[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [interesting-people Home]
Subject: COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2320 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
Press Office: (202) 225-3359
DOD APPROPRIATIONS PASSES IN LATE-NIGHT RUSH TO ADJOURN; CUTS
$900 MILLION IN UNIVERSITY RESEARCH, ADDS $67 MILLION IN EARMARKS
Washington -- In a late-night rush to adjourn for the
Independence Day recess, the House yesterday deliberated for a mere
15 minutes before passing a $240-billion spending bill for the
Department of Defense that recommends cutting one-half of the
President's FY95 request of $1.8 billion for university research.
"Having just spent four days chairing Floor consideration of
the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill -- totalling $27
billion -- I am disappointed but frankly not surprised that the
House devoted so little time and thought for a defense bill ten
times more massive that recommends gutting defense-related
university research to the tune of nearly a billion dollars," said
Rep. George E. Brown, Jr., who chairs the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology of the House. "I must observe that if anyone
in this body believed that this cut was going to stand up in the
Senate or in conference, we would be hearing howls of rage," Brown
added.
Appropriations subcommittee members had argued that the cuts
were necessary to fund defense readiness programs. Yet Rep. Brown
observed that the final bill, which passed 330-91, contains at
least $67 million in academic earmarks and tens of millions more
in very detailed spending instructions.
The House took up the Rule on the bill (H. Res. 469) at 10:28
p.m. and adopted the Rule at 10:29 p.m. The bill itself, HR 4454,
was brought up at 10:35 p.m. under a unanimous consent motion
limiting general debate to five minutes. Two amendments later, at
10:50 p.m., the House voted on final passage, which occurred at
11:16 p.m.
"If these university research cuts stand, they will directly
undermine the Department of Defense's Science and Technology
strategy and the President's technology plan. The research cuts
recommended in this bill provide direct support for advanced
technology development at DOD, and represent a critical
investment in the future of both our national security and our
economic vitality," Brown noted.
Brown's remarks for the Congressional Record and a
preliminary list of earmarks found by Committee staff in the DOD
bill are attached.
MR. BROWN OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise more in regret than
in anger, to call attention to a provision in the DOD
appropriation Committee report. The report recommends that support
for university research be cut by 50% from an estimated $1.8
billion to $900 million.
I must observe that if anyone in this body believed that this cut
was going to stand up in the Senate or in Conference, we would be
hearing howls of rage. As it is, we hear no howls and no rage.
The silence on this cut is deafening, but for those of us who are
old hands in this institution, it speaks volumes.
If this cut stood, some of our most prestigious institutions of
education and reseach would be severely damaged. Among the top
ten recipients of DOD funding one finds the University of Texas,
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Johns Hopkins
University, the University of Washington, Georgia Tech and
Stanford University. I may not be much of a vote counter, but a
coalition that includes Members from the states of Texas,
Massachusetts, Maryland, Georgia, California and the Speaker's home
state of Washington is not a bad base from which to start. If
there needs to be a legislative fix to this problem, I am confident
one would be engineered.
If this cut stood it would directly undermine the Department of
Defense's Science and Technology strategy and the President's
technology plan. DOD support for research at Universities is
focused on areas of particular concern to the Department:
electrical engineering, laser and optical sciences, materials
science, applied mathematics and computer science. These same
fields are among the areas of emphasis laid out by the President
in his technology initiatives. In short, the research cuts that
are recommended in the report accompanying this bill provide direct
support for advanced technology development at the
Department of Defense. They also represent a critical investment
in the future of both our national security and our economic
vitality.
With all the dire consequences that would be provoked by this cut,
our silence may be difficult for the public, especially our friends
in Universities around the nation, to understand. I will explain
it for their benefit. All of us here in this body assume, and I
think correctly, that this problem will go away in the Senate and
in Conference and the money will be restored. There is no fight
over this cut because, for all practical purposes, there is no cut
to fight over.
I want to make two additional points. Its been said that nothing
is given so profusely as advice. This entire 300 page report from
the Appropriations Committee is full of nothing but advice--some
of it very detailed. The distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania
made this very point on Monday during the Full Committee consider-
ation of this bill. As this report simply contains recommenda-
tions, the Department can consider and reject that advice if it
fails to fit with the priorities of the Department. Secondly,
despite the "fiscal constraints" that inspired the 50% cut in
university research, this bill and report includes at least $67
million in academic earmarks according to an analysis by my staff.
In addition, there are tens of millions in other very detailed
spending instructions to the Department, some of which are
certainly for academic earmarks. While this is down considerably
from years before, and represents a standard to which we should
hold this bill when it comes back from conference, it is still a
cause for concern. I will enter a list of known academic earmarks
for the record.
Finally, I note that press reports regarding the cuts in
university research have quoted my colleague from Pennsylvania as
expressing a concern regarding the costs of research overhead. I
assure him that I share his concerns regarding indirect costs and
my Committee has held a hearing on this issue. I would be happy
to hold joint hearings with my Friend if he would like to work with
me to address this issue.
* * *
List of Academic Earmarks (Preliminary)
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 1995
Report of the Committee on Appropriations
1. National Defense Center of Environmental Excellence/Univ. of
Pittsburgh -- $18 million (p. 97)
2. Combat Rations Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Demo/Rutgers University -- $2.8 million (p. 204)
3. Facility Environmental Management and Monitoring System/NDCEE
(University of Pittsburgh) -- $5 million (p.208)
4. Advanced Marine Technology Center/University of New
Orleans -- $4 million (p. 220)
5. Continued Development and Applications of a Cost-effective
Remote Semi-autonomous Underwater Oceanographic and
Environmental Measure Capability/Unknown Institution --
$10.1 million (p.223)
6. Ongoing Research Project on Coal-based Thermally Stable Jet
Fuels/Unknown Institution -- $3 million (p. 235)
7. National Medical Testbed Project/Loma Linda University --
$unspecified (p. 246)
8. Automated Welding/Oregon Graduate Institute -- $2 million
(p. 251)
9. Georgia Tech Center for International Defense Conversion
Georgia Institute of Technology -- $0.4 million (p.284)
10. Monterey Institute of International Studies/University of
Monterey -- $5 million (p. 284)
11. San Diego State University Conversion Center/San Diego State
University -- $10 million (p.284)
12. Southeast Regional College Network Florida -- $2.5 million
(p. 284)
13. Georgia Tech Plasma Arc Remediation/Georgia Institute of
Technology -- $4 million (p. 285)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [interesting-people Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC