Science Committee Report on FY 2000 R&D Request: Mixed
While the House Science Committee does not actually write the appropriations bills, they work with the people who do. Thus the “Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for Fiscal Year 2000" are important. In many instances, the views are mixed.
The full 13-page report is available on the committee’s website at www.house.gov/science The following are some of the major findings regarding programs followed by FYI that fall within the committee’s jurisdiction. Readers are urged to consult the full report for further detail.
Committee Democrats, lead by Ranking Minority Member George Brown (D-CA) issued “Additional Views and Estimates,” which stated in part: “While we endorse the funding levels in the Committee’s Views and Estimates, there are certain policy statements contained in that document which we cannot endorse. Those positions are portrayed as the Committee’s position; to our knowledge, the Committee has yet to take formal policy positions on these matters in the 106th Congress.”
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY:
“While the Committee supports DOE’s overall Fiscal Year 2000 budget request level, it is concerned about a number of the Department’s emphases. The Committee intends to increase support for DOE’s long-term, high-risk, high-quality research and development activities, while simultaneously reducing funding for near-term, low-risk research, and for its commercialization and marketing efforts.”
“The Committee strongly supports the provision of $70 million in Fiscal Year 2000 funds for the Large Hadron Collider, consistent with the DOE-NSF-CERN agreement signed in December 1997.”
“One of the Committee’s major concerns with DOE’s Fiscal Year 2000 request is the status of the $1.36 billion Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), under construction at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.” Here the report cites a technical review on project management and cost estimates, and previous DOE project management experience. “The Committee urges the DOE to promptly address the SNS shortcomings; significant project cost overruns and schedule slippages will not be tolerated.”
“The Committee continues to have major concerns with the Department’s contract management, particularly with respect to the DOE National Laboratories where much of the civilian R&D is performed.”
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION:
“The Committee supports increased funding for NSF and is pleased the Administration recognizes the importance of funding basic research and improving math and science education. Nevertheless, the Committee will carefully examine the request [of $3.954 billion] because it exceeds by $35.3 million the amount authorized for NSF (P.L. 105-27), an amount which bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress strongly backed. The Committee expects NSF and other agencies under its jurisdiction to submit budget requests that fall within the amounts authorized under current law.”
NASA:
Among the committee’s extensive views were the following: “The Committee supports a stable budget for NASA that enables the agency to focus on its core missions including basic scientific research, human and robotic exploration of space, and advanced technology development.”
“The Committee is dedicated to building and operating the International Space Station....” “Since 1993, the Committee has advocated an enhancing, rather than enabling, role for Russia. The Committee’s concerns about Russia’s economic viability have unfortunately materialized. Severing our dependence on Russia is critically important to halt continuing delays, uncertainty, and cost growth.”
“The Committee is dedicated to the pursuit of basic research at NASA in the areas of space science and life and microgravity research. The Committee is pleased that the budget for Space Science is forecast for growth over the next five years.”
“The Committee continues to be concerned about the fate of life and microgravity research.”
“Committee oversight of the Earth Science Enterprise will continue to push for program accountability and a reduction in its significant cost overruns and schedule slips. The Committee notes with serious concern the continuing problems which plague this highly complicated program.”
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY: “The Committee believes that NIST laboratories are its most important scientific research function, and should, at a minimum, maintain their current level of activity. The Committee therefore supports fully funding all STRS [Scientific and Technology Research and Services] laboratory functions.” “In addition, the Committee supports completion of funding for the Advanced Measurements Laboratory (AML).”
“The Committee recommends allocating sufficient funding to cover the existing mortgages for ATP [Advanced Technology Program]. To date, the Department of Commerce has shown only anecdotal evidence that the program has yielded any benefit to United States competitiveness. Further, the Committee continues to be concerned that federal ATP grant money may simply be displacing private investment capital.”
“The Science Committee supports continuation of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program in Fiscal Year 2000.”
