The Time is Now: Tough Times for Science Funding As Hill Moves on Key Bill

Congressional staff on both sides of the Capitol are providing early warning of a tough year ahead for science funding in the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies (VA/HUD/IA) Appropriations Bill for FY 1995. The time is now for letters and other communications to be sent to representatives and senators.

There is increasing fear that science funding may get run over as the VA/HUD/IA appropriations subcommittees struggle to fund the departments and agencies under their jurisdiction. The hard dollar freeze on discretionary money for FY 1995 means that any funding increase must come at the expense of another program. The Clinton Administration has proposed the elimination of the equivalent of 3,500 VA employees, freeing-up money for other spending. The awesome political power of veterans organizations will be brought to bear against this proposal, making it likely that the appropriations subcommittees will put money back into VA health care budget, at the expense of what could be NASA and NSF funding.

Also making it a very difficult year is another congressional accounting device called an “outlay” -- the amount of money actually spent on a project in any one year. The outlay for a project is much less in the early development stages, and considerably greater in later years during its construction. Prior year VA/HUD/IA commitments are now coming into full swing, increasing outlay rates, thus creating severe restrictions in FY 1995 funding. Add to this the impact of the space station and Mission to Planet Earth programs, both of which are seen as “fixed costs,” and it looks like NASA space science could be in for a rough time. NSF funding is also subject to these same forces.

High level (and friendly) congressional staff warn that NASA space science funding is at risk unless representatives and senators receive correspondence and other communications from the science community in the next few weeks. This same warning would also appear to apply to NSF funding. Such communications demonstrate to Members of Congress the interest and concern that constituents have in a program. In Washington, silence is seen as disinterest. Correspondence sent directly to appropriations subcommittee members is desirable, as is true for letters to individual representatives and senators who talk to subcommittee members about their own constituent mail (see FYI #39.) The time for this communication is now.

Former White House science adviser Allan Bromley has related the following story: "...when I talked to Senator Mikulski...she said...look, if the situation out there is as bad as you say it is - and I was talking about young investigators - how is it that I never hear from any of these people, whereas on an almost daily basis I hear from representatives of the Veterans Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development?.”