Skip to primary navigation Skip to content
February 03, 2005

Science Committee Democrats Caution Administration on Lack of Commitment to U.S. Science and Technology Competitiveness

(Washington, DC) With the Federal Budget for FY2006 due out next week, House Science Committee Ranking Member Rep. Bart Gordon warned that science and technology - vital to U.S. technological growth and economic competitiveness - will likely be severely underfunded in the President’s request.

"Scientific advancement is one of the keys to U.S. competitiveness in a global marketplace," said Gordon.  "The Administration claims to understand this philosophy, but when the budget emerges we’ll see the reality."

In February 2004, Dr. Marburger, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, testified before the Science Committee.  Dr. Marburger stated that "this Administration understands that science and technology are major drivers of economic growth and important for securing the homeland and winning the war on terrorism."  Moreover, "We are a stronger nation - more formidable in defense, more productive in labor - and we are more effective and healthier individuals because of our willingness to invest in basic and applied research and technical development."

"Dr. Marburger is right, but we can’t take kind words to the bank," added Gordon.  The same Administration that Dr. Marburger touted a few months ago now appears poised to cut science funding in next week’s FY2006 budget.

The Administration will maintain that its investment in federally funded research and development has increased to levels not seen since 1968.  Yet in reality, the Federal research and development budget - as a percentage of GDP - is near a 50-year low.  Dr. Marburger has stated that the research and development budget the Administration credits with the increased funding is not the most accurate indicator of overall science and technology funding.  The accurate indicator is the federal science and technology budget (FS&T) - a budget that was actually decreased by 0.4% in FY2005 as compared to FY2004. (Table 1)

"It’s no secret in this town that budgets are tight across the board and everyone is willing to tighten their belt, but when you cut the very programs that grow our economy, you do more harm than good.  Research and development spending guarantees our country a better future, our kids a better education and our workforce the respect they deserve," continued Gordon.  "I’ll be looking to see that this time the Administration’s budget reflects their rhetoric."

Among agencies suspected to be targeted for reduction or elimination in the FY2006 budget are the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Specific programs operating under these agencies likely targeted include the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), the National Math and Science Partnership, and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP).  Additionally, though NASA’s FY2006 budget will likely increase, important NASA science and research initiatives may suffer including repairing the Hubble telescope.

Below are tables that clearly delineate past budget requests and appropriated funds.  Ranking Member Gordon compiled these numbers as a useful guide in interpreting the Administration’s FY2006 budget release next week.

Among the educational and technological priorities Science Committee Democrats will be looking for in the Administration’s budget are:

  • The appropriate balance between research in the medical and physical sciences.
  • What programs will be cut at NASA and/or funds redirected for the benefit of Moon to Mars.
  • If funding for job creation programs, such as ATP and MEP, are severely cut or eliminated, what is the Administration’s proposal for manufacturing competitiveness if industry does not or is unable to fill the gap.
  • What has changed in the mindset of the Administration since last February’s "understanding that science and technology are major drivers of economic growth" to the current treatment of science funding as low priority?
TABLE 1:
FY2005 Federal Research and Development (R&D) Spending in Millions
By Agency "Federal S&T Budget" Basic Research Applied Research
FY2003 Actual 56,974 25,306 26,624
FY2004 Estimate 60,658 26,675 28,348
FY2005 Request 60,413 26,847 28,494
Dollar Change: FY2004 to FY2005 Request (245) 172 146
Percent Change: FY2004 to FY2005 Request (0.4%) 0.6% 0.5%
FY2005 Approp 61,804 26,954 30,016
Dollar Change: FY2005 Approp to request 1,391 107 1,522
Percent Change: FY2005 Approp to Request 2.3% 0.4% 5.3%

Parentheses indicate negative numbers
(from Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2005, page 59.)

 

TABLE 2:FY2005 NSF Funding in Millions Approps FY 04 Request FY 05 Approps FY 05 Change Over FY 04 % Change
Research and Related 4251.4 4452.3 4220.6 (30.8) (0.7)
Education 939.0 771.4 841.4 (97.6) (10.4)
Major Research Equipment
and Facilities Construction
155.0 213.3 173.6 18.6 12.0
Salaries and Expenses 218.7 294.0 223.2 4.5 2.0
Inspector General 9.9 10.1 10.0 0.1 1.0
National Science Board 3.9 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0
Total 5577.8 5745.0 5472.8 (105.0) (1.9)

Parentheses indicate negative numbers

TABLE 3:
FY2005 Actual Appropriated Funding in Millions
Agency FY2004 enacted FY2005 request FY2005 Approps. % Change from Request Change from FY2004 % Change from FY2004
National Institute of Standards and Technology 621.5 521.5 703.0 34.8% 81.53 13.1%
Technology Administration (Salaries and Expenses) 6.3 8.3 6.5 (21.7%) 0.15 2.4%
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 3,701.0 3,373.5 3,908.5 15.9 207.5 5.6%
Environmental Protection Agency 8,366 7,789 8,023.5 3.0% (342.5) (4.1%)
Office of Science and Technology Policy 6.99 7.08 6.328 (10.6%) (0.66) (9.4%)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 15,378 16,244 16,039.1 (1.3%) 661.1 4.3%
Department of Energy Science Program 3,482.3 3,431.7 3,599.9 4.9% 117.6 3.4%
DOE Renewables 342.4 374.8 386.0 3.0% 43.6 12.7%
DOE Fossil Energy Research and Development 878.0 584.7 640.0745 9.5% (237.9) (27.1%)
DOE Energy Conservation 672.8 635.8 571.8546 (10.1%) (101.0) (15.0%)
U.S. Geological Survey 938 919.7 935.45515 1.7% (2.54) (0.3%)
National Science Foundation 5,577 5,745 5,472.8 (4.7%) (104.18) (1.9%)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Research, Engineering. and Development 119.4 117 129.9 11.0% 10.48 8.8%
FAA (Facilities & Equipment - Advanced Technology Development & Prototyping) 69.7 37.3 58.6 57.1% (11.10) (15.9%)
TOTAL (approx.) 40,159.42 39,789.38 40,481.4 1.74% 321.95 0.8%

Related Subcommittees

Related Subcommittees