Restructuring appropriations: a net plus for science

Abstract

In an unusual but not unheard of move, the 109th Congress got off to an exciting start this February, when House Appropriations chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) reorganized his committee – by reducing the number of subcommittees from 13 to 10. The eliminated subcommittee of most concern to science was the old Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs/Housing and Urban Development (VA/HUD). The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) were moved into a newly revamped subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and Commerce. Meanwhile, after some grumbling, Senate appropriations chair Thad Cochran (R-MS) made a few changes in his committee structure, although the changes do not parallel the House reorganization. They did eliminate the Senate's VA/HUD subcommittee, and shuffled jurisdiction of a few other agencies to consolidate similar programs under one roof. NSF and NASA moved into a newly reconstituted subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science. However, the total number of subcommittees remains at 12 in the Senate, unlike the 10 remaining in the House. It is important to have some historical perspective about such reorganizations. This is not the first reorganization of the appropriations committees, nor will it be the last. In fact, since 1920, the committees have been reorganized 15 times – on average, every 5 or 6 years. The most recent reorganization prior to this one occurred in 2003, when the Homeland Security subcommittee was created and the Treasury and Transportation subcommittees merged, keeping the number of subcommittees at 13. There is also nothing magical about the number 13 – the number of subcommittees has fluctuated between 9 and 15 for most of the past century. In fact, one could argue that Congress was overdue for such a shakeup. Prior to the 2003 change, the last one occurred in the mid-1960s, almost 40 years ago. So, what are congress-watchers to make of all this? Is it merely an example of “inside-the-beltway” machinations, with little relevance to what goes on in science? I don't think so. In fact, the change will probably end up being a net plus for science funding in general, and the NSF in particular. First, the VA/HUD bill was always one of the most contentious appropriations bills. There were frequent fights over funding levels for many of its programs; while NSF and other science agencies weren't usually the cause of the friction, they suffered just as much from delay as the programs that caused all the trouble. Thus, getting NSF into another subcommittee's jurisdiction is probably good for its long-term funding outlook. While nobody is predicting the reorganization will bring about an immediate influx of new money, a less contentious legislative environment should begin to reduce delays in getting NSF funded each year. Second, the VA/HUD bill was a hodge-podge of competing interests. That NSF no longer has to compete for funding with veterans and housing, not to mention other independent agencies, should also work to the agency's benefit. Of course, NSF and NASA will continue to compete for science funding in their new homes, but NASA was in the VA/HUD subcommittee with NSF prior to the reorganization, so the fact that they will continue to compete doesn't really change anything – eliminating stiff competition for resources from housing and veterans will. Another argument against the change is that before February 2005, the House and Senate appropriations committees had identical subcommittee structures, funding the same programs under the same subcommittees in both houses. Now that the structures are different, there is a fear that this will impede quick resolution of funding differences, and make conference committee work more difficult, thus slowing down the appropriations process. However, the VA/HUD and certain other appropriations bills were consistently held up under the old structure, often for months into the following fiscal year, so it is hard to see how the new structure will make the delays any worse. Former Science Committee chairman Bob Walker, writing in Roll Call recently to support the reorganization, observed that “…it is imperative that space, science, and technology remain at the forefront of our national priorities. In fact, we should be demanding that our nation's institutions change to meet the needs of the era in which we live”. I share Mr. Walker's admittedly optimistic view on the benefits of the reorganization, and believe that NSF – and thus science – will be at least a little better off under the new structure than under the old one. Many of us will be watching carefully to see if this assessment holds true. Peter Farnham Public Affairs Officer, American Society for Biochemistry & Molecular Biology