Senate Hearing on S&T Programs; New Presidential Report

A hearing on the Clinton Administration’s science and technology programs a few weeks ago highlighted some of the issues Congress will consider as it turns to the FY 1996 budget over the next few months. Helpful in framing the coming debate over the administration’s support of science, and particularly technology, is a recently issued document, “Science and Technology, a Report of the President.”

Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Gibbons and National Science Foundation Director Neal Lane appeared before Senator Conrad Burns (R-Montana) three weeks ago in a hearing of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. This well-attended, but low-key hearing gave Gibbons an opportunity to speak about the high rate of return for investment in science and technology, and to present the “compelling case for the president’s position” that is described at greater length in the above-cited report. Lane discussed NSF’s strategic plan which has also been released, and which will be covered in a future FYI.

Chairman Burns discussed one of the more controversial technology programs, the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) at the Department of Commerce. “I support the ATP” for start-ups, Burns said, but added that he was surprised at the size of the administration’s requested increased for the program (14.0%.) He asked if this could be justified in light of other government programs being cut, and in remarks echoing Senate Appropriations subcommittee chairman Phil Gramm (R-Texas) said it was a “very fine line...where we go and don’t go” (see FYI #56.) Gibbons explained the various features of the program to counter the concern that the ATP is industrial policy. Joining in this discussion was Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-West Virginia) who said that “it worries me greatly” that Congress is arguing about the federal role in science and technology. This is, Rockefeller said, “at the heart of the greatest conflict here in the Commerce Committee.”

If there was one area that Burns and Rockefeller showed great interest in, and support of, it was NSF’s EPSCoR program. A second panel of witnesses testified in support of EPSCoR, and it was evident that both senators, from rural states, were very enthusiastic about the opportunities this program has given their constituents.

Coincidental with this hearing was the release of the 40-page document, “Science and Technology, A Report of the President.” This is a biennial report required by a 1976 law. “This report describes the actions and plans of the Clinton Administration to harness the power of science and technology,” the document declares. It finds that the distinctions between basic and applied science “are blurring” and contends that there is not a linear progression between them. Federal priorities in science and technology (such as health, environmental quality, economic growth, education, etc.) are described. Research on the top quark is one of highlighted areas.

This report is available via the OSTP Homepage on the World Wide Web at the following site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/OSTP.html