This Echo is READ ONLY !   NO Un-Authorized Messages Please!
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 31: March 3, 2003

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{at}aip.org
(301) 209-3094
##END##########

 - End of File -
================

---