AIP FYI #31: Science Committee Gives Bush S&T Request Mixed Reactions

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.

Richard M. Jones

Media and Government Relations Division

The American Institute of Physics

fyi@aip.org

(301) 209-3094