Appropriators criticize funding plan for science agency
Two powerful senators on Thursday urged President Bush to increase funding for the National Science Foundation, saying his fiscal 2006 funding proposal would make it difficult for the agency to fulfill its mission.
Missouri Republican Christopher (Kit) Bond, chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over NSF, and ranking Democrat Barbara Mikulski of Maryland expressed their concerns at a hearing on funding for federal science programs.
The president has recommended $5.6 billion for NSF in fiscal 2006, an increase of $132 million, or 2.4 percent, from fiscal 2005 but a decrease from fiscal 2004. Bond said the increase for fiscal 2006 would be insufficient, particularly given efforts to double NSF funding over five years.
He noted that Bush in 2002 signed a law aimed at doubling the budget. The act authorizes $8.5 billion for NSF in fiscal 2006. Yet on the present funding trajectory, NSF's budget would not double until 2040, Mikulski said.
John Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, defended the president's budget, saying it "maintains and selectively strengthens" funding for research efforts. "This budget is tight, but it does maintain that strength," he said, adding, "this is a time when we have to make priorities and hard decisions and this budget reflects that."
Overall, the president's fiscal 2006 budget requests $132.3 billion for federal research, an increase over 2005, Marburger said.
But Bond and Mikulski insisted that NSF is under funded. "Inadequate funding for NSF also hurts our economy and the creation of good jobs," Bond said. Noting the recent outcry over the outsourcing of jobs to other countries, he said, "The best remedy to this issue is not protectionism but investing in the education and skills of our future workforce."
Mikulski, meanwhile, said given that the proposed spending for NSF would barely keep pace with inflation, the agency's funding is "really in decline." If she and Bond had their way, NSF would receive $7.5 billion to $8 billion for fiscal 2006, she said.
"I think science should be nonpartisan. Science belongs to America, not a particular party," Mikulski said.
She noted that China and India are increasing their government investments in science while U.S. investments are remaining static or declining. But Marburger said the United States has "an extraordinary lead" over other countries.
Bond said it is "critical" that the National Science Board develop a long-term vision for NSF that includes identifying new areas for cutting-edge research and ensuring that it maximizes its research dollars. In particular, he said, the board should examine how the nation can improve math and science education because "every major assessment" in this area has revealed that the nation's students are falling behind the rest of the world.
The senator voiced his support for nanotechnology and noted that NSF would receive $344 million for nanotech research under Bush's budget.
NEXT STORY: GSA reissues controversial counseling contract