[IP] . Could Appropriations Reorganization Help U.S . Science?

["David Farber" <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>]

_______________ Forward Header _______________
Subject:        Could Appropriations Reorganization Help U.S. Science?
Author: Peter Harsha <harsha@xxxxxxx>
Date:           14th December 2004 1:31:25 pm

Hi Dave,

For IP, if you're interested -- from my post at CRA's blog: 
http://www.cra.org/govaffairs/blog/archives/000205.html

-Peter

Could An Appropriations Reorganization Help U.S. Science?

As the FY 05 appropriations process demonstrated, the current 
organization of congressional appropriations subcommittees (and thus, 
appropriations bills) is a mess that puts science agencies at a 
disadvantage in the competition for federal dollars. The current 
structure is a mish-mash of jurisdictions that forces agencies that 
have little or nothing to do with each other to compete for the limited 
funds within each bill -- one bill pits the National Science Foundation 
and NASA against the Veteran's Administration and federal housing 
programs, for example, and in another, it's NIST and NOAA against the 
State Department. More often than not, in that competition the science 
agencies get the short end of the stick.

But there's an interesting proposal floating around DC to recast the 
appropriations panels to make their jurisdictions more sensible. 
Normally, a proposal to realign something as significant as the 13 
appropriations committees would be dead on arrival -- especially a 
proposal like this one, which would reduce the number of subcommittees, 
and therefore subcommittee chairmen (called "cardinals" in deference to 
their power), from 13 to 10. But this one is being floated by the most 
powerful man in the House (and probably Congress), House Majority 
Leader Tom Delay (R-TX), and has the backing of the House GOP 
leadership.

Delay's motive in proposing the reorganization is apparently to realign 
the committees to represent GOP and Democratic themes, according to 
CQ's (sub. req'd) Andrew Taylor. So, there'd be a "Regulatory Agencies" 
subcommittee that would include agencies like OSHA, another that would 
combine all of the funding for Congress, the White House, and the 
Judicial branch, and another for traditionally Democratic priorities 
like public housing. In the few news reports I've seen on the proposal, 
there hasn't been any mention of a subcommittee combining all the 
non-defense agencies for science. But a subcommittee comprised of the 
civilian science agencies seems like a logical part of any 
reorganization -- and indeed, the rumors circulating around town 
suggest it is.

I haven't seen the proposal, but I think it would be reasonable to 
assume that a "Science" subcommittee would have to include 
appropriations for NIH, NSF, DOE Science, NASA, NIST, and NOAA -- 
basically all the major non-defense agencies involved in research. 
Obviously, a reorganization of that magnitude would change the dynamics 
of the appropriations process for science. I've been doing some 
thinking about whether it would be a positive or negative change. I'm 
coming to the conclusion that it would probably be positive 
overall...but I'm open to feedback from a different perspective. (Some 
of this may seem "inside baseball," but I think it's important.)

I think the first change is that the annual 302(b) budget allocation -- 
the divvying up of the funds authorized by the annual Congressional 
Budget Resolution (CBR) into spending limits for each appropriations 
bill -- would become much more meaningful for the scientific community. 
In the current system, we advocate for science in the CBR, but it's a 
little disconnected from the 302(b) process. We advocate for the 
highest possible "Function 250" line -- the "General Science, Space and 
Technology" line in the CBR -- but that doesn't obviously translate 
into increased funding for any of the appropriations bills we care 
about because that function is an aggregate that gets split among a 
whole bunch of different appropriations bills. We could advocate for 
the highest possible 302(b) allocation for specific approps bills, like 
the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriation, which includes NSF and 
NASA funding, but there's no guarantee that any of that increased 
funding will go towards the science agencies in that bill.

With an Appropriations Subcommittee for Science there would be a 
corresponding 302(b) allocation for "Science." If we're looking to draw 
a bright line for science in the budget process, that's about as bright 
as it gets. There would be no doubt whether Congress was supportive of 
science in any particular year -- a look at the 302(b) allocation would 
tell you.

Drafting the Science Appropriations Bill each year would also be an 
interesting exercise. With essentially all of the civilian research 
agencies represented under one subcommittee's jurisdiction, there would 
be few hurdles to overcome to address issues of balance in the federal 
research portfolio, for example. Federal gov't focused too heavily on 
the life sciences? The committee would have the authority to reprogram 
money from NIH to NSF or DOE Science. Too much applied research and not 
enough basic? Reprogram NIST ATP money to NSF. Can't do that under the 
current arrangement. There may also be efficiencies that result from 
having everything in one place. Coordinating research activities across 
research agencies may be easier when agencies can't hide behind the 
stovepipes of different appropriations committees.

Of course, the appropriators could just as easily reverse the situation 
under this scenario -- reprogram NSF funds to NIST ATP to bolster 
applied research, NSF to NIH to bolster life sciences. But it seems to 
me that, in general, we'd be well-positioned in those debates. Under 
the current committee structure, those debates are essentially 
impossible.

So, I think it'd be a net positive for us and for science generally. 
But I'm open to arguments in opposition.

Assuming this reorganization is a good idea, the next question is what 
we in the science community can do to help it go forward. Politically, 
the odds are against reorganization, even with Delay and the House GOP 
Leadership strongly in favor. If it were up to the House alone, it 
would probably be a done deal. Delay has ensured himself significant 
political capital by delivering an increased majority to the GOP in the 
House via his almost single-handed redistricting push in Texas. In 
addition, there will be a new Chairman of the House Appropriations 
Committee in the 109th Congress, and the House leadership will play the 
primary role in deciding who that will be (it's looking like Ralph 
Regula (R-OH)), so they'll have considerable leverage in guaranteeing 
support for their proposal.

The real hurdle is the Senate. As a practical matter, any 
reorganization of the House Approps Committee will have to be mirrored 
in the Senate Approps Committee -- otherwise, conferencing the various 
appropriations bills will be chaos. The Senate will also have a new 
Appropriations Chair, Thad Cochran (R-MS), who has expressed opposition 
to the proposal. (In particular, he doesn't like the idea that it would 
eliminate the Agriculture Subcommittee, which he chaired). The 
opposition might not be unanimous across the Senate -- CQ says the 
Senate leadership apparently isn't "dismissive" of the idea -- but it's 
a long shot. I think if the science community does decide to weigh in 
in support of the proposal, focusing our efforts on the Senate -- 
Cochran in particular -- would be the best approach.

But even if the proposal doesn't have a great chance of going forward, 
I think it's beneficial for Congress to have the reorganization 
debate...especially if an element of that debate is the potential 
benefit to U.S. science a reorganization might bring.


--
Peter Harsha
Director of Government Affairs
Computing Research Association
1100 17th St. NW, Suite 507
Washington, DC 20036
p: 202.234.2111 ext 106
c: 202.256.8271
CRA's Computing Research Policy Blog: http://www.cra.org/govaffairs/blog


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/