This Echo is READ ONLY !   NO Un-Authorized Messages Please!
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 33: March 14, 2003

Science Committee Democrats' Views on S&T Request

Every year, the House Science Committee responds to the 
administration's budget request with a document known as the "Views 
and Estimates."  This report is written by the committee chairman and 
the Majority staff, and is usually endorsed by most if not all of the 
committee's members who are in the majority.  FYI #32  provided 
excerpts from the Majority's FY 2004 report.

Although the Science Committee is bipartisan in its approach, the 
Ranking Minority Member and his staff have usually issued their own 
version of the Views and Estimates.  Ranking Minority Member Ralph 
Hall (D-TX) did so earlier this month.  Excerpts from this document, 
signed by 20 of the committee's Democratic 22 members, follow.  The 
full document can be read at 
http://www.house.gov/science_democrats/welcome.htm

RELEVANCE OF THE PROCESS:

"We generally agree with the policy guidance offered by the Majority 
in their Views and Estimates to the Budget Committee on the FY04 
budget for civilian R&D.  Those Views start with a global observation 
about the importance of adequate funding for science and technology, 
but the document is actually silent on what level of funding the 
Majority believes would be adequate.  Instead, we are left with a 
collection of program-level recommendations done up 
department-by-department.  That leaves us wondering what use the 
Budget Committee can put this document to as it looks for guidance on, 
for example, funding levels for Function 250 over the next five years.  
There is a fundamental disconnect between the purpose of composing 
Views and Estimates and the content of the Majority's report.

"But this is nothing new.  Each year for the past decade we have seen 
the Views and Estimates move further from their intended purpose of 
providing a solid, analytical, five-year recommendation to the Budget 
Committee. . . .  "

FUNDING RECOMMENDATION:

"The Administration's overall request for R&D amounts to a 4.8% 
increase over the FY2003 appropriated levels and yet that appears 
inadequate.  Under the President's request, many programs would 
receive less funding in FY2004 than in FY2003.  The Department of 
Energy's civilian research programs, the National Institutes of 
Standards and Technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
Departments of Agriculture, Interior, Veterans Affairs and Education 
would all face R&D cuts from the 2003 appropriated level if the 
President's request were enacted.  Perhaps most tellingly, 
non-defense, non-NIH research in the President's budget grows by just 
1.6% from the 2003 enacted level - below the level of inflation.  It 
seems a mistake then to stay wedded to the President's numbers.  More 
than a mistake, it might be irresponsible.  The reality is that the 
appropriators have been pushing for strong growth in R&D accounts; R&D 
increased by 13.8% from 2002 to 2003.  On top of this, there is 
near-unanimous agreement that the need for national security-related 
research continues to grow, and there is a consensus that we should be 
investing more in the physical sciences and in such areas as energy 
and environmental technologies. Further, while we can't say what 
impact the Columbia tragedy will have on NASA's budget, we can guess 
that more money rather than less will be needed at the agency.  In 
light of these factors, it would seem reasonable to recommend an 
increase in the overall R&D funding in the 8% to 10% range compared to 
the FY2003 enacted levels.  It seems impossible to do the things we 
know we need to do in R&D with anything less than that, unless we are 
now willing to start sacrificing biomedical research.  As to outyears 
[beyond FY 2004], we would like to believe that increases for security 
and physical sciences could decline slightly, say to the 5% to 7% 
range in the four subsequent years."

The Democrats' Views and Estimates also discuss "Metrics in the 
President's Budget," stating, "We fully support the effort to identify 
reasonable measures of performance for programs, both to give program 
managers useful tools for evaluating progress and to provide 
policy-makers in Congress and elsewhere with insight into the 
Administration''s budgetary decisions.  However, we remain skeptical 
that this Administration has demonstrated the utility of metrics in 
producing sound budgeting decisions."

 In a subsequent section on earmarks, the document concludes, 
"However, we say to our friends at the other end of Pennsylvania 
Avenue that, if you don't like earmarks, don't fund them.  Most 
earmarks do not exist in law.  They are contained, by and large, in 
the detailed report language that accompanies appropriations bills.  
Report language is not binding on an agency.  The ultimate 
responsibility for earmarks lies with the Administration that cuts the 
check.   From a political perspective, we understand why no one in the 
[White House's] Old Executive Office Building wants to start telling 
Appropriators they won't get their earmarks, but if you really believe 
them to be such a problem, perhaps you should swallow hard and start 
drawing lines in the sand."

###############
Richard M. Jones
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi{at}aip.org
(301) 209-3094
##END##########

 - End of File -
================

---