Reaction to President Bush's FY 2002 budget has centered on tax
reduction. There has been less discussion about his spending proposals,
since they are not complete, and because Congress has until the start of
the new fiscal year on October 1 to act on them.
There has been some reaction to the Administration's S&T budget
request. Among those commenting have been Senate Budget Committee
Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM), Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Rep. Lynn
Rivers (D-MI) and NSF Director Rita Colwell. Federal Reserve Chairman
Alan Greenspan has also commented broadly on research funding.
Selections from their statements follow:
SENATOR DOMENICI:
Senator Domenici is a key figure in determining the parameters of the
FY 2002 budget. As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Domenici
will play a major role in writing the Senate Budget Resolution, which
will help set the broad outlines of federal spending. His comments
yesterday at a Budget Committee hearing on NIH funding are of great
interest. In addressing Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy
Thompson, Domenici declared:
"You come before us, Mr. Secretary, and you say . . . we're very
proud that we're increasing the National Institutes of Health. Now, I
shouldn't be a senator complaining about that, but I want to tell you,
you can't increase one piece of science in America . . . and leave the
other kinds of research in the doldrums."
"You will have to come to the realization, and the president
will, that to increase NIH 20 percent and not to increase the National
Science Foundation, which has only got a $100 million increase in its
budget . . . those aren't going to mesh. In about five years, you're
going to have the medical scientists clamoring for where are the
physical scientists, where are the physicists, where are the people
that work on the newest physics of machinery and engineers and
nano-engines and the like? And then they're going to look over, 'Where
else do we do research?' and it's going to be the Department of
Energy. And they do some outstanding research that is ancillary to, if
not necessary to, the NIH's success. And you can't have both. You
can't cut the DOE's research programs and think that the NIH is going
to succeed at curing all of our ills."
SENATOR BINGAMAN:
Senator Bingaman is ranking member on the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee. A statement from Bingaman cautioned:
"This proposal appears to cut programs - such as basic science,
renewable energy, and oil and gas research and development - by about
$1 billion. Clearly, we don't know all the details of the plan, nor do
we know where a majority of the cuts will fall, but it's hard to see
how we can have a comprehensive energy strategy while making cuts to
R&D."
"DOE civilian R&D programs also play an important role in
supporting excellence at our national laboratories, particularly in
helping to attract the best and the brightest young scientists and
engineers to those labs. I'm concerned about what kind of impact these
cuts could have on our labs."
"I've written to President Bush on behalf of a bipartisan group
of senators asking for an increase in spending for these key areas of
civilian science. When the budget and appropriations processes end
later this year, I hope that we will end up with an increase in these
important programs."
REPRESENTATIVE RIVERS:
Representative Rivers is a senior member of the House Science
Committee. A statement released by the Democratic membership of the
Science Committee contained a statement by Rivers:
"This budget request remains sketchy, but what we do know
suggests that our science programs will not receive adequate support
from the Bush Administration."
"The President is to be congratulated for understanding how
important health research is at NIH - keeping that agency on track to
double its budget. However, I hope that the administration will
reconsider its requests for NSF and NASA. Neither of those critical
agencies are scheduled to receive increases that would even keep pace
with inflation and that just isn't wise. If we are going to keep
developing a new, information-based economy, we have to invest in the
research initiatives that drive that growth. This budget looks like it
will fall short on that account."
NSF DIRECTOR COLWELL:
Director Colwell's statement focused on the Bush Administration's
initiatives for the NSF:
"I am pleased that the President has selected the National
Science Foundation to lead his Math and Science Partnership
Initiative. Investing in people is the first goal in NSF's strategic
plan, and we have. The NSF has a long-standing commitment to
excellence in K-12 math and science education. I look forward to
working with the Administration and the Congress on this vital
effort."
"I also welcome the strengthened investment in mathematics
research, which drives progress in so many science and engineering
disciplines. I also enthusiastically welcome the focus on graduate
student stipends, which - as I have often said - are long overdue for
an increase. The President's priorities clearly mirror our own in
these areas."
"The added emphasis on efforts to improve efficiency also
addresses longstanding NSF priorities - particularly the need to
increase grant size and duration. All of this should set the stage for
strong and sustained investments in research and education over the
long term."
FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN:
Chairman Greenspan testified at a House Budget Committee hearing last
week. In response to a question from Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA)
regarding "continuing, if not increasing, government support for
research, particularly basic research," Greenspan responded:
"On the issue of research, there is just no question that if
you're going to have technology as the base of your economy, which we
do, research is crucial."
"It's another issue to make a judgment as to where that research
should take place. And that, again, is really a fundamental judgment
of the Congress. And it's a tricky question of how much applied
research should government do, how much basic research, and where. And
there are large discussions and debates on that. But that we should in
some way or other enhance the incentives to do research in this
economy, there is just no question. If we don't, we're going to find
that we are in a position where we may have awesome technologies, but
if you don't continuously nurture them, they won't continue to
exist."
