First Hearing of the Year on National Science Foundation

The annual budget cycle for the National Science Foundation began last week at a three-hour hearing before the House VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. The hearing went well, with the only real sticking point some resistance to a foundation review of the EPSCoR program.

The real work on NSF’s FY 1997 appropriation begins on March 18 with the release of the Clinton Administration’s budget request. Neither side discussed hard numbers during this hearing, which is probably best seen as an early indicator of where the foundation stands.

Subcommittee chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) began by recounting a meeting held in Speaker Newt Gingrich’s (R-GA) office, at which the Speaker spoke of his fondness for science, instructing appropriators to do everything possible to avoid cutting funding for “science and research.” Lewis added that the Speaker’s sentiment had been very helpful to the subcommittee in its deliberations over FY 1996 funding.

NSF Director Neal Lane testified this was a “golden age of discovery,” citing two major physics discoveries last year. Yet, he continued, “Paradoxically, we are entering this era at a time when federal resources for investments in research and education in science and engineering are stretched to the limit.” Lane described difficulties created for the foundation by continuing uncertainty over its FY 1996 budget. (Short term funding expires Friday, and although the House passed an omnibus appropriations bill last week, the Senate has yet to act. The Clinton Administration is waving the veto flag again because this new legislation falls short of its requirements.)

Two subcommittee members described different experiences with the science community. Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) said many scientists had visited his Washington office in support of science funding, a sentiment echoed at his 11th District town hall meetings. He added, however, “A lot of my constituency does not recognize what the NSF is doing,” to which Lane admitted, “NSF is not a household word.” Rep. David Hobson, an Ohio Republican (7th District with local offices in Springfield and Lancaster) remarked that no one had visited him about science funding. (See FYI #30 for a roster of the twelve subcommittee members, and FYIs #10 and #11 for guidance on communicating with Congress.)

Questioning touched on U.S. federal and private investment in science and technology, allocation of federal research dollars, an NSF supercomputer center initiative, the merit review process, the integration of research and education, cuts in other federal science programs and the resulting impact on NSF, the foundation’s fleet of research vessels, and the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WVA) sent a clear signal through pointed questions to NSF officials that he is a strong defender of the EPSCoR program.

Rep. James Walsh (R-NY) raised a cautionary note, saying the impasse over cuts in entitlement programs increases pressure on appropriators to reduce discretionary spending. This includes, he said, spending for research programs at NSF, NIH, and similar agencies.

NSF’s next scheduled appearance before the subcommittee is May 2, when it discusses its FY 1997 budget request.