AIP FYI #36: Tough Appropriations Hearing for OSTP and NSF Budget Request

The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 36: March 22, 2005

Tough Appropriations Hearing for OSTP and NSF Budget Request

The March 11 appropriations hearing on the FY 2006 budget requests
for the National Science Foundation and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy did not follow the customary path. A major change
in the appropriations subcommittee structure and a shift in tenor
marked this hearing of the newly established Science, State,
Justice, and Commerce and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the House
Appropriations Committee.

Rep. James Walsh (R-NY) and Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO) no
longer chair the two appropriations subcommittees having
jurisdiction over the National Science Foundation, NASA, and the
Office of Science and Technology Policy. In a move that most view
as favorable for science, the House and Senate slimmed their
appropriations subcommittee structure and eliminated the VA, HUD,
and Independent Agencies Subcommittees. The new Senate subcommittee
is named the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations
Subcommittee, and is chaired by Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) with
the Ranking Minority Member remaining as Senator Barbara Mikulski
(D-MD). Further information about this subcommittee can be found at
http://appropriations.senate.gov/

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) is the chairman of the new House
subcommittee. Wolf chaired the former approptiations subcommittee,
represents constituents in the Washington, D.C. suburbs and to the
west, and was first elected to Congress in 1981. Additional
information on Chairman Wolf can be found at
http://www.house.gov/wolf/ The Democrats’ Ranking Member on the
subcommittee is Alan Mollohan (D-WV), who held the same title on the
VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee. For information on
this subcommittee, see http://appropriations.house.gov/

Wolf opened this important hearing by speaking of the “enormous
challenge” his subcommittee faces in this year’s budget
environment. He quickly added that because of his concerns about
the nation’s S&T status in the world he would “like to do something
very dramatic” in the subcommittee relative to physics, mathematics,
and other fields. “We are dropping dramatically” he said, referring
to increased competition in S&T from countries such as those in
Eastern Europe. “I’m worried . . . we want our country to be
strong,” he said. Wolf lauded a recommendation in a book by former
House Speaker Newt Gingrich that college loans for students studying
math, science and engineering be forgiven. Wolf sees the upcoming
appropriations bill his subcommittee will write as an opportunity
“to dramatically turn this [U.S. slippage in S&T] around.”

It has become fairly common for the OSTP director, NSF director, and
National Science Board chairman to appear jointly at these annual
appropriations hearings. Usually the OSTP director makes a short
opening statement, and is asked a few relatively low-key questions.
These hearings usually focus on the NSF request.

This hearing was following a fairly predictable course until OSTP
Director John Marburger Marburger started explaining the S&T budget
request, and explained that the Administration did not include
earmarked funds. It was around the point when Marburger said
“Earmarks are not consistent with using funds most efficiently to
target agency missions or to support the best research,” that Wolf
interrupted. With emotion, Wolf said he thought there was “a degree
of arrogance” in what seemed to be the assertion that Congress
should not make funding decisions. The atmosphere in the hearing
room shifted noticeably in tenor. Wolf repeated his concern about
the international position of U.S. S&T, called the NSF request a
“mixed bag . . . no overall theme jumps out,” and noted that the
proposed budget includes no new starts. He also asked about an
article appearing in that day’s Washington Post that discussed the
possible downsizing of NASA’s workforce.

Mollohan asked pointed questions about the redirection of many of
NASA’s programs to return to the moon, with a possible later manned
expedition to Mars. Somewhat unexpectedly for an appropriator, as
Mollohan himself admitted, was his statement to Marburger that the
Administration needed to send a NASA reauthorization bill to
Congress to accomplish this redirection. Mollohan questioned NASA’s
estimate of the cost of carrying out the lunar/Mars missions, saying
“everyone says you can’t do it.” Later in the hearing, Mollohan
shifted his emphasis, wanting to know the foundation’s request to
the Office of Management and Budget in its initial submission last
year. When Mollohan asked Ray Bowen of National Science Board what
the foundation would do with additional funding, Bowen listed three
priorities: the Education and Human Resources Directorate,
backlogged facilities, and costs associated with the proposed
transfer of the Coast Guard’s icebreakers now used for polar
research support.

Next to speak was John Culberson (R-TX) who began by telling
Marburger “You are among friends here.” He said he shared his
chairman’s views on earmarking and quoted language from the
Constitution describing the power of Congress to appropriate money.
Culberson, a strong fiscal conservative, criticized the overall
level of NSF funding, telling Marburger that S&T spending is a
“national insurance policy,” and said “we have to pour it [S&T
funding] on.” He criticized the foundation’s proposed cut in
Education and Human Resources spending and asked, “how do you defend
it?” Marburger replied that “there is a logic here” in having the
Department of Education assume a larger role in math and science
education. Culberson disagreed and said he would work to restore
this money. Culberson characterized the foundation’s inability to
stay even with inflation as “deeply disturbing.” The congressman
took issue with the Administration’s plans to transfer the Coast
Guard’s icebreakers to the NSF, saying the $48 million that would be
shifted for the icebreakers to NSF “camouflages” the actual size of
the budget increase. There was also discussion about future costs
of maintaining the two ships that will need hundreds of millions of
dollars for renovation and repair in coming years, with Culberson
saying it would be “a real boat anchor around your neck.” Later in
the hearing, Mollohan also criticized the icebreaker transfer.

Rep. Robert E. “Bud” Cramer (D-AL) continued the line of questioning
and the tenor of the hearing. He repeated that NASA headquarters
was making a mistake by not seeking an authorization for the
large-scale changes in mission, saying to Marburger, “You can’t come
over here and roll us.” Marburger replied that NASA was trying to
have a more transparent vision of its overall objectives, said the
agency did not want to diminish its science role, but added that
tough choices had to be made in budgeting. Also critical was Chaka
Fattah (D-PA), who decried the relatively few minority students
studying science, mathematics, and engineering.

Wolf then described the importance of his education to his success
in life, and repeated that his objective was to do something in this
area that was broadly-based. The chairman asked NSF Director Arden
Bement a series of questions about the proposed 12% reduction in the
foundation’s Education and Human Resources budget. The chairman
wanted to know how many teachers would be served after some of the
foundation’s money was shifted to the Department of Education in the
new fiscal year, as compared to this year. Bement said he would
provide the numbers for the record. Bement explained that the
foundation was able to reach only a limited number of school
districts through its programs. The reach of the Department of
Education would be greater, he said.

During a later line of questioning, Culberson called the
foundation’s grant success rate “appalling and disturbing.”
Earlier, in response to questions from Wolf, Bement described the
“enormous strain” of arranging 250,000 peer reviews for the 43,000
proposals the foundation receives each year. He also described the
many proposals that were left on the table for lack of adequate
funding (see the Coalition for National Science Funding’s FY 2006
statement for additional numbers regarding unfunded proposals at
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/034.html .) Bement told Wolf that a
way had to be found to reverse this situation. Culberson said NSF
funding increases should be much closer to the 15% that the NSF
reauthorization act sets as an annual target.

It was very evident that the Members of the new House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice and Commerce have keen
interest in the Administration’s science budget. Strong words of
support were given about the importance of science to the country,
and the vital role that the National Science Foundation plays in the
nation’s science enterprise. Members clearly had great concerns
about reducing the foundation’s budget for Education and Human
Resources, and had tough questions about the redirection of NASA’s
programs. So there is clearly a “will” by Chairman Wolf and his
Republican and Democratic colleagues to increase funding for science
and technology in general, and specifically, for the National
Science Foundation. Now a “way” has to be found to accomplish that,
and as Chairman Wolf said toward the end of this hearing, “money is
going to be very, very tight.”

Richard M. Jones

Media and Government Relations Division

The American Institute of Physics

fyi@aip.org

http://www.aip.org/gov

(301) 209-3094