Enacting the Science Budget: The Process and the Politics

In a little less than seven months, Congress must enact thirteen appropriations bills funding the operations of the federal government for fiscal year 1995. The process is both complicated and secretive, but extremely vital to every department and agency, and, in turn, to every researcher supported through federal grants and contracts.

Now that President Clinton has sent his budget request to Congress, action shifts to the all-important House Appropriations Committee. This committee is the largest in the House, as is true for its counterpart in the Senate. The thirteen subcommittees are where the action is. Science spending bills followed in FYI center on two subcommittees: the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee (having jurisdiction over the Department of Energy) and the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee (NSF and NASA are independent agencies.) Appropriations bills are for one year of spending, beginning on October 1.

The House appropriations subcommittees act before the Senate. Beginning next week, the House energy subcommittee holds hearings on the general science portion of the DOE request. These hearings last a half-day or less. As might be expected with subjects as difficult as high energy physics, subcommittee Members are somewhat unfamiliar with the terrain. Last year, after the DOE witness testified, a Member quipped, “no one can challenge you, because we don’t know a damn thing.” Overshadowing the subcommittee this year (as well as its Senate counterpart) is the memory of the SSC’s termination. Historically, the subcommittee looks kindly on the DOE request: last year, it recommended full funding for fusion, high energy physics, and nuclear physics research; somewhat less for basic energy sciences, the advanced neutron source, and the SSC.

The House VA, HUD subcommittee has jurisdiction over a considerable portion of civilian discretionary spending. The NSF hearing usually takes most of a day; NASA even longer. This subcommittee can get into the nitty-gritty of an agency’s budget request. Last year, the subcommittee sliced over $700 million out of the $14.5 billion NASA request, and around $159 million out of NSF’s $3 billion request.

Later this spring, both full appropriations committees will meet to vote on the 602(b) allocations. A 602(b) is the amount of money which a subcommittee has to “spend” on all of the programs under its jurisdiction. The full committee chairman and his staff generally set these amounts in private. Subcommittee chairmen live or die by their 602(b) allocations. If a 602(b) is generous, more spending is possible. This is especially true in the VA, HUD subcommittee, where it is expected that Senate chair Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) will try and head-off cuts in low-income programs proposed by the Clinton Administration.

After a subcommittee drafts its version of a bill, which is generally done in private, the legislation goes to the floor after approval by the full committee. This is the first chance that most Members have to directly impact the bill. Although most noncontroversial funding is untouched, the floor can be a mine field for controversial items. It was on the House floor last year that SSC funding was first killed. Last year, space station funding was approved by 24 votes. “Deficit hawks,” especially in the freshman class, will be looking for opportunities to cut spending in this election year. Expect House floor action to begin around mid-May as the subcommittees start to mark-up their bills. Accompanying the bills in both the House and Senate is a committee report, which while not having the force of law, contains spending and other recommendations which a department or agency ignores at its peril.

After the House acts, the Senate begins the process all over again. Senate appropriations subcommittees frequently add money back into a program which the House deleted. This occurred last year with the SSC, and in a previous year for NSF’s LIGO project. Senate hearings are usually fairly brief. This should not be misinterpreted as an indication of the importance of the Senate. It was Senator Mikulski’s appropriations subcommittee which last year issued the much-discussed report language on the future of the NSF.

The full Senate then votes on its own appropriations committee’s version of the bill. Two versions of the same bill now exist, which are then sent to a conference committee. Differences are resolved after sometimes lengthy battles. The final bill is then voted on again by each chamber, which at this late stage (traditionally just before the start of the new fiscal year) is usually a routine matter. Last year, however, the energy conference committee agreed to fund the SSC, despite the full House’s overwhelming vote to terminate the project. When the conference committee bill came back to the House floor for final passage it was rejected by nearly a 2 to 1 margin. SSC proponents could not find a way to overcome the House, and the resulting revised conference bill contained instructions to DOE for it to “orderly terminate” the collider.

This is going to be a difficult year for the appropriations subcommittees. There is a hard dollar freeze on discretionary spending, so any increase in funding will come at the expense of another program. Spending increases that the administration has recommended will only be possible if Congress agrees to the program cuts or eliminations that the president has proposed -- a dubious proposition.

During the next few weeks the broad outlines of the DOE, NSF, and NASA FY 1995 spending bills will start to come into focus behind the closed doors of the appropriations subcommittees. Recommendations on how that money is best spent should be made now. Subcommittee rosters are given in FYIs #11 and 12.