Outlook for R&D funding unsure

By Fred W. Weingarten
CRA Staff

To the relief of most in the 104th Congress, including the Republicans and their staffs, the first 100 days of the first session have ground to a close. As promised, the House voted on and, in many cases, passed 10 major pieces of legislation, ranging from detailed reorganization of arcane congressional procedures to such sweeping changes as tax cuts and reform of the welfare system.

Celebrations by some Republican House members were countered by criticisms from outside spoilsports, including Republicans. The critics argued that the Senate had yet to act on most of the 10 items. And even if the more controversial ones were passed, they would likely do so only in a significantly modified form.

Some Republican senators reportedly were less than pleased at being thrust into the role of shock absorber and legislative filter, particularly because some of them were planning to announce or had already announced their candidacy for nomination to the presidency.

Cynics also pointed out that, in the rush to pass contract legislation, much of the regular business of the House had been put off.

Actually, House Republicans faced two major challenges during the first few months of this session. The first challenge was to meet the promises of the Contract With America. The second, and equally daunting, challenge was to organize themselves as a majority party. Republicans had to organize the House, invent operating procedures, establish a legislative agenda--beyond the contract--and allocate political leadership, particularly between the revolutionary incoming freshman class and old-timers who had served for many years as minority party leaders. Although most votes on the floor so far have displayed unanimity, stresses between these groups are likely to grow more serious over the year.

The freshman class has, by all reports, been remarkably cohesive and single-minded about the revolution they claim they were sent to Washington to carry out. The long-standing traditions of new members finding more senior mentors, keeping quiet for a while and learning the ropes have been ignored. Until now, budget and program cuts have focused on areas in which some reasonable consensus could be found. But friction with the more senior leadership will grow as Congress begins to vote on more favored programs or programs with stronger public support.

The freshmen claim they do not care about re-election and thus are ready to take an unpopular course of action. But widespread unpopularity could cost them their own seats, Republican control of Congress and a chance to win the presidency. It will be interesting to see how the rhetoric of revolution and the reality of political power shape internal politics in the House for the rest of this year.

The real evaluation of congressional performance will come from the voters in the next presidential election. From that more distant perspective, the 100-day contract could turn out to be far less significant than it looks now. But it does not seem too soon to ask whether we have learned anything about future prospects for federal research programs, particularly computing research.

Early this year, people in the computing research community expressed great concern about the prospects for funding in their field. Two basic questions were asked:

1) Would frequently expressed Republican hostility to programs that had a "technology policy" focus create opposition to long-term research efforts in areas such as the High-Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) program or, more broadly, all of computing research?

2) Would attacks on the budget deficit and promises to cut taxes result in unbearable pressures on research budgets, regardless of how popular the research programs were with Congress in general?

So far, the answer to both questions seems to be a qualified no.

As expected, industry-focused programs such as the Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program and the Defense Department's Technology Reinvestment Program experienced some cuts. But, at hearings held in both the House and Senate, some sympathetic comments were made by Republican legislators about both programs.

Long-term research has fared better. The threatened elimination of DOD university research budgets to pay for Defense modernization and peacekeeping mission costs has not occurred in the recision bills that have passed.

National Science Foundation program cuts were confined to facilities (bricks and mortar) programs, and key Republican leaders such as Bob Walker (R-PA) have turned out to be strong advocates of science. Several representatives and staff members have even made encouraging comments about the HPCC initiative.

However, indications for the future are less sanguine. Despite the popularity of science and the general sense in Congress that science is a legitimate function of the government, almost impossible budget pressures remain in executing the longer-term promises.

Still alive is the promise of the middle-class tax cut, with which even the administration has agreed to in principle, if not in detail. If the less enthusiastic Senate passes the cut into law, immediate recisions will have to be found to pay for it.

It promises to be a brutal year for appropriations. House Republicans, angered by the Senate's inability to pass a balanced budget amendment, will push the deficit on a steep downward slope--tax cut or no. House Republicans are talking about eliminating programs and entire agencies, such as the Energy Department. In that climate, even politicians who are friendly to science could wield a sharp ax.

Even the most optimistic predictions have NSF's budget shrinking substantially over the next few years. Furthermore, although the overall DOD budget may not shrink much more, a similar scenario may hold for Defense research funding as funds are diverted to such areas as readiness, modernization and pay raises.

The research community can take some comfort in surviving the first 100 days. The comfort is not that cuts were not made, but that they were not as deep as some had feared. That is not much solace to the science agencies. These first cuts will be followed by much more drastic attacks. It is not going to be business as usual for research support.