Geotimes Home | AGI Home | Information Services | Geoscience Education | Public Policy | Programs | Publications | Careers
Almost a year
ago, President Bush released his first budget to Congress. The new administration
had a number of campaign promises to fulfill, particularly ones involving beefed-up
spending for education, health research and national security. Thus, it was
not surprising to find large, fiscal year 2002 budget increases for these three
areas. Because the president was also determined to rein in the rate of growth
in federal spending, he offset these increases with cuts in other discretionary
accounts. For geoscience agencies and programs, the budget requested a decrease
or flat funding that failed to keep pace with inflation.
At the time, officials in the affected agencies said that the next year’s budget
would better reflect the administration’s support for science. Whether that
was to have been the case is not particularly relevant in the wake of September
11. The fiscal year 2003 budget that President Bush rolled out last month is
a war budget formulated during a recession that has turned budget surpluses
back into deficits.
The budget’s focused increases for national security and homeland defense are
certainly as they should be. Science is presented as part of those efforts,
but only science narrowly defined. Much of the 17.3 percent boost for the National
Institutes of Health (to a whopping $27.3 billion total) is directed toward
addressing the bioterrorism threat. Defense research and development spending
is up as well.
An emphasis on defense and homeland security should be good news for the geosciences
given how much geoscientists are contributing to the cause; but the budget does
not reflect much recognition of those contributions. Conspicuously lacking from
the request for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is any funding for the Survey’s
activities in support of homeland security and the war overseas. Despite the
contributions that all four disciplines within the USGS are making, neither
the emergency supplemental requests nor the fiscal year 2003 request provide
any direct funding. Instead, for the second year in a row, the USGS faces substantial
cuts in the president’s request, this time down to $867 million, just over a
5 percent reduction.
Hardest hit are the USGS water programs, even though the Survey’s monitoring
capabilities could supply a key early-warning system for bioterrorist attacks.
In the request, funding for the National Water Quality Assessment program would
drop 9.2 percent, forcing the termination of activities in six of 42 watershed
study units. The Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, or Toxics, which
supports long-term research on water resource contamination in both surface
water and groundwater environments, would be eliminated and a portion of its
funding transferred to the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Energy security is an important component of overall national security, but
the president’s request would drastically reduce support for natural gas and
petroleum research funded by the Department of Energy: a 50 percent cut for
natural gas research down to $23 million; and a 37 percent cut from petroleum
research, down to $35 million.
The budget request also seeks to reward those agencies that have demonstrated
good management practices. Back in December, the White House Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) lavished praise on NSF for efficiently distributing federal
dollars to outside institutions rather than paying for government researchers
and facilities. That praise translated into a requested 5 percent increase,
bringing NSF’s budget to a total $5.1 billion.
But part of that increase would come from transferring three programs from other
agencies — the USGS Toxics program, NOAA’s Sea Grant program and an Environmental
Protection Agency environmental education program. All three of the transfers
would go to the NSF Geosciences Directorate, giving the appearance of a healthy
13.4 percent increase to $691.1 million for the directorate and a 21.2 percent
increase to $153.1 million for its Earth Science Division.
The transfers, however, are not likely to transpire. Congressional appropriators
already are expressing skepticism over the quality of the fit between these
programs and NSF’s mission. If Congress does not approve the transfers, the
Geosciences Directorate faces a flat budget or even, in the case of the Ocean
Sciences Division, a cut.
A bright spot in the NSF request is the funding of EarthScope as part of the
foundation’s separate Major Research Equipment account. This account has historically
funded large, multi-user facilities such as telescopes and atom smashers. In
contrast, EarthScope is a set of four distributed projects that would deploy
arrays of seismometers and GPS receivers; would instrument the San Andreas Fault
(in conjunction with USGS); and, with NASA, would launch an interferometric
side-aperture radar satellite. The collaborative Earthscope project would use
the latest technology to provide a comprehensive understanding of the geologic
processes operating within the North American continent.
Although Earthscope was in the president’s request two years ago, an intensive
lobbying campaign by atmospheric scientists led congressional appropriators
to fund the High-Performance Instrumental Airborne Platform for Environmental
Research (HIAPER) instead. HIAPER awaits a final year of funding in fiscal year
2003, but is again not in the request. With Congress all but certain to fund
completion of this General Dynamics aircraft, getting the initial funding for
EarthScope will be a challenge.
The geoscience community will need to make a concerted effort to communicate
to both the administration and Congress how relevant and valuable our science
is to the nation’s current priorities and needs.
|
Geotimes Home | AGI Home | Information Services | Geoscience Education | Public Policy | Programs | Publications | Careers |