National Science Foundation Appropriations Hearings Completed
The National Science Foundation has completed two rather brief and low-key hearings before the House and Senate VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittees. There is both good news and bad news.
Yesterday, NSF Director Neal Lane and his senior staff testified before the House subcommittee chaired by California Republican Jerry Lewis. In contrast to previous years, when these annual hearings were spread over one or two days, yesterday’s session was over in two hours. The good news is that Chairman Lewis is very supportive of NSF, cautioning that in these budget cutting times, “science is an easy target.” “Undue cutting,” he warned, “can lead to very serious errors.”
Yet, the outlook for NSF’s budget over the next seven years is clouded. Lewis asked National Science Board Chairman Frank Rhodes if the board is discussing the foundation’s priorities. (Rhodes replied the board will be meeting next week to do so.) The reason for this line of questioning was the bad news coming out of yesterday’s hearing: Lewis said the NSF budget would probably be cut by 20% as Congress moves to balance the federal budget by 2002.
Lewis asked Lane what a cut of this magnitude would mean to the foundation. Lane replied that it “would imply a major change in the nature of NSF and what it does...everything [would be] on the table.” Lane said that while the agency’s goals would be the same, implementation strategies would be different. It would result, he said, in a very different National Science Foundation. Chairman Lewis said to Lane, “I would urge you to push the board” to prioritize. Lewis later asked how NSF could finance LIGO and the proposed new polar research station and continue to support research and education programs. Lane replied, “we would not be able to do all of this,” saying that it would mean some “science doesn’t get done.”
A March 10 hearing before the Senate appropriations subcommittee was similar in nature and tone to the House hearing. Chairman Christopher Bond (R-Missouri) and Ranking Member Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) both expressed support for NSF. Bond declared, “our investments for the future are relatively modest.” There is a difference in the approach of the senators to the chairmanship. Mikulski, while sometimes critical of NSF, seems to have a more active interest in the agency. Bond’s style, while friendly, is more detached.
Looking ahead, the House appropriations subcommittee will act first when it sends its FY 1996 bill to the full appropriations committee later this spring. During that time, subcommittee members will hold other hearings on agency requests, and weigh, among other factors, the correspondence and other contacts which they receive. Important factors in this process will be formal and informal communications from other Members of Congress, acting in response to the expressed views of their constituents.
