NSF read it and weep -- better yet speak up!!!!!

[Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

From:
Joel Widder
jwidder () nsf gov
Acting Director, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs
National Science Foundation




This update is designed to provide you with a summary of the recent
events in the Congressional budget process that relate to NSF, some
personal observations about what it means for the Foundation, and a
bit about where things may be going.


By now many people have head that at the NSF appropriations hearings
before the House VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee, NSF
was asked to ponder the implications of a 20% reduction.  What should
we make of that challenge issued by  Subcommittee Chairman Jerry
Lewis?  I suggest that we need to appreciate that the President's FY
1996 request for all of the agencies and programs covered by the VA,
HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee is higher
than FY 1995.  Chairman Lewis is convinced that his subcommittee's
allocation will be lower -- not higher -- than last year.  How much
lower is hard to say and lots of estimates are floating around.  I
believe the message in Chairman Lewis' question is that he will be
severely constrained, every program (including science) will be
vulnerable, and he is driving this message home in similar ways to all
the agencies and their related constituencies that come before his
subcommittee.


Second, the House passed and sent to the Senate the FY 1995
rescissions bill.  The bill contains over $17 billion worth of
rescissions -- with housing and education programs talking some of the
biggest reductions.  For NSF, the $132 million rescission, which NSF
in fact proposed, was included in the House passed bill.  It is worth
noting that a number of amendments were offered during the House's
debate on the bill.  The rule governing these amendments said that for
any amendment to restore funds to a particular program, offsetting
cuts would have to be found, and they could only come from programs
within the same appropriations subcommittee.  Therefore if one wanted
to restore funding for veterans' programs, the offsetting reductions
would have to come only from housing or environmental programs, or the
space program or NSF or any one of the other agencies or accounts in
the VA HUD Subcommittee's jurisdiction.


During the floor debate, an amendment was offered to restore some $200
million in funding for veterans' medical care activities.  The
offsets, originally proposed as coming from NASA, ultimately came from
further reductions in the national service program.  If there is any
good news in all of this, it is that none of the amendments which were
offered to restore funds to some activity, proposed to offset that
restoration with reductions in NSF.  This might be seen for NSF
supporters as dodging a bullet successfully -- albeit temporarily.
This rescission bill now goes over to the Senate where we expect the
appropriations subcommittees to begin marking up their versions of the
rescission bill later this week.


But the bullets to be dodged didn't end with the rescission bill.
Last week the House Budget Committee began its process of trying to
cut discretionary spending as part of its overall plan to move towards
a balanced budget by the year 2002.  The first step began with their
mark up of a bill to lower the discretionary spending caps now in law
and to extend them to the year 2000.  Based on information released by
the Budget Committee, the discretionary spending levels they are
recommending would reduce spending by $100 billion over the next five
years.  At the same time, the House Budget Committee released a list
of suggested programs or activities that could be reduced or
eliminated to achieve the $100 billion reduction.  The House Budget
Committee was clear that its list was for illustrative purposes only
and that specific funding decisions needed to reach the $100 billion
reduction would be up to the authorizing and appropriations
committees.  However, it is hard to imagine that the list they
developed was done in total isolation from the committees with
jurisdiction for the programs mentioned.


Some of the items on the list of suggested cuts include:  energy
supply research and development; NIH reduced by 5%, NOAA to be
restructured to save $1.185 billion over 5 years; re-evaluate NASA's
mission to planet earth to save $326 million; adopt President's
management reforms for the NASA's human space flight and science --
aeronautics and technology; reduce some $723 million from the GOALS
2000 programs at the Education Department; dissolve the Interior
Department's National Biological Survey; eliminate HUD's policy
development and research; eliminate EPA's environmental technology
initiative; and so on.  NSF may have temporarily dodged another bullet
since we are not included on this list -- and Rep Bob Walker's
presence on the House Budget Committee as Vice Chairman probably had
something to do with that outcome.  However, this is only the first
phase in the FY96 budget process.  When the Budget Committee goes to
draft the budget resolution later this spring, they will probably have
to recommend even more cuts as they try to put out a multi-year budget
designed to be balanced by 2002.


Finally, I believe that our authorization process in the House will
slowed until the budget resolution process gets further along.  Some
are now speculating that the budget resolution process may be used to
further the objectives of some in the Congress to eliminate a number
of departments such as energy, commerce, housing, and education.
There are a number of House freshman at work on major
reorganization/elimination proposals.  In addition, the Senate
Majority Leader, Senator Robert Dole (R-KS), has announced that he
will be working on legislation to eliminate four cabinet level
departments -- including housing, energy, commerce, and education.


The announcement by Senator Dole has changed the dynamics, heightened
Congressional interest in this issue, and added prominence to Rep Bob
Walker's proposal for a department of science.  The department of
science proposal is seen by some as place to transfer the remaining
functions that are left after the demise of these cabinet level
departments.


In assessing the situation thus far, I would say NSF has weathered a
couple of storms fairly well so far.  However, the budget environment
will continue to be grim and, in that context, the proposals for
elimination of certain cabinet departments will almost certainly
re-energize the department of science proposals.  It goes without
saying that all of this will continue to have significant impacts and
implications for NSF in the weeks and months ahead.


Joel Widder
jwidder () nsf gov
Acting Director, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs
National Science Foundation