NSF and OSTP Testify at Senate Appropriations Hearing

At an April 22 hearing of the Senate VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, Chairman Christopher Bond (R-MO) started by declaring that “R&D are good investments,” but ended saying that he needed concrete evidence from NSF to prove to his colleagues and constituents that they are “getting something for the money.”

Bond, and Ranking Minority Member Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), are clearly supportive of NSF, but both posed some tough questions during this 90-minute hearing. Bond opened by warning that this is a “very difficult year” for the subcommittee because of natural disasters requiring federal intervention, and veterans and housing needs. He said it was premature to discuss specific budgets since the subcommittee has not received its allocation.

Mikulski’s remarks centered on a topic she championed when she chaired the subcommittee: how basic research can provide “new opportunities for economic growth.” Mikulski said this was not strategic planning, but an effort to avoid the “valley of death” between basic research and commercialization.

John H. Gibbons, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, testified that the “acrimonious” debate about the role of the federal government in R&D was “behind us,” citing a renewed spirit of bipartisanism on Capitol Hill. Gibbons said he would favor increasing the science and technology budget above that requested, but quickly added that this would be difficult to do given the need to balance the federal budget. Alternatives to a larger budget are increasing productivity, strengthening the national innovation system, and striving for better accountability. Efforts should center on holding on to the current level of “purchasing power,” providing a reasonably stable R&D budget environment.

Mikulski’s first set of questions to Gibbons were about the space station. She feels that the space station coalition is “a bit vulnerable,” adding “I am very concerned about the future of the station,” warning that Senate support “could move to a danger zone very quickly.”

Bond asked NSF Director Neal Lane why there was not specific identification in the FY 1998 budget request of NSF’s strategic investment areas like that favored by Mikulski. Lane responded that NSF continues to invest in these areas as part of its daily activities, citing biotechnology and materials, and its new Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence initiative. Bond replied that the subcommittee needed to better understand what the foundation is doing, and the progress is making, so that they could, in turn, explain the foundation’s work to other senators. The chairman wants NSF to use a common framework to explain its goals and its annual progress toward meeting them to determine if “we are getting these results.”

Gibbons replied that it is difficult to measure progress in basic research, with Lane adding that “we are working...very hard” to implement the Government Performance and Results Act that requires an assessment. Bond renewed his call for performance milestones from the foundation, saying “there’s got to be some kind of measure” if support for NSF is to continue.

Action on the NSF budget now moves behind closed doors. The House VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee will mark up its bill first, with a target date for all 13 appropriations bills to be acted on by the House by July 4. One senior staffer has indicated that they are waiting for an overall budget deal to be struck, adding that it will be a very long year -- the word on Capitol Hill being not to make any Christmas plans.