Walker and Brown Speak at Presidential Science Advisors Meeting

On the second day of this week’s meeting of the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), there was an hour long discussion with two invited guests: House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) and ranking minority member George Brown (D-CA). Walker’s views are important not only because he chairs this committee, but also because he is vice chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Walker began by saying that he is limited in his policy options because of the budget situation, and described as “real” House Republican efforts to balance the budget by 2002. Science “will be part of that new calculation,” he said. Walker called for a “sense of prioritization.... That is the message I have been trying to send.”

The House Budget Committee may call for the elimination of the Departments of Energy and Commerce, Walker stated. If that occurs, plans must be made for moving the weapons labs and the energy research functions of DOE. It would “not be a very good marriage” for the National Science Foundation to take on the energy research function, he contended. As a possible alternative Walker proposed the establishment of a new Department of Science (see below for a legislative history of a previous attempt by Walker for such a department.) While this would entail some problems, it also has distinct advantages, Walker said, adding that House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich (R-OH) was giving it some attention.

In response to questions, Walker called for making the R&D tax credit permanent, and exploring the possibility of using it as an incentive for businesses to assist in academic infrastructure modernization and instrumentation. When asked about the funding of basic and applied research, he replied that “the issue here is prioritization,” with basic science support as the prime federal role.

Rep. Brown said that he is in agreement with Walker on 75-80% of science policy issues, citing the SSC and the space station as examples. He spoke of the tightness of the job market and future education and employment alternatives. It is clear, he said, that the days of the “open spigot” of federal money have ended.

When asked about the space station, both representatives were supportive, although Brown cautioned that budget competition could overtake the program. Walker predicted that as long as the White House continues to support the space station it will survive. Both felt that an authorizing bill would ensure a long term commitment for the program.

In a briefing following the PCAST meeting, PCAST co-chairs John Gibbons and John Young tried to temper what seems to be rapid movement to recast the federal structure supporting science and technology. Young said that a new Department of Science is usually proposed during every big government shake-up, and spoke of an “overheated sense of urgency.” “Haste can make waste,” Gibbons added. Young felt that there is not a “compelling case” for such a new department, but added he would be interested in hearing one. Gibbons noted that the administration’s National Science and Technology Council coordinated federal programs, and that the administration was saving money through its efforts to reinvent government. This proposal, Gibbons concluded, “needs a little more thought.”

Chairman Walker’s proposal to create a new Department of Science dates back at least two years. In March of 1993 he introduced legislation to establish a Department of Science, Space, Energy, and Technology. It would have transferred to this new department NASA, NIST, NSF, NOAA, EPA, the National Technical Information Service, “all but certain facilities of the Department of Energy, renamed the National Energy Administration,” and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. H.R. 1300 was cosponsored by Rep. George Brown, and Rep. Steven Schiff (R-NM). Schiff is now chairman of the House science subcommittee with jurisdiction over the NSF. The bill had 12 cosponsors, and was referred to the House Government Operations Committee, which never held a hearing. This is not entirely surprising, since the committee was under the control of a Democratic chairman at the time. That situation has, of course, changed. How much support now exists for this concept is an unknown; key Members on both sides of the Capitol have expressed support for retaining the Department of Energy. Also unknown is how such a cabinet-level department would ultimately affect science policy and funding.