|
Rep.
Sherwood Boehlert on Key Science and Engineering Issues
by Barton Reppert
Since becoming
House Science Committee chair in January 2001, Rep. Sherwood
Boehlert has emerged as an outspoken champion of science and
technology programs on Capitol Hill. His energetic and
forthright approach to key science and technology (S&T) issues has become particularly
important for the U.S. scientific and engineering communities
this year, when Congress must cope with severe budget
constraints
on discretionary spending.
Faced with a deficit of about
$500 billion, the Bush administration has proposed a $60.819
billion federal science and technology budget for fiscal year
2006 — a decline of $877 million, or about one percent from
the current year. NASA would get an overall 2.4 percent increase,
while the agency's S&T activities would receive a four percent
hike. There would be
an 18 percent boost for exploration systems — spurred by
President George W. Bush’s officially enunciated vision to
return astronauts to the Moon by 2020 and eventually send them
onward to Mars. The National Science Foundation (NSF)
would be held to a 2.4 percent increase, while S&T spending at
several other agencies would be cut. At the Department of
Energy (DOE), for example, funding for the Office of Science —
supporting most U.S. research in high-energy physics —
would be trimmed by four percent, while spending on fossil energy
R&D would be chopped by 14 percent.
In the House Science Committee’s
bipartisan “views and estimates” on the FY 2006 budget, sent to
the Budget Committee on 3 March, the 44-member panel noted that
the administration’s R&D proposal was “heavily weighted” toward
development, but that applied research would remain flat and
basic research would decline by 1.2 percent. “The committee
believes the proposed funding for basic research is
insufficient,” the statement said. “Funding short-term
development at the expense of longer-term basic and applied
research is not advisable, and neglects those portions of R&D
where government support is most crucial.”
Known to his colleagues and
friends as “Sherry,” Rep. Boehlert has devoted nearly his
entire adult career to government service. While a student at
Utica College in his upstate New York hometown, Boehlert became
friendly with the local congressman, Rep. Alexander Pirnie, and
later worked for Pirnie in 1964-72. He subsequently worked on
the staff of another area congressman, Rep. Donald Mitchell,
from 1973 to 1979, and served as Oneida County executive in
1979-82, before being elected to the House for the first time in
1982.
A profile of Boehlert, published
by The New York Times in July 2001, observed that as one
of the House’s leading Republican moderates, he was frequently
positioned between the conservative GOP leadership and his own
stance on issues ranging from environmental protection and
energy R&D to campaign finance reform and patients’ rights.
The Times headline declared: “In the House, He’s the Man in
the Middle, and Loving It.”
According to his colleagues and
staff, Boehlert is still an affable but politically principled
centrist — and still enjoys the responsibilities and
rewards of serving in Congress. His efforts as Science Committee
chair win largely favorable reviews from
Democratic members of the panel as well as fellow Republicans.
For example, Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), comments that although
Boehlert continues to come under some pressure from the House
leadership, “I think all in all he’s been fair. … He’s an
upbeat, energetic chair who understands the importance of
science.”
IEEE-USA Today’s Engineer by freelance correspondent Barton
Reppert interviewed Boehlert on 10 March, at his personal office (elaborately fitted
out with New York Yankees and other baseball memorabilia) in the
Rayburn House Office Building. Here is an edited transcript of
the interview.
|
TE |
Overall, how
do you size up the FY 2006 science and technology
budget? |
|
Boehlert |
Not very adequate. |
|
TE |
What
areas are of most concern to you? |
|
Boehlert |
I suppose all things
considered, in this very difficult time, some people
would make the argument, well, you should be pleased
because there’s some acknowledgement of the importance
of science in the budget. When I look at the overall
budget and consider some of the extenuating
circumstances, then I appreciate that, for example, the
National Science Foundation is relatively flat —
despite the fact that it looks like it’s up —
but you’ve
got transfers from the Department of Homeland Security for the [Coast Guard] icebreakers
to support the polar mission, which is very important.
Then I look at the DOE Office of Science budget, and I
see it down by four percent.
To me, that is not a wise
decision, even in very difficult times. Because I am
very mindful of the fact that our future is largely
dependent upon our response to the challenge to invest
more in R&D on the part of the government — to
encourage more investment on the part of the private
sector, to encourage more partnerships between
universities and businesses, and to deal with such basic
issues as K-12 science and math education. We’ve
got to do a better job of that, and we’re not measuring
up.
We like our pre-eminent
position in the global marketplace, but that is under
attack more than ever before, with some degree of
success. It bothers me to learn that the percentage of
all patents awarded in the U.S. Patent Office to U.S.
applicants is down, as a percentage of the whole, and to
foreign [applicants] it’s up quite dramatically. It
bothers me to see that students who are the best and the
brightest from other parts of the world, who used to
beat a path to our university campuses, are now
declining rather dramatically in numbers, because we
have a visa problem.
It bothers me that the
American business community, in some of the engineering
disciplines, can’t accommodate its needs with a
homegrown workforce. If you’re an engineer and you want
a job, come up to my district in upstate New York, I’ll
get you a job. Lockheed Martin needs hundreds of them —
not just because we’ve got the Marine One [presidential
helicopter] contract up in Owego, N.Y. But in the
Syracuse market, just down the street from my district,
they’re hiring them. The “Help Wanted” sign is out
there. But some of my colleagues take the short-sighted
view that, well, you should hire Americans only. That’s
wonderful, that’s a basic principle. I’d like to have
Americans available in the work pool for any one of
these jobs. But we can’t fill them with Americans. |
|
TE |
Only a couple of years ago,
you succeeded in getting through Congress authorization
legislation that called for doubling the NSF budget over five years. What are the prospects for
achieving that in the near future
—
is there any chance for
that? |
|
Boehlert |
There’s always a chance
for it — hope springs eternal. But the ink wasn’t
dry on the bill before the next budget was in the
preparation stage, and we found out that there was
projected to be a modest increase for NSF — not
anywhere near what would be required to get in on the path
for doubling. And this year, it’s essentially flat. |
|
TE |
At a
7 February press briefing on the FY 2006 budget, Dr.
John Marburger, the White House science adviser, said:
“This budget maintains the value of the investments we
have made over the last five years. The president really
believes that science is important, and I’m frustrated
when I read stories that just assume that isn’t the
case.” |
|
Boehlert |
I think he’s putting the
best face on the budget. He’s a man for whom I have
great respect. And, of course, the president — I
really believe he thinks science is important. But the
proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Maybe that
should be communicated more effectively to [Office of
Management and Budget Director] Josh Bolten, because the
budget submission that we’ve got, I think, is inadequate
in terms of the treatment of science. But there are
always mitigating circumstances, and I can appreciate
the difficulty of putting a $2.7 trillion package
together when we’ve got exorbitant expenditures far
beyond our borders for the war on terrorism. We can’t
afford not to be engaged in the war on terrorism. |
|
TE |
So it’s a matter of competing priorities?
|
|
Boehlert |
Yes. There are some
people in the president’s so-called base — you
hear this mentioned all the time — who think he’s
taken leave of his senses because he hasn’t submitted a
budget that’s in balance. It’s almost built in, nearly a
$500 billion deficit. He knows how to balance a budget.
It’s a mathematical exercise. But where are you going to
cut $500 billion to get it in balance? What is going to
be the cost of that? So his whole thesis is that if you
spend wisely and you cut taxes at the same time, in
essence you will encourage growth in the
economy. And that growth will more than offset the
potential losses, so you can get back on the path to
balancing the budget. That’s his basic theory. |
|
TE |
Given
the current situation, and the various demands on the
administration, what are the chances that Congress will
be able to boost appropriations this year for
non-defense-related science and technology programs,
above the levels proposed in the FY 2006 budget? |
|
Boehlert |
It’s going to be a
battle. It’s going to be a
battle. |
|
TE |
But
you’re going to try? |
|
Boehlert |
Yes. There are some
people who think that if you give a big boost to NASA —
and I’m a strong supporter of NASA, and I believe in the
president’s vision, although he has not, to his credit,
asked for a blank check or put a timetable on it —
you’ve contributed to the advancement of science. Well,
you’ve contributed a small part to the advancement of
certain science. But you’ve neglected to factor in the
impact on all other science — and that’s what I
have to be concerned about, as chairman of the Science
Committee, not just one agency and how that budget is
treated. |
|
TE |
On the subject of
NASA, what are your overall views about the
International Space Station, and the possible impact of
the Iran Nonproliferation Act (INA)? [The legislation includes
a provision which links continued U.S.-Russian
cooperation in supporting operations of the space
station to a cutoff of Moscow’s assistance for nuclear
programs in Iran, which U.S. intelligence experts say
appears to be intent on developing nuclear weapons.] |
|
Boehlert |
As my British friends
would say, that’s a sticky wicket, because if we don’t
do something by April 2006, we’ve got some real problems. |
|
TE |
That
would put a halt to the space station? |
|
Boehlert |
Well, that would place
it in serious jeopardy. I wish I had been a fly on the
wall when the president was meeting with the fellow he
calls his friend Vladimir [Russian President Vladimir
Putin] — what was discussed then. But INA is
something we have to deal with in real, meaningful
terms, when Iran seems to be on a course for the
pell-mell advancement of its nuclear program. That has
to concern us. It’s one chapter in the book on the
overall war on terrorism. |
|
TE |
What
do you think should be done about the Hubble Space
Telescope? Do you believe there should be either a
shuttle or robotic mission to try to repair and extend
the life of Hubble, or do you think it’s time to call it
quits? |
|
Boehlert |
I am a fan of Hubble. I
am convinced by all the expert testimony that this is
something that has provided very valuable science, and
it continues to do so. But at our hearing [on 16 February], the NASA people said — they’ve done a risk
assessment, they’ve evaluated it carefully, they
understand our support for Hubble, they know how
important it is to our astronomy program — they
concluded, based upon all their examinations, that it
just couldn’t go forward because the risk was too great,
and the cost would be excessive. And then we heard, at
our hearing, from the astronomy community that was
interested in continuing Hubble — to do the work
on the gyros, replace the batteries and all that. They
said they had in mind maybe $400 million. But now the
figures that are being bandied about are far in excess
of that — at least three times, if not four times
as much. And then they said they would take a second
look at it, because of the impact it might have on other
astronomy programs, including the development of the
James Webb Telescope.
So I’m still sort of up in
the air on that. A robotic mission apparently cannot be
accomplished in a timely manner. Forget about the costs
for a moment, though you can never forget about the
costs. That’s what we’re told by people more expert than
me. … And then the cost of a shuttle mission …they’re
saying now [would be] upwards of $2 billion. Well, that
makes everybody pause. In other words, I want to extend
the life of Hubble, but not at all costs. We’re still in
the process of evaluating all the information coming in,
and some of the information we’ve asked for has not been
forthcoming from NASA. |
|
TE |
Over
the past year or so, the Union of Concerned Scientists
has released a couple of reports criticizing the Bush
administration for what they describe as political
interference with science — for example, doing
ideological litmus tests on people who are being
considered for federal scientific advisory panels. They
also say officials have been suppressing scientific
reports that run contrary to the administration’s
political agenda. What are your views about this? Is
this just politics as usual, or is there something to
such criticism? |
|
Boehlert |
I think some of it is
politics as usual, particularly when that thing surfaces
during the middle of a presidential [election] year. And
it should not escape anybody’s notice that some of those
people, while they have distinguished careers in
science, have not been bashful about their political
disposition. Some of the information in the reports was
anecdotal — no proof provided. Other is
conjecture. I’ve
spoken to my friends in the Union of Concerned
Scientists. I have great respect overall for the
organization. I’ve worked with them, and will continue
to do so. I agree with them that good science should
drive decision-making in the administration. I’m sure
there are some people within the administration
someplace who say, ‘To hell with this scientific report,
let’s come forward with our own version of it.’ But I
don’t think that’s the prevailing sentiment within the
administration. I have great respect for the president’s
science adviser [Dr. Marburger], and was encouraged
right from the beginning, when he took that job, that
Mitch Daniels, the then-director of the Office of
Management and Budget, used to include
him in the budget deliberations when science was being
discussed, no matter what the agency. That indicated to
me that they were paying some attention. |
|
TE |
There’s a lot of concern in the U.S. engineering
community about overseas outsourcing of work to India
and other countries with lower labor costs for technical
professionals. What are your views about this situation,
and do you expect the Science Committee will undertake
anything in the way of hearings to look into the impact
of such overseas outsourcing? |
|
Boehlert |
I’m not sure that we’ve
got any hearings coming up. But what are we going to do
about it? We can’t just complain about a problem that
concerns me, the outsourcing. But you know what —
we’ve got to produce more engineers, we’ve got to have a
better educational system, we’ve got to solve the visa
problem. All of these things relate, in part, to the
overall problem. We’ve got to do a better job here. We
want more work done here. Well, we’ve got to create more
engineers who are better trained and can fill the job.
We are the world’s largest
exporter of goods and services. If we just retrench into
Fortress America and don’t allow anything to be done
beyond our borders, that’s counterproductive to our
long-range interests. But that does not mean that I
favor outsourcing — anything but. United
Technologies is closing down an operation in Syracuse,
N.Y., where they make Carrier air conditioners, and
they’re going over to Asia with it. But they report that
their biggest market for the future is in Asia, not in
beautiful upstate New York. |
Barton Reppert is a freelance
science and technology writer specializing in S&T policy
coverage. He previously worked for 18 years as a reporter and
editor with The Associated Press in Washington, New York and
Moscow. He can be contacted at
barton.reppert@verizon.net.
|
E-mail
this page