Congress Finishes Key Hearings on NSF Budget Request

Important hearings by the House and Senate VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittees have concluded with an uncertain outlook for the administration’s 8.2% requested increase for the National Science Foundation’s fiscal year 1994 budget.

This year’s congressional budget deliberations began with an all-day hearing by the House appropriations subcommittee on March 26. Chairman Louis Stokes (D-Ohio) began the hearing saying the administration’s $207 million request for NSF supplemental funding (see FYIs #25, 33) “distorted” the subcommittee’s approach. He said that if last fall the subcommittee had this additional money it would not all have gone to NSF. He cautioned NSF Director Walter Massey that if this year’s 602(b) allocation (see FYI #35) to the subcommittee is large, NSF might receive an increase in the neighborhood of its request. However, if the allocation is flat, Stokes said that his subcommittee will take into account the $207 million that NSF will receive if the stimulus package wins Senate approval (an outcome which is still quite uncertain.) If the stimulus package is approved, as well as the 8.2% requested increase, NSF’s 1994 budget would be 16% over its original 1993 budget, a figure which is certain to catch the eye of many on Capitol Hill.

Questions by Stokes and his colleagues covered many of NSF’s programs. Members asked about the balance between principal investigator research and support for centers, defense conversion, and changes in NSF’s activities. When Massey was asked directly if NSF contemplates support for “applied activity,” he replied, “no, we do not.” Massey went on to say that he wants to see NSF “build-on” and “enhance” its current activities to further technology transfer. He said NSF wants to increase the size of research grants. Stokes asked if NSF is an entitlement program for scientists, Massey replying that scientists do not see themselves as a special group.

In discussion of specific programs, NSF was asked about geosciences funding. Level funding between last year and this year forced NSF to make major priority decisions, with some programs such as hydrologic science receiving additional support while other programs were cut by 10-12%. Ocean sciences and global change programs were cited as two important areas in this activity.

When the discussion turned to Mathematical and Physical Sciences (providing physics, astronomy, and materials research funding,) Stokes with some vigor said “we’ve been warning, without much affect” about the budget impact of new facilities. Mentioning LIGO and the Gemini 8-meter telescope project, Stokes asked Massey if it was not true that once started, such projects take on “a political life of their own,” making it impossible to cut or downgrade the projects. Massey, amidst general laughter, replied “yes, Mr. Chairman.” LIGO funding of $43 million is being requested for fiscal year 1994. In discussing the Gemini telescopes, NSF assured committee members that international funding arrangements are being successfully completed. There was some discussion about the level of risk in the various types of telescope mirrors.

The area of greatest interest to committee members was NSF’s education program. Funding has greatly increased in the last few years, reflecting what NSF said was clear congressional and public sentiment in support of math and science education. NSF’s assessment is correct, judging by the great interest which Stokes had in the foundation’s programs in this area.

This hearing came to a fairly abrupt conclusion, with no concluding remarks by Stokes or his colleagues about the outlook for NSF’s request.

Yesterday, NSF officials traveled back to Capitol Hill to testify at a hearing of the Senate VA, HUD Appropriations Subcommittee. This hearing was over in less than an hour, and marked Massey’s last day on the job.

Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), who last year tried to steer NSF into greater support of industrial activity, said “the world has changed,” and wondered why those in the physical sciences are reluctant to acknowledge this change. She said she wants a “balance” in NSF’s activities. Massey cited the foundation’s support of strategic research initiatives.

Mikulski was interested in defense conversion, questioning oversight, accountability, and evaluation mechanisms. She asked about the High Performance Computing and Communications initiative and its life cycle costs, noting that “we like to have beginnings and ends” to programs.

One area which Mikulski spent considerable time discussing were issues of gender in the classroom. She wanted to know what NSF was doing for “those who have been left out and left behind in science.” She discussed efforts in middle schools and a Maryland community college, making it clear that this is going to be a subject of great interest to her. NSF has requested an increase of 34.8% in this area.

Early in the hearing, Ranking Republican Member Phil Gramm (R-Texas) declared that he was “very happy” with the Clinton Administration’s request for NSF, saying that he would support it. He cautioned, however, that in dividing up scare federal resources, NSF was “not as appealing politically as an investment in the next election,” referring to more readily identifiable kinds of government projects. Support for NSF funding suffers, he said, from the lack of a clear constituency.

Mikulski gave no indication how NSF’s budget request would fare except to say the following: “We cannot predict the size of the VA-HUD Subcommittee’s 602(b) allocation at this early juncture. So we are unable to give any indication of whether or not we will be able to accommodate the President’s request for NSF, a goal to which we certainly aspire.”