From: rsherme@diamond.nswc.navy.mil (Russel Shermer (R43))
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: fyi #138:  Congressional Comment on NSF's Mandate
Keywords: congress, nsf, funding, mandate.
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:14:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: relay.1992Oct16.181403.893
Organization: NAVSWC DD White Oak Det.


Posted for:
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
Phone: (202) 332-9661
Email: fyi@aip.org

Congressional Comment on NSF's Mandate

FYI No. 138, October 15, 1992


There continues to be considerable discussion about the strategy
planning process at the National Science Foundation.  The National
Science Board Commission on the Future of NSF will hold its second
meeting tomorrow, to be later followed by advisory committee
meetings on physics and astronomy.

Although Congress has adjourned, the role which the appropriations
committees play in the process is vital.  An indication of the
likely direction which Senator Barbara Mikulski and Rep. Bob
Traxler, chairs of the VA, HUD, IA appropriations subcommittees,
will take can be seen in their remarks preceding the funding bill's
final passage.  Mikulski's statement is less direct than the
conference report language (see FYI #131).  Traxler sets a worried
Rep. George Brown at ease about the importance of the report's
language.

As Traxler states, the conference report language calling for a
redirection of NSF does not have the same force as law.  Traxler
acknowledges the importance of the NSF authorizing legislation.
Brown's science committee will be considering reauthorizing
legislation in the next Congress, and he is moving to preserve the
committee's jurisdiction over the agency's direction.

Yet, by two months from today the NSF must file its "current plan"
with the House and Senate Appropriations Committees detailing its
spending plan for fiscal year 1993.  Mikulski and Traxler have to
approve this plan, which could redirect NSF spending patterns
months before Congress even starts considering reauthorizing
legislation.

The remarks of Senator Mikulski and the colloquy between
Representatives Brown and Traxler follow, taken from the September
25 debate in both chambers:

SENATOR MIKULSKI:

"This bill also provides $2.734 billion in funding for the National
Science Foundation.  Despite the severe budget constraints, the
bill recommends an increase of $163 million, or 6 percent, for the
foundation.  This level would mean an overall increase of $810
million, or 42 percent, on the level of funding given to the NSF in
1989 when I became chair of this Appropriations Subcommittee.  Our
commitment to the nation's research base is strong and long-term.

"The foundation has been very successful during its 40 year history
in maintaining American leadership in basic research and in
providing the Nation with a rich resource of knowledge.  However,
we all recognize that America is not using that resource in an
effective manner.  Other nations which, quite frankly, have
inferior research bases, have captured much of the
high-technological markets of the world.  It is important to
recognize that the role of the Federal Government in support of
science will change in the new world order.

"A Commission on the Future of the National Science Foundation has
been recently formed to provide a clear and decisive vision of the
NSF's role in putting raw knowledge to work for the well being of
the nation.  This conference report provides the foundation a lot
of flexibility so that the NSF can incorporate the recommendations
of the Commission on the Future of the NSF into its 1993 operating
plan.  Congress, however, must make it clear that the weakness in
utilizing our rich resources of basic research need immediate and
strong attention."


REP. GEORGE BROWN AND REP. BOB TRAXLER:

REP. BROWN:  "Mr. Speaker, I wish to engage the distinguished
chairman of the Appropriation Subcommittee, Mr. Traxler, in a
colloquy regarding direction to the National Science Foundation
which is included in the Senate report accompanying H.R. 5679 and
in the conference report now before the House.

"Unlike the corresponding House report, the Senate report contains
an unprecedented amount of specific programmatic direction to NSF,
including an apparent modification of the Foundation's basic
charter.  I am pleased that the conference report does not endorse
the micromanagement provisions in the Senate report, but I am
disappointed that it appears to reinforce the Senate report
language regarding modification of the basic NSF mission.

"While some guidance may be appropriate in certain circumstances,
when carried to extremes it is counterproductive to the effective
management of an agency and intrudes on the functions of the
authorizing committees.

"I would like to ask the subcommittee chairman if he agrees that
program guidance provided to an agency in report language is just
that--guidance--and does not constitute a binding requirement.  And
more specifically, I would like the gentleman's affirmation that no
report language affecting NSF's mission may supersede the statutory
requirements of the NSF Act of 1950, which defines NSF's mission."

REP. TRAXLER.  "Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from
California that I agree that, while conference report language may
provide specific direction to an agency, it certainly cannot be
used to amend a statutory requirement of an authorization law."


Tomorrow's meeting of the commission may shed some additional light
on this matter.  Future FYIs will provide a summary of these and
other meetings.


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
(202) 332-9661
##END##########
Newsgroups: sci.research