Dana Rohrabacher: “simply put, this bill is good for science and good for the taxpayer. Titles III, IV, and V concern agencies under the…”

“simply put, this bill is good for science and good for the taxpayer. Titles III, IV, and V concern agencies under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment which I chair. The authorization does not mindlessly cut programs across the board, which President Clinton insisted on doing in the continuing resolution. Rather, it follows the priorities laid out in the budget resolution passed by the House in May and puts us on the path to a balanced budget. It preserves funding for fundamental scientific research, while obtaining most of it and most of its budget savings from three major areas, that is, the bureaucracy, market development, and promotion programs, and corporate welfare. If my colleagues have been reading their mail, they have been reading some misleading statements in the last few days. There have been claims of extremist cuts in research that could lead to all kinds of disastrous consequences. But, of course, there are no specifics included, no details of actual cuts. That is because there are so few specifics to back up these charges. Instead of name-calling, as Al Smith used to say, let us look at the record. Fact: In the Department of Energy title, basic energy sciences, we see that it has been increased by $100 million over the fiscal year 1995 levels.”