Statement on Podesta Remarks: by James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

I am encouraged by the Administration’s sudden interest in science funding. Over the last seven years, overall science budgets, which include both defense and civilian R&D, when indexed for inflation, have been flat or decreasing. Science needs a boost.

Unfortunately, the President’s Fiscal Year 2000 (FY2000) budget depends on budgetary tricks such as tax hikes and user fees that will never be enacted. In fact, the House of Representatives defeated the President’s FY2000 budget request by a vote of 426-2 and the Senate defeated it 97-2. This gimmickry significantly overstates the amount of money that can be made available for R&D.

Now the President’s Chief of Staff is complaining about the levels of science funding, which a few short years ago the Administration thought too generous. Mr. Podesta claims that programs within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) would be severely under-funded in the Congressional appropriation process.

However, in the Administration’s FY1997 budget, Vice President Gore proposed a NASA budget of $11.6 billion for FY 2000, $1 billion below the House Appropriation Committee’s current recommendation.

Mr. Podesta also included in his list of grievances the lack of adequate funding for a new standards laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Ironically, just two years ago, in its FY1998 budget request, the Administration proposed no funding for the construction of this important laboratory while Congress

appropriated $78 million for it.

In total, the Republican Congress has appropriated more for R&D than the Administration requested in three out of the last four years. Those in Congress who have been advocates of increasing science funding welcome the Administration to our cause. We hope, however, the President’s staff view science funding as a priority, not

a short-lived political gimmick.



Mr. Sensenbrenner (R-WI) is the chair of the House Science Committee.