Leocadia blog

Q&A: House's Rocket Scientist 'Apprehensive' on Budget

As a rocket scientist, Democratic Rep. Rush Holt has nowserved the 12th Congressional District of New Jersey for more than a decade. Hehas helped monitor the nuclear programs of such countries as Iraq, Iran, NorthKorea and the former Soviet Union, and has served as assistant director for thePrinceton Plasma Physics Laboratory.

Holt recently won his seventh consecutive term during theNov. 4, 2010, midterm elections. The Democratic Party retained control of theSenate, but lost control of the House to a new Republican majority.

The Republican Party's Pledgeto America proposes to roll back non-military discretionary spending to2008 levels, which would mean cuts for federal agencies that fund or performscience research and development. The Obama administration had warned agenciesto build 5 percent cuts into their proposed 2012 budgets relative to 2011, butthe GOP plan would cut deeper.

LiveScience took the opportunity to ask Holt about how themidterm congressional elections could reshape science and technology policiesor budgets in the future. [Infographic:Science R&D Spending in the Federal Budget]

Q: How do youthink the recent midterm election results will impact policies and funding forscience and technology?

A: The basicpoint is that I'm apprehensive about what's going to happen. We haven'tcompleted the Competes Act - the reauthorization of the America Competes Act.The House has passed it, and the Senate committee has reported favorably on itbut with no action. This provides the framework for all the research funding ofthe NSF [National Science Foundation], NIST [National Institutes of Standardand Technology], the National Institutes of Health [NIH], the Department ofEnergy and so forth. This was an important advance. The previous Competes Actand this reauthorization are really important. We really need to get that done.

We also need to get appropriations done. As it is, we'reoperating on a continuing resolution, and I'm not at all optimistic that we'llget the appropriations done for science, energy, commerce ... On both the authorizationand appropriation, I'm afraid that we're not going to move forward, and thatworries me.

I don't need to tell you all the "Gathering Storm"[report] statistics, but it is important to move forward. In the follow-up [2010report], it shows not so much that the U.S. has slipped, but that we haven'tmoved forward and everyone else has. That's true in scienceeducation, innovation and research. We're losing ground relative to others.(Congress commissioned a 2005 report, titled "Rising Above the GatheringStorm," which called for the U.S. to boost scientific research andeducation.) That's why we need America Competes, and why we need to make permanentthe R&D tax credit, and why we need to do other things to stimulate privatesector innovation. I have legislation that would provide individual tax creditsfor research-intensive small businesses.

We want to do things to encourage innovation in the privatesector, and certainly there are things we've got to do in science education.Some of that is government funding, much of it is not.

Q: What kind ofscience funding cuts are we talking about?

A: With regard tothe public sector, if you look at the Republican Pledge to America, if theycarry it out as it's laid there - if the new majority acts on that - we'll bereducing NSF by almost 19 percent, the Department of Energy's [Office of] Scienceby almost 18 percent, NIH by about 9 percent, NOAA [National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration] by 34 percent...

The crazy thing about this is that they say they're doing itfor fiscal discipline, and the fact is that all of this is really not going tobalance the budget. We're talking about something that's about a percent of thebudget and it makes a huge difference in this research, but it's miniscule inits budgetary effects. So it's really short-sighted. We've made some realinvestments in the past years. I helped get $22 billion of new moneyfor science research into the [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act]. They were put inthere for short-term job benefits, but also because they set the stage forlonger-term growth. But now if they kind of yank the reins back after a coupleof years of trying to move forward in the public sector for research, it willhave a very bad effect.

I think it will be pretty easy for [Republicans] to cut ifthey want to, and they claim that they want to. I think it will be verydevastating. Federal research is only a few percent of the nation'sdiscretionary budget - only a percent or so of the overall budget. It won'thelp balance the budget, and it will harm the economy in the short and longterm.

Q: Are there anyparticular areas of research that could suffer more than others? How aboutenergy?

A: Certainly onenergy ... the thing about the NSF is that it's across the board. Who would havethought that library science research would lead to Google? Who thought nuclearmagnetic resonance would lead to MRIs [brain scans]? Who would think atomiclight absorption would lead to lasers? The NSF has really contributed greatlyto our economy. The Department of Energy's Offices of Science and Energy arereally important, and to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in each one ofthose could hurt us in our efforts to be competitive in the marketplace forhaving efficient technologies. Whether it's building materials or transportation,drive trains or batteries, if we're not making these investments, we're losingout on the marketplace to countries that are making those investments.

There's easily going to be a trillion-dollar market - andthat's not an exaggeration - out in the world for these technologies. Cuttingback on funding would certainly be short- sighted.

Q: On the topicof energy, do you know what the Republicans have planned for ARPA-E? (A Departmentof Energy agency that focuses on funding high-risk,high-reward research aimed at energy innovation.)

A: I fear theywill regard ARPA-E as a creation of the Democrats and therefore something thatshould be cut as a matter of principle. Clearly a major justification for ARPA-E- not the sole justification but a major one - is dealing with stresses to ourclimate. There are so many in the new majority who question whether there'sanything at all wrong with what'shappening to our climate.

Q: Is there stillsome common ground where Democrats and Republicans can work together on theclimate change issue? How about reframing it in terms of energy security?

A: It's possible.I hope we can find some common ground. In the past I've worked with Republicanslike Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.) and Judy Biggert (R-Ill). Vernon has retired, andJudy is still around.

During the campaign I heard various people - including my opponent- say that environmental regulations are not founded in science but ideology. Idisagree. I think this has been generally a more science-based environmental programthan we've seen previously. They've been saying the attention to climate isideology and not science - I beg to differ. I say that this comes from the workof thousands and thousands of scientists. It is opposition to any effort toaddress climate change that is based more on ideology than in science. Butthere is that difference, and I wouldn't be surprised if they act in a way -apart from the budget - that will reverse what has been happening.

Q: How much canthe Republicans do to roll back the Obama administration's policies?

A: In terms ofreversing administration policies about environmental protection, they will besomewhat limited. But in terms of cutting funding for the EPA [EnvironmentalProtection Agency], they'll be in a position to do that. To keep moving forwardwith these programs will require both the House and the Senate. And I fear thatthe House will say no.

BudgetCuts Would Take Decades to Affect Science, If at AllRepublicanFiscal Plan Could Slash Science BudgetsTop10 Emerging Environmental TechnologiesOriginal Story: chronicles the daily advances and innovations made in science and technology. We take on the misconceptions that often pop up around scientific discoveries and deliver short, provocative explanations with a certain wit and style. Check out our science ,and .to debate hot-button issues like stem cells, climate change and evolution. You can also sign up for free , register forand get cool gadgets at the .