GOVERNMENT
Senate unlikely to restore cut in NSF budget Chances are it will go along with House cut of 20% to $400 million as budget-slashing mood prevails in Congress Any relief from the 20% cut inflicted by the House on the National Science Foundation's budget for fiscal 1969 is now up to the Senate. But with Congress in a budget-slashing mood, the senior body is unlikely to apply even a Band-Aid to the wound. The Administration had asked Congress for $500 million to run NSF in the coming fiscal year, only $5 million more than the current allotment. The House, following exactly the recommendation of its Appropriations Committee, voted an appropriation of only $400 million. The vote on the Independent Offices Appropriations bill, of which NSF's money is a part, was 353 to 37. Chances are that the Senate will go right along with the House action. In the more fiscally relaxed past, the Senate would have restored all or most of the cut made by the House. In fact, NSF appropriations followed a regular pattern: The Administration proposed a sum, the House cut it, the Senate voted all or nearly all the money requested, and the resulting House-Senate conference split the difference. But things have been different since 1964. Now the Senate either votes the amount approved by the House or approves a token increase (usually $10 or $20 million). If there is a conference, the final figure is that approved earlier by the House. This year in opening floor debate on NSF's share of the appropriations bill, Rep. Joe L. Evins (D.-Tenn.), chairman of the pertinent appropriations subcommittee, said: "While this is a large reduction, it certainly does not indicate any lack of interest in science and research by our committee. The committee recognized the importance of the work of the National Science Foundation on a long-range basis, but we also recognize the necessity of setting immediate priorities in view of our stringent budgetary situation." There was no debate over the size of the cut made in NSF's appropriation. But there was a heated skirmish between Rep. Emilio Q. Daddario 38 C&EN MAY 20, 1968
(D.-Conn.) and Rep. Evins over how the cut should be made. The Appropriations Committee report "recognized the competence and dedication of the director of NSF and the National Science Board" and recommended that they make whatever cuts and changes that might be needed to fit the austerity budget. However, the bill says specifically "not less than $37.6 million shall be available for tuition grants and allowances in connection with a program of supplementary training for secondary school science and mathematics teachers." This section includes $21 million for summer institutes, $9 million for academic year institutes, and lesser sums for other programs. NSF had asked $40 million for the package. Rep. Daddario pointed out that the intensive investigation of NSF made by his Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development last year showed that there is no reason to give one program a higher priority over other NSF programs. He charged that if this program were to be protected, cuts would have to be made in other, newer programs. In his opinion, NSF should have the discretion to make the cuts wherever it sees fit. "Congress should have some say as to where the money is going to be spent," Rep. Ervin rebutted. He said that the Appropriations Committee was very much impressed with
the program of high school teacher training. "We think it is a great program and is a program that is working well," he added. "We want to make sure that it will not be undercut." He also noted that this particular restriction against cuts had been in the appropriations bill for many years. "The fact that the section has always been in the bill cuts no ice with me," Rep. Daddario said. "I would not believe that we would stand here with our feet in concrete and do not realize that from time to time things must change." He argued that the people who run NSF should have the flexibility and the authority to put things in their proper perspective. Rep. Daddario then introduced an amendment to strike out the offending section of the bill. In the debate that followed Rep. Charles R. Jonas (R.N.C.) claimed that the National Science Foundation, a dozen years ago, had been slow in getting this kind of training program started and that the program had been emphasized mainly because the Appropriations Committee insisted on it. And Rep. Edward P. Boland (D.Mass.) added, "I know that some of the programs really close to the hearts of the Congress are the programs that get cut when you give the departments flexibility." On this sour note the Daddario amendment was defeated by voice vote.
NSF no stranger to budget cuts (Millions of dollars)
600
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ _ . ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ _
B
H
B^^BB9 1 I I I
^ ^ n i 1 I I 1 I I SHE i i i i i I I •
n
i i i i i i i i i I
1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 Fiscal year * House
