House Science Subcommittee Supports 10% Increase for NSF
“The proposed budget increases for scientific research rely too heavily on tobacco ‘smoke and mirrors. '" --Rep. Pickering, Acting Chair, House Basic Research Subcommittee
In an April 22 hearing, the House Science Subcommittee on Basic Research, the authorizing subcommittee for NSF, indicated its support for the Foundation’s requested 10.0 percent budget increase for FY 1999 and its skepticism about the source of those additional funds. NSF Director Neal Lane was pressed about alternative funding plans, and also about how the Foundation sets its priorities.
Wielding the gavel was Rep. Charles “Chip” Pickering (R-MS), who is serving as acting chairman after the death of Steven Schiff (R-NM) Referring to Lane’s nomination to replace John Gibbons as Science Advisor to the President and head of OSTP, Pickering noted, “Today will be Dr. Lane’s last appearance before our Subcommittee as Director of the National Science Foundation.” But, he added, “this Subcommittee has jurisdiction over OSTP, so we are not necessarily saying good bye’.... [Y]our promotion to an office that deals with much broader issues than those you dealt with at NSF means that next time you testify before us, you will be responsible for answering even more of our questions.” Cognizant of the political difficulties inherent in Lane’s future position, Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) offered “my gratitude for what you’ve done [as NSF director] and my sympathy for what you’re about to encounter.”
President Clinton’s FY 1999 request for NSF is $3,773 million, an increase of $344 million, or 10.0 percent, above FY 1998 funding. According to Pickering, the full Science Committee “supported this request.” Ehlers commented that the request “adequately handles the needs of NSF...for the first time” in his years in Congress.
However, the FY 1999 request places the budgets for NSF and other civilian R&D activities within a Research Fund for America. The proposed increase for programs within the Fund, Pickering said, “depends primarily upon a tobacco settlement as the key source of additional monies for research and development. A very important question that comes to my mind is,” he continued, “what is the Administration’s alternative plan for increasing R&D if a tobacco settlement does not materialize?” Lane avoided answering directly, instead saying that if R&D did not receive the proposed increases, it would result in less investment in the future and “less payoff down the road.” Prodded for further details, Lane professed he was “scratching my head.” He thought it made sense “to associate the revenues [from a tobacco deal] with research.” Although the immediate connection was to health research was obvious, he said, advancements in medical fields require a knowledge base in many disciplines. “If the revenues are not there,” he asserted, “they will come from someplace else in the budget.” Lane promised that if confirmed as OSTP director, he would work hard with Congress on this issue.
Subcommittee members also inquired about NSF’s process for setting funding priorities. The approach is “pretty well established,” Lane reported; each year he questions the Foundation’s assistant directors about their highest priorities. “Then I look for themes that run across many fields of science and engineering...where a little extra investment can pay off in many areas.” This, he explained, is how NSF arrived at its current cross-cutting themes: Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence, Life and Earth’s Environment, and Educating for the Future. Lane acknowledged that this way, “I don’t have to answer the question...is chemistry more important than biology.” Within each discipline, priorities are set by the peer review process. Pickering said he was “pleasantly surprised” over how small a role politics played in NSF priority-setting.
Additional discussion touched on NSF efforts in K-12 and undergraduate education, and research infrastructure. Asked about the Foundation’s funding history, Lane said that although the 10 percent increase would roughly make up for the amount NSF lost ground to inflation over the past few years, there is debate about whether the rate of inflation is an appropriate measure for research activities and instrumentation. The decaying research infrastructure at universities, he said, represents a serious problem that is “going to need to be addressed.”
It was reported that an NSF authorization bill might soon reach the Senate floor. The Senate bill (S. 1046) would authorize $3,636 million for NSF. The House passed its own multi-year NSF authorization bill last year (H.R. 1273), which approved $3,614 million for NSF in FY 1999. Both authorization amounts are lower than the budget request of $3,773 million. Pickering did not indicate whether the subcommittee plans to draft a new bill with increased funding, or whether the House and Senate plan to meet in conference on the current versions. He made it clear, though, that there was “great support on the Committee for the 10 percent increase.” “I assure you,” he declared, “we will do our best to make certain you have adequate funds,” regardless of the outcome of a tobacco agreement.
