Republicans and Democrats on the House Science Committee have mixed
reactions to the Bush Administration's FY 2004 request for science
and technology. At a hearing last month, committee members both
praised and criticized the administration's request, while
acknowledging that the FY 2004 budget request was difficult to
decipher as it was based on year-old numbers.
A joke told by committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) captured
these varying sentiments: "...there's much to cause distress
as well - like the virtual elimination of the Advanced Technology Program
(ATP) and the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP), and flat funding
for the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science. I may have said
this last year as well, but the concern expressed for the physical sciences
in the budget reminds me a little bit of the old joke about the will
that said, 'To Joe, who I said I would mention in my will, "Hello,
Joe.'" Sympathy won't fund labs." Ranking Minority Member
Ralph Hall (D-TX) had similar concerns. While telling OSTP Director
John Marburger that "R&D fares fairly well in a difficult budget
year," he lamented the budget for DOE's Office of Science. Hall
spoke of the critical relationship between advances in the physical
and life sciences.
"Mr. Chairman, this is a good budget for science," Marburger
testified. He singled out the administration's support for basic
research and the physical sciences (see FYI #28), and said,
"priorities have been established." That message of priority-
setting was also in the testimony of Commerce Deputy Secretary Samuel
Bodman, who said that the administration's decision to terminate the
Advanced Technology Program and to significantly reduce funding for
the Manufacturing Extension Program was based on the need to increase
the budget for other NIST programs. He acknowledged that this
decision would not be universally popular. NSF Director Rita
Colwell testified that "this [NSF] budget leaves no doubt that
the
President embraces NSF's vision and value." In his testimony, Under
Secretary of Energy Robert Card spoke highly of fusion's potential,
saying "it could be the dominant new energy source for the end
of
this century and beyond," and spoke of the "remarkable promise
of
nanotechnology."
Despite the obvious good will that committee members had for the
administration's witnesses, they also had some hard questions. At the
time of the hearing, the omnibus appropriations bill had not yet been
completed, leaving the committee without hard numbers for the current
year's budget by which to compare the FY 2004 request. Boehlert
asked Marburger how the NSF request should be interpreted: was it the
9% increase the administration claimed, or nearer to 3% when compared
against the almost-completed omnibus bill, or neither? "That's
an
important question to ask," Marburger said, referring to request
as
"the starting point." The S&T request, Marburger continued,
provides
important signals about changes in the administration's priorities,
and was the result of considerable thinking and discussion.
Boehlert asked about the science and technology components of the new
Department of Homeland Security. The committee is dissatisfied with
the administration's lack of response about what the lab changes
would entail. Marburger described a "virtual lab" drawing
from the
other national labs. DOE Under Secretary Card added that "we don't
see a very big impact of this
change."
Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) was clear in his assessment: "I'm
disappointed in the increase for NSF," citing the level specified
in
the recently-enacted NSF authorization law. He calculated that the
administration's request was 14% below the FY 2004 authorization.
Ehlers described the "extreme imbalance" in funding between
NIH and
other S&T agencies, and added, "it's my goal to redress that
imbalance." Ehlers was wary of the administration's decision to
terminate the ATP program, and greatly reduce MEP funding. He told
Bodman that the Senate would put this money back in the NIST
appropriations bill, and would do so by taking money "right out
of
the hide" of the research and facilities budgets.
In response to a question about the size of the NSF request, Colwell
replied the foundation's request was "a notable increase,"
as it was
more than twice the overall government-wide discretionary target
level. Colwell also spoke of proposed increases for the physical
sciences. Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) told the witnesses that she was
"extremely disappointed in the overall budget for the Office of
Science," explaining that it was the largest, and sometimes only,
supporter of research in various physical science fields. She cited
her own bill, H.R. 34 that would authorize a 60% increase in the
office's budget over 4 years, and said of the administration's
request that it "really is flat funding."
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) was also critical of the request for
basic research, which was, he said, vital to a strong economy and
national security. How, Bartlett asked Marburger, should the public
be better educated about the importance of basic research. Marburger
replied that the House Science Committee had made an important
contribution to this process, and referring to the administration's
request, said that it demonstrated a commitment to basic research.
Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI) seemed unpersuaded, expressing disappointment
with the NSF request. Smith also wanted a fuller explanation of the
foundation's prioritization rationale for major research equipment.
The hearing concluded with Ehlers telling Card that more money was
needed for the DOE Office of Science, while acknowledging that there
was not much expressed support for its programs throughout the
nation.
This first hearing marks the shift in the focus of the budget process
from the White House to the Capitol. In coming months, Members of
Congress will confront difficult decisions about whether to accept
the Bush Administration's S&T budget recommendations. These
decisions will be made against a backdrop of a possible war, concerns
about homeland security, an uncertain national economy, and a
mounting budget deficit. The decisions that Congress makes about
science and technology spending will be greatly influenced by
constituent input. Rep. Ehlers' comments about the DOE Office of
Science are accurate, and with the exception of biomedical research,
his comments apply to most federally-sponsored research.
Constituents play an important part in this process. Visit the AIP
Science Policy web site at http://www.aip.org/gov for guidance on how
to make the case for strong funding for the physical sciences. Here
you will find copies of AIP's Physics Success Stories and tips on
communicating with your Members of Congress. We invite you to
contact us if we can be of any assistance.
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl