President George W. Bush has sent his FY 2002 budget “blueprint”
to Congress. It appears that the administration is requesting a
1.4% increase in FY 2002 total spending for general science,
space, and technology, which roughly translates to the budgets
for the National Science Foundation, NASA, and the DOE Office of

The actual increase is somewhat unclear because of an error in
one of the tables in this two hundred page document. NASA
aeronautics funding was included in the wrong budget category,
which made the total request for the general science, space, and
technology line appear much larger than it actually is.

The Office of Management and Budget is now reworking these
figures. It appears that the Bush Administration is requesting
a total increase of $300 for NSF, NASA, and DOE science, from
$20.9 billion in FY 2001 to $21.2 billion in FY 2002.

The budget blueprint does not provide many numbers for
individual programs (those numbers will be in a large submission
that will go to Congress in April.) The following is what the
blueprint states about S&T programs covered in FYI. The numbers
following each quotation are the page number from the submission
that can be viewed at

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: For the department, funding would be
reduced 3.0%. No funding is specified for the Office of
Science. The document does state: “Strengthen Stockpile
Stewardship: The Stockpile Stewardship Program maintains our
nuclear arsenal. The program is an essential safeguard to our
national security and is in significant need of reform and
repair. The budget increases funding for activities in this
area by five percent to approximately $5.3 billion.” (107) The
blueprint states: “Management in general, and contract
management in particular, have consistently been listed by the
General Accounting Office as high risk activities. Project and
contract management have also been listed by the Inspector
General as top management challenges. DOE intends to achieve
significant savings in 2002 from restructuring and reevaluating
the performance of major projects across the Department
including environmental management and science projects.” (108)

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION: The administration requested an
increase of $56 million over the current year level of $4.426
billion. (Last October, Congress approved a $529 billion
increase in the NSF budget for the current fiscal year.)
Directorate and program levels are not given. The document does
state that the budget “provides approximately $1.5 billion for
new research and education awards in 2002, to fund nearly 10,000
new competitively reviewed awards.” (159) “Increases graduate
stipends for the Graduate Research Fellowships, the Graduate
Teaching Fellowships in K-12 Education, and the Integrative
Graduate Education and Research Traineeship programs.” (159)
Regarding a new program, the document states: “Provides $200
million to begin the President’s Math and Science Partnership
initiative to provide funds for States to join with institutions
of higher education in strengthening math and science education
in grades K-12.” (159) “As part of the Math and Science
Partnership initiative, $110 million is redirected from existing
NSF education programs toward the initiative’s $200 million
level in 2002.” (160) Under a section entitled Redirected
Resources, the document states: “The 2001 enacted level for NSF
included a number of earmarked and lower-priority projects.
While the majority of projects must be assessed on their merits
through an extensive review process, many of these projects do
not face such scrutiny and often address lower-priority areas or
needs. The 2002 Budget does not renew funding for these
projects, saving $45 million.” “The budget also better focuses
facility project resources by maintaining commitments for the
Large Hadron Collider, the Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation, and Terascale Computing Systems. Facility project
spending will be reduced by $13 million, reflecting no new
starts of major facility projects in 2002.” (160)

The chapter on NSF also states: “Reorganize Research in
Astronomy and Astrophysics: NSF and NASA provide more than 90
percent of Federal funds for academic astronomy research and
facilities. Historically, NASA has funded spaced-based
astronomy and NSF has funded ground-based astronomy, as well as
astronomy research proposals. Several changes have evolved
which suggest that now is the time to assess the Federal
Government’s management and organization of astronomical
research. NSF and NASA will establish a Blue Ribbon Panel to
assess the organizational effectiveness of Federal support of
astronomical sciences and, specifically, the pros and cons of
transferring NSF’s astronomy responsibilities to NASA. The
panel may also develop alternative options. This assessment
will be completed by September 1, 2001.” (161) Other language
was included on page 161 regarding a process to determine the
correct grant size and enhancing NSF’s management of large
facility projects.

NASA: NASA’s budget would increase 2.0% over 2001. Regarding
space science, the document states: “To ensure successful
execution of programs already underway, two projects with a very
large escalation in cost, the Pluto-Kuiper Express and Solar
Probe missions, will not be funded. To support a potential,
future sprint to the planet Pluto before 2020, additional funds
will be directed to key propulsion technology investments. The
budget funds a more robust Mars Exploration Program and provides
critical technology funding to support future decisions on high-
energy astrophysics missions.” (156) A separate section on
Earth Science states: “NASA has worked with the National Academy
of Sciences to develop future Earth Science research priorities
and, based on these priorities, has developed plans for the
second generation of Earth Observing System (EOS) satellites.
NASA’s outyear plan for these satellites has been underfunded in
recent years, but the budget will provide a five-percent
increase in 2002 for a science-driven EOS Follow-On program
while discontinuing low-priority remote sensing satellite and
environmental application projects to ensure that EOS priorities
can go forward.” (156) Regarding the space station, the
document states: “To address…unprecedented cost growth and
ensure that the program remains within the five-year budget
plan, the President’s 2002 Budget will include important
decisions regarding the funding and management of the program
while preserving the highest priority goals: permanent human
presence in space, world-class research in space, and
accommodation of international partner elements.” (155)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE R&D: “The budget proposes a $2.6 billion
initiative ($20 billion over five years) to fund R&D of new
technologies. Among areas in which new investment might be made
include: leap-ahead technologies for new weapons and
intelligence systems; improvements to the laboratory and test
range infrastructure; technologies aimed at reducing the costs
of weapons and intelligence systems; efforts, such as counter-
terrorism and counter-proliferation that are focused on
countering unconventional threats to national security; and
funding to continue research, development, and testing of a
missile defense program.” Funding for 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 S&T
programs is not specified. (100)

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: The departmental budget would increase
11.5% to $4.6 billion. The Eisenhower professional development
program is not cited, but would appear to be covered by the
following statement: “To restore local control, the President
proposes to consolidate many Federal programs within five
flexible categories, allowing States to direct funds towards
major priorities.” (41) Under Higher Education, the document
states: “The budget also includes a mandatory-spending higher
education initiative: expanding the existing teacher student
loan forgiveness program to provide greater benefits for math
and science teachers.” (104)

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM: The blueprint states: “The budget
also suspends funding for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP),
which supports research and development activities of private
firms, pending a reevaluation of this program. New ATP awards
would not be made in 2001 or 2002, though support for ongoing
programs would be continued using reprogrammed ATP funds from
2001.” (96)

Future FYIs will include additional blueprint language on the
rationale behind this budget, and reaction to it.


Richard M .Jones

Public Information Division

The American Institute of Physics

(301) 209-3095