COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

[David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

             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)