Change and Concern: The Outlook for NSF and NASA

Although President Clinton’s fiscal year 1995 budget request is still being formulated, there are renewed indications that changes are in the offing for both the National Science Foundation and NASA. Recent correspondence from the chairs of the House and Senate VA, HUD appropriations subcommittees indicates that both agencies will be operating under, in varying degrees, changed circumstances in coming years.

In late November, House VA, HUD appropriations subcommittee chairman Louis Stokes (D-Ohio) wrote to House science committee chairman George Brown (D-California) about the Senate committee report language on the future of NSF. Senator Barbara Mikulski’s (D-Maryland) subcommittee had laid out new guidelines for the foundation. The House subcommittee’s report did not address this issue. The conference committee writing the final bill and accompanying report did not include any reference to NSF’s future. This has been interpreted to mean that the Senate directives had been overridden -- a mistaken assumption.

In his November 22 letter, Stokes referred to the confusion there has been over the status of the Senate NSF report language. As reported last October in FYI #133, the fact that the conference committee did not address this issue did not negate the Senate’s directives. In his letter to Brown, Stokes writes, “The conferees did not address the Senate’s language on the future of NSF. This has led to the misconception by some that the conferees overturned that Senate language. This is not the case. The Senate language stands.”

A new NSF newsletter indicates that the foundation is responding to Congress. In a section entitled, “Congressional Update,” NSF states: “In a forceful message to NSF, Senate appropriators emphasized the need for the agency to do a better job in planning and evaluating its programs and in supporting research in strategically important areas. ... In the face of strong pressures to cut spending and little enthusiasm for raising revenues, congressional and administration supporters of science and engineering have indicated that a compelling case must be made that the nation is getting its money’s worth from our investments.”

While there has been uncertainty about NSF’s future, there is growing concern about NASA’s space science programs. The cause of this worry is a letter in late October from appropriations subcommittee chairs Mikulski and Stokes to NASA Administration Daniel Goldin. Goldin is warned that budget constraints could force NASA’s annual appropriation below $14 billion for several years, which is $550 million under the current budget.

Space science could bear the brunt of this cut. Stokes and Mikulski state, "...when we consider the fact that the space station, earth observing system and shuttle programs are essentially fixed costs, it is not hard to see that much of the agency’s future science and aeronautics programs will be under extreme pressure. Ironically, in the case of the science programs, that turns the Augustine Commission’s priority recommendations upside-down.” Funding for two of NASA’s key budget components for space science, Mission Operations and Data Analysis, and Research and Analysis are already operating under very tight budgets. The AXAF program took a significant cut in the budget passed by Congress this fall.

With strong congressional and administration support for economic growth, many fear that aeronautics research will be a higher priority than space science. It is of note that NASA’s Lewis Research Center is in Cleveland, Ohio. This center supports aeronautics research, and many of its facilities were built in the 1940s and 1950s. Chairman Stokes’ district is in Cleveland.

An important factor in the next two to three months, as well as throughout the congressional budget cycle for NSF and NASA, will be the degree to which Members of Congress hear from their constituents. With few exceptions, Congress receives little constituent correspondence or calls about science funding or policy.

New NSF Director Neal Lane addressed this issue in the above cited newsletter. When he refers to “the public,” it should be understood that he is including Congress. Lane writes, "...the public wants to understand how we spend its money. Of course this is something all of us care about. Research scientists and engineers do understand that their work is supported because of its value to society. And they are anxious to help put that message across.”

AIP has a free brochure entitled, “Communicating with Congress.” For a copy, send a self-addressed, stamped (29 cents), 4 1/4" by 9 1/2" envelope to:

Office of Government and Institutional Relations - P.I. American Institute of Physics One Physics Ellipse College Park, Maryland 20740-3843