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?

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

Parentheses indicate negative numbers

Related Subcommittees

• Science (109th Congress)
• Energy (109th Congress)
• Space and Aeronautics (109th Congress)
• Environment, Technology, and Standards (109th Congress)
• Research (109th Congress)

Related Subcommittees

• Science (109th Congress)
• Energy (109th Congress)
• Space and Aeronautics (109th Congress)
• Environment, Technology, and Standards (109th Congress)
• Research (109th Congress)

• Print
• Email
• Tweet