AIP FYI #61: Senate Appropriators Criticize NSF Budget Request

The top Democrat and Republican on the Senate VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee criticized
the Bush Administration’s FY 2003 request for the National
Science Foundation at a hearing last Wednesday. Both
Subcommittee Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Ranking
Minority Member Christopher Bond (R-MO) affirmed their
commitment to doubling the foundation’s budget, and declared
their intention to increase the agency’s FY 2003 budget.

“I find this really disturbing,” said Mikulski about the
request, explaining that after allowing for program transfers
the actual increase is only 3% over the current year. “I
will reiterate that Senator Bond and I want to double this
budget,” she stated. Mikulski was not enthusiastic about the
Administration’s plan to transfer NOAA, EPA, and USGS programs
to NSF, saying, “I don’t believe the merger of these programs
is justified.”

Bond seemed even more critical, telling NSF Director Rita
Colwell, National Science Board Chair Warren Washington, and
OSTP Director Jack Marburger that “I’m disappointed that the
Administration has not demonstrated the same level of support
for NSF as we have.” Bond and Mikulski are worried about the
budget for research in the core disciplines, both of them
mentioning physics several times. They are also concerned
about deficiencies in the future S&T workforce.

The foundation’s management of large research facilities was
discussed several times during the hearing. Bond, citing a
new report by the NSF Inspector General, told the witnesses
that his enthusiasm for the foundation is tested when hearing
about what Bond called cost overruns. He warned that other
agencies in similar circumstances have been penalized by
having their budgets reduced. During his remarks, Bond cited
the foundation’s participation in the construction of LHC
detectors.

Bond was clearly concerned about previous actions related to
the proposed underground laboratory at the Homestake gold mine
in South Dakota. “I fear the peer process is in danger,” he
remarked. “It could be a great big black hole in the ground,”
he said, urging NSF to carefully review the proposal,
emphasizing that he would as well.

Senator Tim Johnson (D) of South Dakota also sits on the
subcommittee. Johnson began by telling his colleagues that
South Dakota ranks 52nd in the United States in the allocation
of federal S&T dollars, behind Puerto Rico and the District of
Columbia. He assured his colleagues that the South Dakota
congressional delegation did not plan to intervene in the
review process. Referring to funding and indemnification
legislation passed late last year, Johnson argued that
intervention was appropriate to prevent the mine from flooding
to “allow us to preserve it as an option.”

Mikulski then returned to the Administration’s plan to
transfer programs to NSF from USGS, NOAA, and EPA. “What’s
broken that we are trying to fix?” she asked the witnesses
about the Sea Grant Program. “The appropriators strongly
object to the transfers of these programs,” she declared.
After noting the foundation’s lower management costs, Colwell
told Mikulski, “I would have to say, this is not my highest
priority.”

0A

Mikulski next turned her attention to the budget for core
research programs, asking Colwell why some of the requests
were down. Colwell explained that the initiatives contained
funding for core research, and using physics as an example,
said that if such initiative funding was included the FY 2003
physics budget “is more like level funding.” (The Physics
Subactivity budget request is down 1.3%.) “I’m ready to fund
the core,” Mikulski said.

Bond picked up on this same theme, citing a National Academy
report that found, for example, physics funding had declined
24.6% in real dollars between 1993 and 1999 (see FYI #115).
Marburger, while declaring that the “balance issue” is
important, said that he did not believe in an arbitrary
doubling or tripling of budgets. Bond replied that he and
Mikulski are for just such a doubling. “In subsequent years
you will see us address the balance issue,” Marburger
responded. Marburger told Mikulski that NIH is quite
supportive of the physical sciences; Bond retorted that most
of this money is for applied, not basic, research. Bond
pressed, asking Marburger if there was not an imbalance in
funding between the life and physical sciences. Marburger
replied that the funding allocation was intentional. To which
Bond, somewhat exacerbated, threw up his hands and said, “I
give up, Madame Chair.”

The discussion moved to other topics, including the attraction
of undergraduates to the sciences, agency management reform,
the location of the proposed underground laboratory in New
Mexico, the potential of nanotechnology, funding for the
physical sciences, and priority setting for major facilities.
Marburger repeated his opposition to the doubling of S&T
budgets, saying that this strategy lacked specificity and
prioritization. He called instead for an “intelligent
approach” to budget setting that identifies priorities. Bond,
who had assumed the chair’s position, said that he thought
the priority setting process set forth in H.R. 4664 was a
“good idea” that would make the facility process more
understandable to the science community.

After closing words, Bond called this hearing, lasting less
than two hours, to a close. In those two hours appropriators
on both sides of the aisle made clear that they have real
differences with the Bush Administration’s position on what
the budget should be for the National Science Foundation in
Fiscal Year 2003.

###############

Richard M. Jones

Media and Government Relations Division

The American Institute of Physics

fyi@aip.org

(301) 209-3095

http://www.aip.org/gov

##END##########