The
Clinton Administration has recently released two Statements
of
Administration Policy on H.R. 4635, the VA, HUD, and
Independent
Agencies Appropriations Bill, and H.R. 4690, the
Commerce-Justice-State
Appropriations Bill. H.R. 4635 funds
NSF
and
NASA, and is now pending before Senator Christopher Bond (R-
MO) and
his subcommittee. H.R. 4690, which
funds the National
Institute
of Standards and Technology, is now before Senator Judd
Gregg
(R-NH) and his subcommittee. Selections
follow from these
Statements,
which outline the administration's projections of the
impacts
of these FY 2001 budget bills:
NATIONAL
SCIENCE FOUNDATION (H.R. 4635):
"The
Administration strongly opposes the Committee's funding
recommendations
for the National Science Foundation (NSF). The
Committee's
bill would jeopardize our investment in
the future
by
cutting NSF investments in science, engineering, and
education
by $508 million, 11 percent below the requested level.
This
reduction would seriously undermine priority investments in
cutting-edge
research and eliminate funding for almost 18,000
researchers
and science and mathematics educators
-- slowing
innovation
and reducing the number of well-trained students
needed
by the Nation's high tech industries. This reduction would
also
skew the balance among the different sciences within our R&D
portfolio,
eliminating physical science, mathematics, and
engineering
research that are needed, for example, to make our
biomedical
research investments much more productive.
"Research
Priorities. The Committee reduction
would seriously
undermine
priority investments in Information Technology,
Nanotechnology,
and Biocomplexity. External advisory committees
have
emphasized the vital importance of sustained and adequate
Federal
investments for long-term, fundamental research in these
key
areas. By failing to provide the Administration's request in
these
priority areas, the House would severely undercut support
for the
basic research that serves as the foundation for
breakthroughs
in health care, environmental protection, energy,
food
production, communications, and a host of technology
dependent
industries.
"Research
Facilities. The Committee's deletion of funding for
Earthscope
and the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON)
would
delay the development of large-scale research equipment to
enable
us to understand better and predict earthquakes and
threats
to sensitive ecological regions. The Committee's refusal
to fund
a second terascale computer would significantly hamper
the
burgeoning demand from researchers across the country for
high
speed computer applications. The Administration is concerned
by the
Committee's decision to provide unrequested funding for
the
lower-priority High-Performance Instrumented Airborne
Platform
for Environmental Research aircraft instead of funding
the
second terascale computer, NEON, and Earthscope, all of which
went
through significant review prior to approval and endorsement
by the
National Science Board.
"Education. The Administration is troubled by the
Committee
bill's
inadequate funding for undergraduate education, which is
$30
million, or 21 percent, below the Administration's request,
and
five percent below the FY 2000 enacted level. The Committee
bill
would provide no funds for the Scholarships for Service
initiative,
which is intended to educate the next generation of
Federal
information technology managers by awarding scholarships
for the
study of information assurance and computer security in
exchange
for federal service.
"Opportunity
Fund. The Committee bill would
eliminate the
Opportunity
Fund, hindering NSF's ability to react to a rapidly
changing
research environment. The Fund allows NSF to fund
innovative
research that could lead to significant discoveries in
new and
emerging fields of science and engineering."
NASA
(H.R. 4635):
"The
Administration appreciates the Committee's effort to fund
the
International Space Station program, Space Shuttle safety
upgrades,
and Space and Earth Science research. Likewise, we
appreciate
that the Committee has included no earmarks for
projects
that have not been subject to competitive selection and
encourage
the House to maintain this standard as
it develops its
bill.
"However,
the Administration strongly opposes the Committee
bill's
elimination of the $290 million requested for NASA's Space
Launch
Initiative, a program that is critical to the long-term
future
of NASA . . . "
"The
Administration has several other concerns regarding NASA.
First,
the Administration opposes the elimination of the $20
million
funding request for the 'Living with a Star' initiative.
This
initiative would enhance our understanding of the sun and
its
impact on Earth and the environment, and would also help
provide
early warning against solar flares and mass ejections
that
can damage critical infrastructure such as civil, national
security,
and commercial satellites. Second, the Administration
objects
to the $55 million reduction to NASA's aeronautical
research
efforts that promise new technologies to reduce air
traffic
congestion. Third, the Administration
requests removal
of bill
and report language preventing NASA from funding joint
research
projects with the U.S. Air Force. This limitation would
greatly
impair NASA and U.S. Air Force research efforts in
aeronautics
and space technology, forcing unnecessary duplication
of
efforts between both agencies."
NATIONAL
INSTITUTES OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY (H.R. 4690):
"The
Administration strongly opposes the bill's elimination of
funding
for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). ATP is a
public-private
partnership for developing high-risk technologies
that
have significant commercial potential. Terminating the
program
would stop 185 ongoing projects as well
as new grants,
and
would halt research and development efforts that are
beginning
to produce widespread economic benefits.
"The
bill insufficiently funds National Institute of Standards
and
Technology (NIST) initiatives to promote the development of
new
information technology, nanotechnology, and infrastructure
assurance,
as well as enhance the use of
e-commerce services by
small
manufacturers."
As
stated in FYI #76, Members of Congress are the most responsive
to
their constituents. Constituents can be
the most effective in
communicating
with their representatives by describing specific
examples
of why federal funding should be maintained or
increased,
or the consequences of funding reductions.
AIP's
Science
Policy website at http://www.aip.org/gov has additional
information
on Communicating with Congress.
###############
Richard
M. Jones
Public
Information Division
American
Institute of Physics
fyi@aip.org
(301)
209-3095
##END##########