AIP FYI #115: House Appropriators Recommend 12.8% Increase for NSF

House and Senate Appropriators have completed work on separate
versions of the legislation funding the National Science
Foundation for FY 2003. While final resolution of next year’s
budget was put off until at least the later part of November, the
numbers are very good news. The House bill would boost the
foundation’s budget by 12.8%, while the Senate bill calls for an
11.8% increase. Of particular note in the House bill are
specified 15% increases for the Physics subactivity, the
Engineering Activity and the Geosciences Activity. The committee
also rejected proposed program transfers to NSF, and included
extensive language about the Astronomical Sciences program.

The NSF-related language in the House committee report (107-740)
is extensive, and may be viewed in full at http://thomas.loc.gov/
What follows are the numbers for both the House and Senate
versions of the VA/HUD/Independent Agencies Appropriations bill,
and selected passages from the House report. See FYI #89
(http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2002/089.html) for information on
the Senate bill.

TOTAL NSF BUDGET: The House bill provides an increase of $614.4
million, or 12.8%, to $5,422.94 million. The Senate bill
provides an increase of 11.8%.

RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES: The House bill provides an
increase of $551.7 million, or 15.3%, to $4,150.0 million. The
Senate bill provides an increase of 14.8%.

EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES: The House bill provides an
increase of $35.6 million, or 4.1%, to $910.6 million. The
Senate bill provides an increase of 8.3%.

MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES: The House bill provides
an increase of $20.7 million, or 14.9%, to $159.5 million. The
Senate bill recommends a reduction of 42.9%.

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT LANGUAGE:

OVER-ALL NSF:

“The Committee is strongly supportive of the National Science
Foundation and committed to its mission of providing national
leadership and federal financial support of research as the basis
for scientific and social advancement for the nation and for the
entire world. This commitment is reflected in the substantial
13 percent increase provided in this bill for the NSF for FY
2003.

“As Congress, the executive branch and the American people begin
to consider a multi-year build-up of financial support for the
NSF, however, the Committee also believes that a review of the
agency’s organizational, programmatic and personnel structures
is appropriate and can provide assurance to the public that the
agency is positioned to maximize the opportunities which
increased funding can create. The Committee has allocated
$1,000,000 . . . for a contract with the National Academy of
Public Administration (NAPA) to conduct such a study. The
Committee expects this contract to be awarded no later than
December 31, 2002.

“Without prejudicing the outcome of this NAPA review, the
Committee is concerned about the following issues:

“Organizational and program structure. Over the last decade the
NSF has evolved into a very complex and multi-layered system of
directorates, sub-directorates and programs each with its own
leadership and budget. . . .”

“The balance between field driven and NSF driven science priority
setting. Second, but clearly related, the Committee believes
that this review should consider whether the NSF’s approach to
its stewardship mission creates the proper balance between
necessary and appropriate levels of agency leadership of NSF
sponsored science and the need to ensure that this research
remains principally investigator initiated work. A corollary
question is whether the structure of NSF and management control
of its priority setting methodologies have negatively influenced
the balance between NSF initiatives and appropriate resource
allocations for core science investments.”

“The underlying principal around which NSF was founded and which
the Committee believes is still the pedestal upon which the
success of America’s taxpayer supported research rests is that
both the choice of research priorities and the choice of
individual projects should flow principally from practicing
scientists in the field as expressed through organized systems of
advice and through external peer review. The Committee believes
that it is appropriate to review whether the balance of power in
setting research priorities is the appropriate one or whether NSF
has become too directive in managing its research portfolios.

“Role of the National Science Board . . . . Recent Congressional
action has highlighted, however, the concerns about the
relationship between the Board and the agency and its Director
and in particular the issue as to how independent the Board is
able to operate given its dependence on the Agency for financial
support and personnel . . . .”

RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES:

“Except as specifically noted herein, in allocating the increases
provided by the Committee, the Foundation should give the highest
priority to increasing research opportunities for investigator
initiated research in the core scientific disciplines . . . . ”

“From within the Engineering Directorate, the Committee is
concerned that researchers are reaching the physical limits of
current complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) process
technology and that this will have significant implications for
continued productivity growth in the information economy . . . .
”

“Under the Geosciences Directorate, the Committee has not
recommended approval of the budget request to transfer to the NSF
the [EPA] Environmental Education program . . . the [NOAA]
National Sea Grant Program . . . or the [USGS] Hydrology of Toxic
Substances program . . . . Each of these programs works well
within its current framework and the Committee has not been
convinced that such transfer as proposed in the budget submission
will either enhance the individual programs or benefit the
ongoing programs of the Foundation.”

“Within the additional funds made available for the Mathematical
and Physical Sciences directorate, the Committee expects the
Foundation to allocate funds on a basis which provides a high
priority for astronomy, including individual investigator grants,
and sufficient resources to begin development of important new
projects recommended in a recent National Academy of Sciences
10-year plan for astronomical science activities. In addition,
the Committee’s recommendation for the Astronomical Sciences
activity includes $5,000,000 above the budget request for the
National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) program, $4,300,000
above the budget request for the National Optical Astronomy
Observatories (NOAO), $2,000,000 above the budget request for the
National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center (NAIC), and no less than
the budget request of $4,000,000 for the Telescope Systems
Instrumentation Program (TSIP). The Foundation is expected to
aggressively continue its program, begun in fiscal 2001, of
upgrading on a priority basis its astronomical facilities and
equipment.

“Also within Mathematical and Physical Sciences, the Committee’s
recommendation includes the budget request of $181,870,000 for
Mathematical Sciences and not less than $225,000,000, a 15%
increase over the fiscal year 2002 funding level, for Physics
programs.”

“For the Office of Polar Programs (OPP), an increase of
$18,260,000 above the budget request has been provided to enhance
the ongoing research effort as well as to provide additional
necessary resources for operations, research support and
logistics, and science and research grant support . . . . ”

MAJOR RESEARCH FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT (MREFC):

“The Committee’s recommendation includes the budget requests of
$9,720,000 for the Large Hadron Collider, $13,560,000 for the
George E. Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation, $30,000,000 for construction funding of the Atacama
Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) aperture-synthesis radio telescope,
and $6,000,000 for additional construction requirements
necessary to meet enhanced capacity needs at the new South Pole
Station.

“In addition the Committee is recommending $25,530,000 as the
final installment necessary to complete development of the
High-performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental
Research (HIAPER), and $24,700,000 for continued research and
development of the IceCube Neutrino Detector Observatory in
Antarctica. This project, building on the successful AMANDA
demonstration, is designed to more fully develop knowledge of
the origins of the universe as well as the fundamental nature of
physical matter using its unique polar telescope. This device
will allow scientists to measure, quantify and analyze neutrino
particles and their role in these basic questions of science. The
amount provided for fiscal 2003 will support continued
development, acquisition, pre-construction, testing and logistics
support necessary to facilitate IceCube’s large-scale
construction and deployment.

“Finally, the Committee has provided $40,000,000 for first year
funding for the new EarthScope project instead of $35,000,000 as
requested in the budget submission, and $10,000,000 for support
of the Terascale Computing System and the Distributed Terascale
Facility (also known as “Teragrid”), instead of $20,000,000 as
proposed in the budget request.

“With regard to EarthScope, the five-year budget projections of
this important project initially called for lesser funding
requirements in the first, fourth, and fifth years of the project
and dramatically increased funding in years two and three. In
an attempt to provide a relatively level funding profile for the
life of the project, the project’s sponsors have developed an
alternative request which provides $40,000,000 in year one,
$42,000,000 in year two, $40,000,000 in year three, $39,000,000
in year four, and $37,000,000 in year five. In addition to the
obvious benefits such level funding will bring to the annual
appropriations process, the sponsors have suggested this new
approach brings the added benefits of achieving significant cost
savings over the long-term operation and maintenance of the
facility, and providing higher quality data through the
acquisition of instrumentation with uniform technical
characteristics.

“With regard to support of the two new terascale facilities . . .
$10,000,000 in fiscal 2003 and $10,000,000 in fiscal year 2004.”

“The Committee’s recommendation does not include funding for the
new National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) project as
requested in the budget submission. This decision, made without
prejudice to the NEON project, allows the Committee to use its
limited MREFC resources to fully fund ongoing projects as well
as begin funding for one new research effort, the EarthScope
project.”

EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES:

“The Committee’s recommendation includes the following program
levels: Math and Science Partnership, $160,000,000; Educational
System Reform, $40,250,000; EPSCoR, $86,000,000; Elementary,
Secondary and Informal Education, $177,440,000; Undergraduate
Education, $155,600,000; Graduate Education, $128,380,000; Human
Resource Development, $95,710,000; and Research, Evaluation and
Communication, $67,200,000. . . . ”

Richard M. Jones

Media and Government Relations Division

The American Institute of Physics

fyi@aip.org

(301) 209-3095

Please visit the AIP Science Policy site at
http://www.aip.org/gov for previous issues of FYI, other science
policy information, and subscriber options.