Last week's hearing by the House VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee on the National Science Foundation budget
request could not have gone any better. Both Republican and Democratic
members of the subcommittee were critical of the Bush Administration's
1.3% requested increase in the foundation's budget for FY 2002, and said
that they would do better.
Subcommittee chairman James Walsh (R-NY) did not mince words in
describing the administration's request. "Wholly inadequate" was how he
described the request for Research and Related Activities, saying that
it sent exactly the wrong message to the research community. Walsh also
criticized the Major Research Equipment request. He spoke of previous
bipartisan efforts that understood and recognized the vital role that
research has had in ensuring our nation's economic prosperity. Walsh
informed NSF Director Rita Colwell that he had taken steps to secure a
higher allocation for his subcommittee so as to provide more money for
research, calling it an "absolute priority." He told Colwell that he was
"cautiously optimistic we will be successful." There was, the chairman
said, "a lot of consternation on this subcommittee" about the request
for NSF. Ranking Minority Member Alan Mollohan (D-WV) shared Walsh's
sentiments, calling the request a "missed opportunity."
As a member of the administration, Colwell's responsibility was to
defend the request. She explained that the foundation's investment in
people was up 13%, and said she was "very proud" of NSF's role in the
administration's math and science partnership initiative. One of the
most important actions the agency could take in the next budget year,
she said, was raising stipends, which would boost the number of science
and engineering students.
Walsh spoke about re-balancing the R&D budget, citing the
requested 13.5% increase for NIH. He wondered if the foundation's
biological sciences program budget should be reduced to provide more
money for engineering and physical sciences. Colwell replied that the
request "reflects a balance," and she would not favor such a
redistribution. Walsh was also concerned about the budgetary impacts of
new program initiatives on core activities. He pressed Colwell about the
Major Research Equipment request, and wanted to know why money was not
requested for an atmospheric research aircraft, as well as the
foundation's approach toward developing the Atacama Large Millimeter
Array.
Next to question Colwell was Mollohan, who reminded her that "this
committee makes independent decisions about the budget." He said it was
"hard to understand" the administration's rationale, citing former House
Speaker Newt Gingrich's statement that the NSF request was a "tragic
mistake." To this, National Science Board Chairman Eamon Kelly said that
"We are eating our seed corn," and later recommended a doubling of a
better balanced research budget. Mollohan had many questions about
nanotechnology. When he asked Kelly what the "biggest opportunities"
were for NSF should it get more money, Kelly spoke about S&T
workforce issues, science education, the size and duration of grants,
and the size of various stipends.
Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) asked the next set of questions, saying
that it was going to be difficult to find a program to take the money
from to augment the NSF request. He urged the foundation to be more
vigorous in explaining its mission, stating that the public does not see
the long-term payoff in research. "In reality, a lot of the general
public doesn't know what the heck you do," Frelinghuysen told Colwell.
She concurred.
At that point, Rep. David Obey (D-WI) came into the hearing room.
Obey is the highest ranking Democrat on the full committee, and it was
his first appearance at an NSF hearing in more than ten years. He called
the Administration's request a "sad sack" budget, and a "profound
warping" of the federal research portfolio, "which demonstrates a
fundamental misunderstanding of how science works." Obey said that it
was not necessary to reduce NIH's request, instead criticizing the
administration's tax cut plan. Telling Colwell that he realized this
request was not of her making, Obey told her that she should not spend
much time defending it, because "this request is a dead dog." To which
Walsh added, "I don't think there is a lot of disagreement here."
Rep. Bud Cramer (D-AL) asked about the flat funding of community
college programs in the budget. Joseph Knollenberg (R-MI) called Obey's
tax cut remark "off the page," and wanted to know how NSF determines the
impact of its programs. He asked about any duplication of effort with
Department of Education programs, and also about coordination of
nanotechnology programs. Carrie Meek (D-FL) criticized the NSF request
for minority programs, saying that she was "not satisfied with NSF."
Seeming to demonstrate more uncertainty about NSF was Virgil Goode
(Independent-VA), who asked how NSF was using its H-1B funds, and wanted
assurances that all foundation scholarship money is restricted (as it
is) to U.S. citizens.
Also exhibiting skepticism was Anne Northup (R-KY), a former calculus
teacher, who criticized federal involvement in education. David Price
(D-NC), in contrast, praised an NSF program which brings graduate
students into K-12 classrooms. Price was concerned about the reduction
in support for physical science core programs. Chaka Fattah's (D-PA)
questions revolved around minority programs. In his final round of
questions, Walsh asked about the K-12 math/science partnership program,
and whether cuts had to be made elsewhere to finance it. Mollohan
expressed some concern about the funding of core science programs. "We
are doing all we can to protect core areas," Colwell assured him.
Frelinghuysen's final questions centered on fusion, and NSF's
cooperative programs with the Department of Energy.
"We look forward to making some changes," Chairman Walsh said at the
conclusion of this two and one-half hour hearing. Those changes will
become apparent one month from tomorrow, when Walsh and his colleagues
meet on June 26 to mark up the FY 2002 VA, HUD, Independent Agencies
Appropriations Bill.
Richard M. Jones
Public Information Division
American Institute
of Physics
fyi@aip.org
(301)
209-3095
