Important Hearing for the National Science Foundation
Yesterday, the Senate VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee met to review the FY 1999 National Science Foundation budget request. The seventy-five minute hearings went smoothly, with money concerns centering not on NSF, but on larger budget issues.
Subcommittee chair Christopher Bond (R-MO) proclaimed this “another difficult year,” and said that the Clinton Administration’s R&D request, based on speculative revenues (tobacco) “raises expectations.” Bond, Ranking Minority Member Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), and Conrad Burns (R-MT) are clearly big fans of NSF, Bond saying that all subcommittee members agree on the importance of R&D.
Bond did not offer any outlook on NSF’s FY 1999 budget, saying it was “premature to discuss absolute levels of funding.” He again described the situation as “very tight.”
That said, what was on the minds of Bond and Mikulski? At both the beginning and the end of the hearing, Bond asked NSF Director Neal Lane about how the top fifty research universities get, Bond said, 60% of all federal R&D money. Saying the “rich get richer,” the chairman asked Lane to explore ways “to make more schools more competitive.” On another matter, Bond asked Lane for “programmatic advice” on what the foundation’s priorities would be if NSF did not receive its full request. Every chairman asks every agency or department head this question (or at least it seems that way), and Lane replied that the “relative priorities in the budget would remain.” Lane did say that with more money, the foundation could make more, longer, and more rewarding grants.
Chairman Bond also asked Lane what are the tough questions the Director would be leaving behind when he moves to OSTP. Lane replied that while the foundation is in excellent shape, he is concerned about it being asked to do more and more, citing the proposed National Institute on the Environment, which would leave less money for its core mission. It is, Lane said, a “question of balance.”
It is also very clear that Bond is extremely interested in NSF’s biotechnology programs, especially those relating to grain species. He had many questions about the status of the foundation’s grant-making process for its plant genome initiative.
Mikulski’s thinking can be summarized by one of her opening statements, “I am concerned that while we win the Nobel Prizes, we loose the markets.” Citing her preference for “strategic research,” she applauded the foundation for the way it has organized its budget request (Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence, Life and Earth’s Environment, and Educating for the Future.) “The Administration is on the right track,” she said, adding when referring to basic research leading to medical advances, “This is what America wants.”
Burns stopped by the hearing for only a few minutes, quipping “Whatever they want, let’s give them.” This feeling was shared by all those in the hearing room, but was tempered by what promises to be a very tight budget year.
