Perspectives on the Senate Appropriations Bill and Report - NSF

Not since last year’s discussion about the Commission on the Future of the NSF has there been so much talk in Washington science policy circles about the National Science Foundation. This discussion has, of course, revolved around the recommendations concerning the future of NSF that are contained in Senate Report 103-137, written by Senator Barbara Mikulski’s (D-Maryland) VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. At week’s end, here are several observations -- some personal, some based on discussions with other individuals, and all subject to revision as further events unfold.

The views of Senator Mikulski and her appropriations subcommittee about NSF should not come as great surprise, as they are in keeping with earlier events. At an early 1992 subcommittee hearing, Mikulski sharply criticized then OSTP Director Allan Bromley for not doing more about employment opportunities. Later, she told then NSF Director Walter Massey that more was needed to “facilitate the movement of R to D,” as in R&D, to create new jobs (see FYI #44, 1992.) Her subcommittee’s report issued last fall said “the new world order requires the Foundation to take a more activist role in transferring the results of basic research from the academic community into the marketplace.” Last fall’s creation of the Commission on the Future of the NSF was largely in response to this sentiment on Capitol Hill, although the language of the final commission report opened it to many interpretations. Finally, at an April 1 hearing on the NSF budget this year, Mikulski repeated that “the world has changed,” and she wondered why those in the physical sciences are reluctant to acknowledge this change (see FYI #39.)

The senator’s view that “the world has changed” is a reflection of what many in Congress, and in the administration, seem to be saying. The House science committee issued a report last year (see FYI #129, 1992) which concluded, “Research policy designed forty years ago may no longer be suitable for addressing the problems of today’s world.” Efforts are now underway by the Clinton Administration to tie future federal science spending more closely to societal needs.

Nevertheless, the outspokenness of the current Senate report’s language caught many off-guard. The language is direct and unambiguous about what the subcommittee sees as the future of the NSF.

So what happens from here, and as importantly, what seem to be the primary concerns? One, the Senate report language on NSF cannot be changed by any vote on the Senate floor. The rules do not permit it: any attempt during what is expected to be next Monday’s Senate consideration of H.R. 2491 to change the report’s language would be ruled out of order.

Two, there is the view that the major concern about the Senate’s version of H.R. 2491 is the $105 million cut made from the House bill’s allotment for Research and Related Activities funding for fiscal year 1994. The administration requested $2,204.8 million; the House bill contains $2,045 million, the Senate bill provides $1,940 million. Also of concern is the $1 million earmarked for a National Academy of Public Administration review of NSF’s research centers. This concern is not because of the amount of money, or its purpose, but rather that a specific entity was named. This has not been the case in previous NSF appropriations bills.

There is considerable foreboding about the report language on the future of the NSF (see FYI #116.) This foreboding is not confined to the foundation alone; the report calls for similar reviews of the missions of NASA, HUD, VA, EPA, and other areas.

It is in this area that objections are likely to be heard from other key players on Capitol Hill. Many of the recommendations are authorization matters. An appropriations bill is supposed to only deal with the amount of money given to a department or agency. Expect House science committee chairman George Brown, who has been on a mission to reclaim his authorizing committee’s power, to object to the report language. Last year, he was successful in getting final NSF appropriations language toned down.

During the remainder of this month, efforts will be focused on the upcoming conference committee that will resolve differences between the two versions of H.R. 2491. A major priority will be getting the final bill’s Research and Related Activities component closer to the House version. Efforts will also be made to write final NSF “role” language that is acceptable to all concerned. (The American Physical Society sent a letter this week to all Members of the House and Senate requesting such a change, stating that “the need for NSF support of long-term fundamental research has never been greater.”)

In a larger sense, however, change in federal science policy no longer seems to be on the distant horizon. All indications point to that change as having arrived, with the task now facing the NSF, and to a larger extent the science community, being to demonstrate how current and future research programs relate to national economic strategies.