Fwd: NSF Director Córdova Pressed on Consequences of Proposed Budget Cuts

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: FYI <fyi () aip-info org>
> Date: June 12, 2017 at 5:34:23 PM EDT
> To: farber () central cis upenn edu
> Subject: NSF Director Córdova Pressed on Consequences of Proposed Budget Cuts
> Reply-To: FYI <re-1ZJN-4ZQ11-E29DH7-C0BTW () aip-info org>
>
>
>
> View in browser
>
> Number 78: June 12, 2017
> NSF Director Córdova Pressed on Consequences of Proposed Budget Cuts
> Last week, the House Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee welcomed National Science Foundation 
> Director France Córdova to testify on the fiscal year 2018 budget request. Members showed strong support 
> across-the-board for the foundation while asking tough questions about the budget’s proposed 11 percent cut for the 
> agency. Committee members also asked about specific programs and facilities.
> On June 7, National Science Foundation Director France Córdova appeared before the House Commerce, Justice, and 
> Science Appropriations Subcommittee to discuss President Trump’s fiscal year 2018 budget request for the agency. She 
> faced a difficult task as she fielded questions about the proposed 11 percent cut to the agency’s budget while also 
> championing its work.
> Appropriators remain supportive of robust NSF funding
>
> In his opening remarks, the subcommittee’s ranking member, Rep. José Serrano (D-NY), observed that this is the first 
> time in NSF’s 67-year history that the president has requested less money for the agency than it received the year 
> before. He called the proposed budget “deeply troubling,” and warned that, if enacted, it would endanger NSF’s core 
> missions as well as U.S. global scientific leadership. He remarked, though, that he and Committee Chair John 
> Culberson (R-TX) were united in their support for the agency.
>    
> Culberson quickly affirmed that he and Serrano share likeminded views on NSF, saying,
>   
> "This whole subcommittee is arm-in-arm when it comes to our support for fundamental research, the spectacular work 
> done by the National Science Foundation and NASA. We are, all of us, committed to preserving American leadership in 
> fundamental research and in space exploration."
>
> However, in his own opening statement, Culberson also reported that the subcommittee had not yet been allocated its 
> share of fiscal year 2018 appropriations and acknowledged that keeping taxes in check is a competing priority. Later 
> in the hearing, he linked tightened science funding to expanding nondiscretionary obligations, which include programs 
> such as Social Security and Medicare. And he reiterated his call for scientists to lobby Congress to rein in deficit 
> spending in order to free up additional discretionary funding for science.
> Córdova points to the need for ‘difficult choices’
>
>
> Throughout the hearing, Córdova, pictured at right, spoke eagerly about the benefits of NSF’s programs and more 
> reluctantly about the proposed cut. In her nine-page written statement, she only identified two consequences of a 
> reduced budget: a decrease in new research grants from 8,800 in fiscal year 2016 to 8,000, and a halving in the 
> number of Graduate Research Fellowships offered to 1,000.
>  
> Democratic committee members pressed her to expand on the implications of scaled-back NSF activity. In response to a 
> question from Serrano on the subject, she said that NSF is “used to making difficult choices.” She noted that, even 
> at the current funding level, NSF will be unable to fund “up to $4 billion” of research that the agency’s peer review 
> process will rate as “excellent,” and that under the Trump budget that figure would rise to about $5 billion.
>
> Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-WA) asked Córdova who would conduct geosciences research if such programs are cut back at not 
> only NSF but also other agencies. When she suggested it might be a rhetorical question and Kilmer interjected it was 
> not, she replied, “There will be less wherewithal in order to do that important work. We will continue to do the best 
> we can with the budget that we have and subject it to the best merit review processes.”
>
> Later, Kilmer asked Córdova about the role of science and technology in bolstering national economic competitiveness, 
> referencing the 2007 “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” report and its 2010 follow up. She replied that she agrees 
> the competition from other countries is “incredibly serious,” but said that, “as the head of an Executive Branch 
> agency,” she could not comment on the reports’ calls to double NSF’s budget.
>
> However, one question from Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA) did momentarily draw her out of her role as a representative 
> of the administration. Asked how it would be possible under the Trump budget for the U.S. to “retain our best and our 
> brightest,” she admitted, “The budget is not final until Congress weighs in … and I’m sure many prospective 
> scientists and engineers are anxiously waiting for how it all unfolds. Meanwhile … we have a lot of money to do good 
> science.”
> Córdova fields questions about policy controversies
>
> In addition to taking questions about the budget, Córdova answered queries about various controversial policies.
>
> Asked by Serrano whether NSF is holding back fiscal year 2017 funds in anticipation of future cuts, she replied 
> unequivocally that it is not. Asked by Cartwright whether NSF had received instructions from the White House to 
> ignore or delay replies to Democratic lawmakers' queries, she replied that it had not. These questions have recently 
> become relevant to science policy as Democrats have sought information from the Department of Energy for allegedly 
> withholding funds for already-awarded R&D grants that the administration is proposing to cut.
>
> Cartwright also asked about the wisdom of Congress setting NSF funding at the directorate level, which is a change 
> that the House Science Committee has sought in past years, but which appropriators rejected in this year’s spending 
> bills. Córdova affirmed her view that “the science community is best equipped to set the priorities for science and 
> engineering,” and described how NSF works with the National Academies and its advisory groups as well as with 
> Congress and the administration to integrate competing priorities.
>
> Astronomy continues to draw appropriators’ attention
>
> Left: An aerial view of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) detector in Livingston, 
> Louisiana. Right: Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) listens on his phone to an audio rendering of the gravitational signal 
> received from the collision of two black holes. (Image credit – LIGO Observatory and House Appropriations Committee)
>
> Throughout the hearing, committee members from both parties asked a number of questions about NSF activities of 
> special interest, including the geosciences, cybersecurity R&D, risk and resilience research, diversity in STEM, and 
> the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). However, it was astronomy that commanded the 
> lion’s share of attention.
>
> Culberson began his questions by spotlighting the success of the NSF-funded Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave 
> Observatory (LIGO) as an indication of the value of long-term investments in basic research, and even played an audio 
> rendering of a LIGO signal on his mobile phone. Later, he asked about progress with the Daniel K. Inouye Solar 
> Telescope, which is scheduled to begin operations in 2020.
>
> Culberson and Serrano also expressed their interest in the future of the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, while 
> Culberson and Rep. Evan Jenkins (R-WV) both sought assurance about the future of the Green Bank Observatory in West 
> Virginia. NSF has decided to decrease its support for these two facilities. Córdova reported that NSF’s decision 
> process is still ongoing in both cases, though she was able to report that a new potential partnership for Green Bank 
> had recently arisen with the “national security community.”
>
> Contact the Author
>
> William Thomas
> American Institute of Physics
> wthomas () aip org
> (301) 209-3097
> More From FYI
>
> DOE Urges National Academies Panel To 'Be Bold' in Fusion Strategic Plan
>
> A National Academies panel tasked with developing a multi-decade strategy for magnetically confined burning plasma 
> research held its first meeting on June 5. The head of the Energy Department’s fusion energy sciences program urged 
> the panel to “be bold” in its report, which will consider scenarios in which the U.S. remains in or withdraws from 
> the long-delayed ITER fusion project.
> Read More >
>
> Trump Budget Cuts USGS by 15%, Restructures Climate Research
>
> President Trump’s fiscal year 2018 budget requests a 15 percent funding cut for the U.S. Geological Survey and 
> proposes deep cuts for all mission areas except Energy and Mineral Resources. Climate research is slashed and 
> restructured into a new Land Resources mission area.
> Read More >
> Sign Up for FYI
>
> If this was forwarded to you, you can sign up for FYI by clicking here.
> For permission to use text from this e-mail, please contact fyi () aip org.
> For more science policy news, visit the FYI website.
> If you wish to manage your FYI preferences and alert subscriptions, please click here.
> If you no longer wish to receive email from FYI, please click here to unsubscribe from all FYI emails.
>
> Follow FYI
>
> © 2017 American Institute of Physics
> One Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170612174412:43B20988-4FB8-11E7-B834-9D2608EAE736
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com