Volume 142, No. 73 covering the 2nd Session of the 104th Congress (1995 - 1996) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1997” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E860-E862 on May 22, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1997
______
speech of
HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, May 16, 1996
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the concurrent resolution
(H. Con. Res. 178) establishing the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for fiscal year 1997 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1988, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002:
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget resolution continues the assault on civilian research and development initiated in the first session of the 104th Congress. As compared to the President's request, House Concurrent Resolution 178 cuts over $3 billion in fiscal year 1997 and nearly $18 billion over the 6-year period from civilian science agencies. A summary of some of the anticipated impacts follows:
national aeronautics and space administration
If implemented, the Fiscal Year 1997 Republican Budget Resolution would have a deeply negative impact on the nation's civil space program. Not only does it cut the national Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) budget by almost three quarters of a billion dollars more than the Administration over the six-year period, but it makes those cuts in a manner that would fundamentally destroy the balanced program that has been a hallmark of the space program since its inception almost four decades ago.
Specifically, the Budget Resolution would slash the funding for the Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE)--a major national environmental research and monitoring initiative--by a third
(i.e., by almost $2.8 billion over six years), effectively canceling the project as currently conceived. In addition, the Budget Resolution would cut NASA's aeronautics budget by almost $900 million over the same period. A cut of that magnitude will jeopardize important research initiatives in aircraft safety; improvement of the nation's air traffic management system; development of quieter, more fuel-efficient aircraft; and many other important areas. The aeronautics funding cut is particularly troubling in view of the fact that the aviation sector has traditionally made a huge positive contribution to the U.S. trade balance and has been the source of hundreds of thousands of high-tech jobs for American workers. In sum, implementation of the Budget Resolution would do damage to NASA and to the nation's R&D capabilities.
national science foundation
Although the Republicans have proclaimed that they assign the highest priority to basic research in the federal R&D budget, NSF, the agency with the broadest charter for support of basic research and science education, would decline in actual buying power. Although there is proposed a 3% growth for NSF's research accounts, the resolution provides for no growth in its education directorate and other critical operations. In addition, the increase proposed for the research account is about $40 million below the President's request, which would provide 4.7% growth. This translates into nearly 500 fewer research projects being funded in fiscal year 1997.
The Budget Committee's report language continues the indirect assault begun last year on the social and behavioral sciences at NSF. The report endorses the elimination of one scientific directorate and states that ``no reductions are assumed to NSF basic research on the physical sciences''. This position is taken despite the widespread support for the social and behavioral sciences from the scientific community. The President of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Bruce Alberts, has stated that research in these areas have made significant contributions to the store of knowledge and to the ability to meet critical societal challenges and that NSF supported projects in these disciplines have contributed significant advances in research. In contrast, the President's budget request for NSF places no restrictions on areas of inquiry in the basic research programs, relying instead on the agency's merit review processes through which scientists select the most promising research directions to advance fundamental knowledge.
department of energy
The budget resolution would cut energy efficiency and coal, oil and natural gas R&D by 50% from FY 96 levels in the first year and would terminate them altogether in four years. It would make a 48% cut in solar and renewable R&D programs in FY 97 and larger unspecified cuts in the out years. [Although not considered energy R&D, the budget resolution would also cut Energy Information Administration programs by 42% from the FY 96 level.]
Now that the Nation's attention is once again focused on the vulnerability of America's energy supplies, it is ironic that the resolution eliminates those very programs that offer some potential for avoiding or ameliorating future situations like this year's sudden and sharp increases in oil and gasoline prices. These programs help Americans develop new energy resources, use energy in increasingly efficient ways, and otherwise keep our cost of using energy as low as possible. Beyond these energy security and economic benefits, these programs provide environmental benefits by reducing our use of energy resources and by developing economically attractive and cleaner ways to produce and use existing and new energy resources.
Also included herein is a letter signed by nine Republican Members of the Committee on Science expressing a desire for alternative levels of funding for these programs than contained in the Budget Resolution or those contained in the Committee's authorization bill.
environmental protection agency
The guidance provided in this Budget Resolution and its accompanying report paint a clear picture of the Republican's hostility towards environmental protection issues and the illogical basis for some key Republican policy positions. The budget resolution assumes that elimination of funds for EPA's science programs will result in greater availability and use of sound science by the Agency in its attempts to protect public health and the environment. Appendix 2 of the report makes clear the Republican position that all regulations are simply a drain on the budget and on our economy. Clearly, this is no endorsement for the utilization of agency regulatory authority to achieve environmental protection goals.
In theory, one logical alternative might be the use of non-regulatory initiatives, in cooperation with business, to achieve public health and environmental goals. However, here too, the Budget Resolution concludes that non-regulatory programs are also unacceptable. Three of EPA's Office of Research and Development non-regulatory programs: the Environmental Technologies Initiative, climate change research, and indoor air research are singled out for elimination.
Environmental technologies create jobs, generate trade surpluses, and result in economic activities with fewer negative effects on the environment. These are the things that Republicans have asserted can be achieved without regulation. Apparently they also think this can be achieved without funding or participation by the agencies charged with protecting the environment.
The evidence that our climate may be impacted by human activities has been increasing, not decreasing over time. Rather than approach this situation from an informed position, the Republicans choose to ignore the problem by shutting down the flow of information. History has taught us that ignorance does not come cheap. The small amount of money saved by eliminating global climate change research will not balance the budget and puts us at risk of huge expenditures in the future.
The cancellation of indoor air research in EPA is justified by assuming that this is a responsibility of OSHA. There are two major flaws in this assumption. First this assumes that there are no health problems associated with air quality in residences--this is not supported by the facts. Second, barely 30 pages further in the report the Budget Resolution calls for the termination of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Drastic cuts in environmental research funding and termination of voluntary, non-regulatory initiatives done in cooperation with industry are unlikely to achieve a cleaner environment and adequate human health protection at lower costs. Although the majority's rhetoric declares solid support for environmental protection, the policies and funding priorities contained in this resolution make it clear they are unwilling to back up their rhetoric with real resources.
national oceanic and atmospheric administration
Although the proposed reductions in FY 97 are largely absorbed by an elimination of Congressionally earmarked programs and the Administration's own plans to phase out the NOAA fleet and corps, reductions in later years can only be accommodated by a substantial cutback in NOAA's core missions relating to weather services, environmental and resource management, and research and development. The Budget Resolution would cut over $2.7 billion, or 20%, from NOAA's core mission over the six year period. Under these circumstances, NOAA would need to:
Delay the ongoing installation of new technologies and field restructuring to support Weather Service Modernizaton;
Cut in half future weather satellite coverage resulting in a blackout should a working satellite fail.
Withdraw from its participation in supporting DOD in critical meteorological services including the converted polar meteorological satellite program and in providing nautical charts and data for safe naval operations;
Scale back fishery management nationwide leading to increased overfishing and allocation conflicts;
Scale back on coastal programs that protect productive and diverse habitats for fish and wildlife, promote cleaner coastal waters for recreation and seafood production, and foster healthy coastal ecosystems;
Eliminate nautical charting activities and navigational services that provide for safe and efficient seagoing commerce;
Reduce research activities relating to improving operations for predicting severe weather including hurricanes and tornadoes; and,
Reduce research activities relating to atmospheric and oceanic monitoring that supports long-term climate forecasts.
These proposed reductions and the resulting impacts on NOAA's programs will sacrifice American lives, property and the national security by crippling weather service modernization and operations, preventing the recovery of fisheries and protected species, severely curtail vital research, and jeopardize safe and efficient seagoing commerce.
department of commerce technology programs
This resolution again calls for the cancellation of the technology partnership programs within the Department of Commerce. The elimination of the Advanced Technology Program, the Manufacturing Extension Program, and the National Information Infrastructure Grant Program would result in a cut of $330 million in R&D from the FY 1996 level and $526 million from the FY 97 request level.
Elimination of the Advanced Technology Program would result in the cancellation of new program competitions expected to yield over 100 new awards. To date, ATP has yielded over $1 billion in private sector matching funds. In addition, the Government would be forced to renege on out year commitments to over 500 innovative companies. ATP is a rigorously competitive, cost-shared program that fosters technology development, promotes industrial alliances, and creates jobs.
Elimination of the Manufacturing Extension Program would force the closure of 75 MEP centers across the country that provide valuable technical assistance to our Nation's 381,000 smaller manufacturers. Surveys of client data from MEP indicate an 8:1 return on the Federal investment.
Elimination of National Information Infrastructure Grants would result in no funding for roughly 165 projects designed to ensure access to advanced innovative telecommunications and information applications across the country.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 7, 1996.Hon. John Kasich,Chairman, Committee on Budget, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kasich: As Republican Members of the House Science Committee, we are writing today in support of continued funding for research and development programs which provide our nation with a sound alternative energy policy.
On Wednesday, April 24, 1996, the House Science Committee marked up our FY'97 Authorization bill without including the title on the Department of Energy, specifically the Energy Supply Research and Development programs. Since it is unlikely any new authorization actions will occur on these critical programs before the Budget Committee markup, we wanted to go on record as strong supporters of alternative energy research and development programs. As a number of Asian and European countries develop significant global economies, the United States will be forced to compete for an ultimately smaller share of the world's finite oil supply. These programs hold the key to our nation's future energy needs.
renewable energy and efficiency programs
Between FY'95 actual spending and FY'97 proposed budget levels (based upon the FY'96 budget resolution), domestic discretionary spending has been reduced by 9.2 percent. However, the House Science Committee draft mark and the potential budget resolution mark would result in a 62 percent reduction in renewable energy programs during a two year period. Renewable energy and efficiency programs are vital to both a healthy environment and a sustainable future energy policy. With that in mind, these programs should not suffer dramatically disproportionate cuts in comparison with science programs in particular and with unwise domestic spending in general.
fusion energy program
Last year the Science Committee recommended a substantial decrease in the fusion budget and called for a restructuring of the program. In line with the recommendations of the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee (FEAC), DOE has worked to address these concerns. The first signs of this long-term redirection appears in DOE's FY'97 budget request, which calls for strengthened support for plasma physics, more research into alternative fusion concepts, increased innovation, and continued participation in the international fusion program. We urge the Budget Committee to support DOE's ability to maintain a viable fusion energy program within the FEAC report recommendations.
As you proceed with the budget resolution for FY'97, we ask that renewable energy and efficiency programs be considered a priority and not be unfairly or disproportionately cut.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,Matt Salmon,Sherwood Boehlert,Curt Weldon,Tom Davis,Mark Foley,Roscoe Bartlett,Connie Morella,Vern Ehlers,Steve Stockman.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up