A Closer Look: FY 2001 NSF, NASA, and NIST Appropriations Bills
The Clinton Administration has recently released two Statements of Administration Policy on H.R. 4635, the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill, and H.R. 4690, the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Bill. H.R. 4635 funds NSF and NASA, and is now pending before Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO) and his subcommittee. H.R. 4690, which funds the National Institute of Standards and Technology, is now before Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) and his subcommittee. Selections follow from these Statements, which outline the administration’s projections of the impacts of these FY 2001 budget bills:
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (H.R. 4635):
“The Administration strongly opposes the Committee’s funding recommendations for the National Science Foundation (NSF). The Committee’s bill would jeopardize our investment in the future by cutting NSF investments in science, engineering, and education by $508 million, 11 percent below the requested level. This reduction would seriously undermine priority investments in cutting-edge research and eliminate funding for almost 18,000 researchers and science and mathematics educators -- slowing innovation and reducing the number of well-trained students needed by the Nation’s high tech industries. This reduction woul also skew the balance among the different sciences within our R&D portfolio, eliminating physical science, mathematics, and engineering research that are needed, for example, to make our biomedical research investments much more productive.
“Research Priorities. The Committee reduction would seriously undermine priority investments in Information Technology, Nanotechnology, and Biocomplexity. External advisory committees have emphasized the vital importance of sustained and adequate Federal investments for long-term, fundamental research in these key areas. By failing to provide the Administration’s request in these priority areas, the House would severely undercut support for the basic research that serves as the foundation for breakthroughs in health care, environmental protection, energy, food production, communications, and a host of technology dependent industries.
“Research Facilities. The Committee’s deletion of funding for Earthscope and the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) would delay the development of large-scale research equipment to enable us to understand better and predict earthquakes and threats to sensitive ecological regions. The Committee’s refusal to fund a second terascale computer would significantly hamper the burgeoning demand from researchers across the country for high speed computer applications. The Administration is concerned by the Committee’s decision to provide unrequested funding for the lower-priority High-Performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental Research aircraft instead of funding the second terascale computer, NEON, and Earthscope, all of which went through significant review prior to approval and endorsement by the National Science Board.
“Education. The Administration is troubled by the Committee bill’s inadequate funding for undergraduate education, which is $30 million, or 21 percent, below the Administration’s request, and five percent below the FY 2000 enacted level. The Committee bill would provide no funds for the Scholarships for Service initiative, which is intended to educate the next generation of Federal information technology managers by awarding scholarships for the study of information assurance and computer security in exchange for federal service.
“Opportunity Fund. The Committee bill would eliminate the Opportunity Fund, hindering NSF’s ability to react to a rapidly changing research environment. The Fund allows NSF to fund innovative research that could lead to significant discoveries in new and emerging fields of science and engineering.”
NASA (H.R. 4635):
“The Administration appreciates the Committee’s effort to fund the International Space Station program, Space Shuttle safety upgrades, and Space and Earth Science research. Likewise, we appreciate that the Committee has included no earmarks for projects that have not been subject to competitive selection and encourage the House to maintain this standard as it develops its bill.
“However, the Administration strongly opposes the Committee bill’s elimination of the $290 million requested for NASA’s Space Launch Initiative, a program that is critical to the long-term future of NASA . . . “
“The Administration has several other concerns regarding NASA. First, the Administration opposes the elimination of the $20 million funding request for the ‘Living with a Star’ initiative. This initiative would enhance our understanding of the sun and its impact on Earth and the environment, and would also help provide early warning against solar flares and mass ejections that can damage critical infrastructure such as civil, national security, and commercial satellites. Second, the Administration objects to the $55 million reduction to NASA’s aeronautical research efforts that promise new technologies to reduce air traffic congestion. Third, the Administration requests removal of bill and report language preventing NASA from funding joint research projects with the U.S. Air Force. This limitation would greatly impair NASA and U.S. Air Force research efforts in aeronautics and space technology, forcing unnecessary duplication of efforts between both agencies.”
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY (H.R. 4690):
“The Administration strongly opposes the bill’s elimination of funding for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). ATP is a public-private partnership for developing high-risk technologies that have significant commercial potential. Terminating the program would stop 185 ongoing projects as well as new grants, and would halt research and development efforts that are beginning to produce widespread economic benefits.
“The bill insufficiently funds National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initiatives to promote the development of new information technology, nanotechnology, and infrastructure assurance, as well as enhance the use of e-commerce services by small manufacturers.”
As stated in FYI #76, Members of Congress are the most responsive to their constituents. Constituents can be the most effective in communicating with their representatives by describing specific examples of why federal funding should be maintained or increased, or the consequences of funding reductions. AIP’s Science Policy website at http://www.aip.org/gov has additional information on Communicating with Congress.
