Research funding and the new Congress

By Fred W. Weingarten
CRA Staff

News Analysis

Three months after the momentous congressional elections of last November, the computing research community is still trying to assess the implications of the political change for federal research funding. What will be the effect of a Republican Congress on research funding in general, particularly in the computing fields?

Pessimist's view

Pessimists found a lot to be concerned about. They noticed, for example, that when the now famous "Contract With America" was released, it was accompanied by a table listing several possible budget cuts.

The table proposed several cuts in R&D support. It recommended eliminating the Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and the Defense Department's Technology Reinvestment Program (TRP), two cornerstones of the administration's Technology Policy.

It also proposed cutting $1.25 billion over five years from the High-Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) program and a relatively small cut in the growth rate in funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF).

The table was not officially part of the contract. It was created on short notice by Republican budget committee staff members to serve as proof that sufficient cuts could be made to achieve the goals of the contract. (The exact phrase used in the header was "examples of possible offsets.")

Nonetheless, as the contract rose to post-election prominence, particularly in the House, so did attention to the accompanying numbers and concern that they would be a convenient starting place for budget cutters.

On December 5 another event occurred that raised more alarm. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and John Warner (R-VA), members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, sent a letter to the administration expressing concern about declining military preparedness. The senators suggested a reallocation of funds this year, including the elimination of ATP, TRP and $1.5 billion for medical and university research.

The letter, sent while memories of last year's attacks on defense research appropriations were still fresh in the minds of the university research community, created an ominous picture for the community. Academic computing research depends on DOD for about 50% of its support.

Furthermore, stories persist in the press that Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) may step down as chair of the Armed Services Committee (although Republican leadership denies it). Warner is next in line to chair the committee. His views count. Some think that the letter was simply a tactic to get the attention of the administration and does not reflect his true priorities.

Optimist's view

Optimists, while not expecting meaningful increases in research funding, do not foresee an assault from the new Congress. Republicans, even the "government minimalists," always have supported research as a legitimate and important federal responsibility. And support for agencies such as NSF, ARPA and the National Institutes of Health has always been bipartisan.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich and some of his colleagues seem particularly taken with technology, particularly information technology. Gingrich talks about the Internet and the new information society. He hangs around with and constantly cites futurists such as Alvin Toffler and George Gilder. Republicans have learned quite well, probably better than the Democrats, how to harness the power of modern communications and computer technology for political organization and action. (He has even suggested that the government should buy laptops for the poor.)

It remains to be seen whether this enthusiasm will translate into support for basic computing research or programs such as HPCC, which, after all, created the Internet as it is today. But the chair of the House Science Committee is Robert Walker (R-PA), a self-styled "technobuff" and, reputedly, a member of Gingrich's inner circle.

Unfortunately, glowering behind these happy assessments of political support for research is the ugly reality that, regardless of the popularity of science, the fiscal cupboard is bare.

The biggest impact of the revolution on research funding will likely be due to an issue that has nothing to do with science--the race to cut taxes and the deficit, which will tighten the screws even further. Given the inherent limitations on the ability of government to control expenditures, research inevitably stands exposed as an inviting target.

Key issues

We most likely will begin to get answers to two key questions later this spring, through congressional action.

1) How will overall R&D funding levels survive the budget cutting pressures?

2) Will a Republican Congress redraw the line on the continuum between fundamental research and industrially focused programs such as ATP?

The answers cannot be predicted yet, but they are likely to be mixed. That is, each question will be addressed in a different congressional arena. The debate and outcomes could differ markedly for different agencies.

For instance, decisions about overall R&D funding largely will come from debates in the House and Senate budget and appropriations committees. Will Gingrich or Walker have any influence over those decisions (or will they even choose to expend precious political capital by exerting influence)?

Traditionally, these committees jealously guard their prerogatives and are extremely independent. Some reports already have two major House committees--Budget and Appropriations--struggling over turf, an old fight that seems immune to a change in party control.

Decisions about research agency priorities will be more diffused throughout Congress, influenced by authorization, appropriations and even budget committees. The decisions also will be more diverse, differing agency by agency. Because agency missions differ, agencies face different budgetary and political pressures, and different oversight committees have different views. Some examples:

* NSF may feel pressure to move back from strategic to fundamental research. However, that shift, if it occurs, may be more rhetorical than real, because the word "strategic" did not necessarily mean "applied." Rather, it meant that some proportion of funding would be prioritized and directed to areas according to presumed social benefits.

As the first hearings of Walker's House Science Committee showed, most members of Congress, regardless of party, still expect social and economic benefits. For Republicans, too, federal support for research is not an exercise in philanthropy. Walker's comments have been ambiguous, asserting on the one hand the need for NSF to concentrate on basic science, yet on the other hand extolling the need to realize the social and economic benefits of research.

• As the Warner/McCain letter and last year's appropriations battle show, DOD faces pressures to back away from support of long-term academic research. At the same time, shorter-term, industry-related programs such as ATP are headed for the chopping block. Weapons development and force modernization are the new hot buttons. (Some Republicans are even talking about resurrecting the Strategic Defense Initiative.) But, if basic and industrial research programs are eliminated, where will all this new weapons technology come from?
• The Energy Department, when not fighting for its very existence, will face yet another debate about the future and direction of its national laboratories. An important new study recommended that the labs focus more on basic research and less on industry-related research.

Most depressing is that all these struggles are nothing more than holding actions, trying to delay or slow the steady erosion of federal support for research. The pressures driving the erosion are not confined to one party or another and are not due to any single event.

George E. Brown Jr., former chair and now ranking minority member of the House Science Committee, after reviewing the administration's fiscal 1996 budget, summed it up as follows:

"The outlook for science and technology programs remains grim, as tight budget caps, deficit reduction and the proposed $56 billion middle-class tax cut will continue to squeeze funding for worthwhile science programs. I am very concerned about the direction of the president's budget, but I am afraid that the situation will only get worse after the new Congress gets through with it."