Chris Sununu: “I would certainly be more comfortable if the guaranteed increases were struck from the bill, because that is a…”

“I would certainly be more comfortable if the guaranteed increases were struck from the bill, because that is a protection, a consideration for this area of funding that isn't given to other areas of funding. I would have concern about that allocation in past years, again because it puts this particular area in effect ahead of the different disciplines of chemistry, math, or physics. It treats it somewhat uniquely. To the response on the point about appropriations, Senator Bingaman is absolutely right. Each year we do an appropriations bill that is much more specific than this, where, ultimately, allocations are made in the specific areas of research, chemistry, or physics. That is based, however, on a request by the National Science Foundation itself in front of that Appropriations Committee. It is based on an exchange for that given year. I would agree with you, the peer review process needs to be protected. We shouldn't be specifying in authorizing language--even if you make the point it is not meaningful because it is only an authorization--we shouldn't be specifying how much money we are going to allocate to superconducting materials in 2008 or how much funding we are going to authorize for plasma physics in 2009. We should be much more responsive than that, not prejudge what the needs of the National Science Foundation are going to be in the outyears.”