison with science programs in particular and with 
     unwise domestic spending in general.


                         fusion energy program

       Last year the Science Committee recommended a substantial 
     decrease in the fusion budget and called for a restructuring 
     of the program. In line with the recommendations of the 
     Fusion Energy Advisory Committee (FEAC), DOE has worked to 
     address these concerns. The first signs of this long-term 
     redirection appears in DOE's FY'97 budget request, which 
     calls for strengthened support for plasma physics, more 
     research into alternative fusion concepts, increased 
     innovation, and continued participation in the international 
     fusion program. We urge the Budget Committee to support DOE's 
     ability to maintain a viable fusion energy program within the 
     FEAC report recommendations.
       As you proceed with the budget resolution for FY'97, we ask 
     that renewable energy and efficiency programs be considered a 
     priority and not be unfairly or disproportionately cut.
       Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Matt Salmon,
     Sherwood Boehlert,
     Curt Weldon,
     Tom Davis,
     Mark Foley,
     Roscoe Bartlett,
     Connie Morella,
     Vern Ehlers,
     Steve Stockman.

                          ____________________