TO: CHAMMP Newsletter recipients The purpose of this message is to clarify the many rumors that are circulating about the CHAMMP Program budget, prompting several questions to me about the future of the program. The House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment has explicitly eliminated funding for the CHAMMP program in its recommendation for the FY 96 budget period. This is just the first step in the budget process, and there is still a long way to go. Many other aspects of DOE's global change research program, as well as those in other agencies focused on long-term climate change were also drastically cut. I have attached the press release that explains the rationale used by the subcommittee for cutting CHAMMP and other programs. I will do my best to keep investigators informed of any additional action taken by Congress or the Department that affects the program. Dave Bader > > The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher > Statement at Press Conference > Energy and Environment Authorization > June 7, 1995 > > > > Today the Subcommittee on energy and the Environment of the House >Science Committee releases its mark of the budget for FY 1996. Our budget >figures represent the commitment made to the American people to balance the >budget within seven years. This Subcommittee's part of the balanced budget >commitment is trimming the current $7.9 billion spent of federal energy and >environmental research to $6.2 billion. > > Reducing the level of government spending is not just a negative >process. Programs have a tendency to go on and on, even when no longer >justified. A reduction of overall spending forces us to cut out the dead >wood, to prioritize and restructure. It also forces us to re-evaluate >programs that may have seemed a good idea at inception, but after years of >funding may be lacking in performance. > > Large-scale fusion energy projects are examples of this. After 40 >years and $9 billion of taxpayer funds, none of the research has reached >"break-even," the point at which the fusion reaction generates the same >amount of energy as put in. Now we are told that it will take another 40 >years and $9 billion to reach the goal of generating more energy than is >put in, which is required to provide commercial power. If programs like >this are to survive, they must scale down and cut out duplicative research >efforts. > > The responsibility of cutting spending is always more difficult and >heart rending than is the opportunity, in good times, to increase spending. >When trimming the budget there is always the possibility that one program >that should be eliminated or at least further reduced, is instead >maintained at an unjustified level of funding, while other more deserving >programs are hit hard. The answer to these criticisms is all, of us just >try to do our best. > > Today's budget figures reflect prioritization, a commitment to the >best use of limited tax dollars, and a change in some fundamental >assumptions, upon which past spending programs were based. We are meeting >our commitment to a balanced budget in seven years while preserving >fundamental scientific research. I am delighted to announce that my >friend, the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee, Jimmy Hayes, has >agreed to be an original co-sponsor of all three authorization bills we >will consider tomorrow. Whatever differences we may have on some aspects >of the budget resolution, I know that he is as dedicated as I am to making >the tough decisions required to meet the goal of a balanced budget. > > At a time of limited revenue, the private sector, especially big >corporations, should not expect their research to be subsidized by the >taxpayers. You all should have a copy of this chart from the Philadelphia >Inquirer which demonstrates just how completely corporate America is >addicted to taxpayer funds. From 1991 to 1994 government technology >subsidies for ... > >Amoco - - $23.6 Million >AT&T - - $35.6 Million >General Motors - - $110.6 Million >IBM - - $58 Million > >And the list goes on and on > > And no where is corporate welfare more prevalent than in DOE's >research budget. > > General Electric, with after-tax profits last year of $4.7 billion, >has received millions of dollars to pay licensing fees to the Nuclear >Regulatory Commission and they want millions more to meet NRC requirements >for nuclear and gas technology that has been fully developed for some >years. > > The world's largest air conditioning manufacturers, York, Trane and >Carrier, are being given tax dollars to market a better heat pump. > > Dupont, with after-tax profits of $2.7 billion last year, feels it >needs millions in taxpayer funds to help its textile division get a bigger >share of the market through the AMTEX Consortium. > > Not only are we subsidizing America's giant corporations, but >technology subsidies have been given out to firms from Germany, France, >England and Sweden. > > If you look at this pie chart, you'll see we are proposing net >savings of $1.36 billion over current funding levels. Over 55% of the >savings we suggested come from the corporate welfare pot - - That's the >green shaded piece - - about one-third from low-priority programs and >programs that are non-mission related (in red) and the blue represents the >over 11% cut from the bureaucracy. Our budget requires a streamlining of >program management to fit the new program budget levels. > > In another area of savings, trendy science that is propped up by >liberal/left politics rather than good science has cost us billions. That >might have been good politics for the ruling party at the time, but there >is a new gang in town and we mean to do right by the taxpayers, consumers >and working people of our country. We will not permit scare mongers and >chicken littles to successfully push federal policies that tax our people >into lower standards of living, raise the price of the products they buy >and regulate them out of a job. > > No where is scientific nonsense more evident than in GLOBAL WARMING >programs that are sprinkled throughout the current year budget. Our FY '96 >budget does not operate on the assumption that Global Warming is a proven >phenomenon. In fact, it is assumed at best to be unproven and at worst to >be liberal clap trap, trendy but soon to go out of style in our NEWT >Congress. > > Other trendy but unjustified spending includes: The Environmental >Technology Initiative, which gives checks to firms to commercialize their >technology if its got the word "environment" in it. > > Other examples include, the "Cool Communities" program that spends >funds to tell communities that if they plant more trees, they will get more >shade and the "Build America" and "Rebuild America" programs which markets >energy efficient products and designs to builders. By the way, the Cool >Communities program requires more than one agency to do the job. The >Pentagon, EPA and forest Service all are spending money on this program. > > Our goal in this budget is to get BACK TO THE BASICS, funding >essential productive scientific research which cannot be done elsewhere in >the private sector, research that will produce quality scientific results >in order to improve our lives today, and future generations. And >notwithstanding the liberal doomsayers who will scream and carry on at the >death of their nonsensical programs, we have achieved our goal. This >budget meets our commitment to a balanced budget while aggressively funding >fundamental basic scientific research. > > This bar chart shows that slight decreases in General Science and >Biological and Environmental Research are offset by an increase in the >Basic Energy Sciences. In a budget that is being cut by 25% from current >year funding, we hold spending for basic research virtually even. > >