NSF and OSTP Testify Before Senate Appropriations

National Science Foundation Director Rita Colwell completed her testimony before congressional appropriators on Tuesday with her appearance before the Senate VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. Joining Colwell at the witness table was OSTP Director Neal Lane. This was a friendly, low-key event, with the administration’s proposed Information Technology initiative a much-discussed item.

Subcommittee chairman Christopher “Kit” Bond (R-MO) gave a positive opening statement, saying that the witnesses’ jurisdictions were the “most exciting areas that we deal with.” He had good things to say about NSF’s biotechnology work in maize. On the all-important matter of money, he said it was “premature” to discuss any funding levels, but cited the big- dollar expenditures that will be required in FY 2000 for veterans, housing, and disaster programs. The budget caps are worrisome, Bond said, and he has told all of the witnesses before his subcommittee that this is going to be a tough budget year. He also said that the NSF flat outyear projections “raises some serious questions” about the administration’s commitment. Also of concern to chairman Bond are the IT initiative, disparities in federal funding between small and large institutions (EPSCoR is not enough, he said), and results measurement.

Ranking Minority Member Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) also opened with a positive statement, encouraging NSF to “focus on areas of strategic national interest in addition to basic research.” She is a big fan of the IT initiative, but wants assurances that this and the biocomplexity initiative will not draw money away from NSF’s traditional research programs. She was followed by Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) who strongly supports EPSCoR. Burns shares Bond’s concerns about the distribution of federal R&D money.

Lane thanked the subcommittee for its backing, and asked for continued bipartisan support for science. Colwell characterized the request as “outstanding” given the budget caps, but spoke again about what she perceives as the imbalance between funding for biomedical and other types of research.

Bond told the witnesses that he wanted to inject “a little reality and cold water,” and asked Colwell and Lane for their priorities. Colwell identified the IT, biocomplexity, and education initiatives as her first priorities. What if you had to cut, asked Bond. Colwell replied that she would do everything she could to keep the IT initiative.

Bond asked Lane to comment on the administration’s 2% request for NIH. Lane cautioned that this in “no way suggests that biomedical research is not a high priority,” saying that this request was in line with last year’s outyear projection for FY 2000.

The IT initiative was much discussed. Bond wanted to know how this was different from past foundation activities, asking, “is this the new flavor of the day?” Both Lane and Colwell agreed that much needs to be done to build on previous NSF work. This initiative, they said, will benefit all disciplines.

Mikulski declared that “all of Congress knows what NIH does,” with few members having any knowledge of most other programs. The government “needs a Millennium budget,” she said, adding that what seems to be factional support for R&D is “a source of great concern to me.”

Bond and Mikulski want NSF and other federal assistance in rebutting what they called sensational allegations made against biotechnology products. “We have a bigger problem in managing the fear than we do the products,” Mikulski said, and wants the White House to support an education effort for the American people. She later spoke emphatically about education for children, workforce readiness issues, and IT.

Lane made some of the final statements in this hearing. He called the request a “very aggressive research balance,” said “the surplus is off the table,” and that the president “would like to do more.” He admitted that the U.S. is “significantly underutilizing” its scientific resources, and in a statement that may serve as an explanation for much that will occur in the next few months said, “there’s only so much money; something has to give.”