FYI
>From mlv.apa who-is-at email.apa.org Sun Mar 3 19:33:08 1996
Subject: FEB. FED NEWS PART I
X-mailer: Connect2-SMTP 4.00 MHS to SMTP Gateway
Status: R
February, 1996
IN THIS ISSUE:
NEW! Look for the Federation's home page at:
http://www.apa.org/federation/
PART I
1. THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET
The President has sent a twenty page "thematic overview" of the FY97
budget to Congress. As large segments of the Federal government have no
fiscal 1996 budget, this made the construction of a 1997 budget something
of a challenge. This situation has led the President to delay submission
of the multi-volume version until at least March 18.
2. NIH RECEIVES 5.7% FUNDING INCREASE FOR FY96
Thanks to the efforts of Rep. John Porter, (R-IL), Chairperson of the
appropriations committee that oversees the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), NIH has received a 5.7% funding increase for FY96. NIH is now
protected from another government shutdown until September 30, 1996.
3. NIH EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH DIRECTOR POSTS WEB PAGE NOTICE ABOUT DELAYS
Between Federal Government Shutdowns and all the snow in Washington, DC,
NIH was open only one day between December 15, 1995 and January 16, 1996.
Thanks to Dr. Wendy Baldwin and her "Shutdown, Blizzard and Budget
Updates," people knew exactly how the furloughs and snow were affecting
disbursement of grant funds and exactly what NIH was doing about it.
While approximately 4,000 grant awards were backlogged due to the
interruption of work at NIH, by February 14, 1996, 3,700 awards had been
issued.
4. NSF RECEIVES FUNDING THROUGH MARCH 15
Unlike NIH, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has no permanent
funding for FY96. A continuing resolution funds the agency until March
15. The combination of shutdowns and restrictive temporary spending
measures has set NSF seriously behind.
PART II
5. NSF SEARCHING FOR SUCCESSOR TO CORA MARRETT
Dr. Cora Marrett of the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic
Sciences at NSF, will be leaving her position in the summer of 1996. Her
position of Assistant Director for Social, Behavioral and Economic
Sciences at NSF is among the most crucial of federal positions for the
well-being of the social, behavioral and economic sciences. Do you know
the right person for this job? Read the letter from NSF Director Neal
Lane and NSF Deputy Director Anne C. Petersen and find out.
6. NSF SEEKS HUMAN COGNITION AND PERCEPTION PROGRAM MANAGER
For decades, Dr. Joe Young has been the Human Cognition and Perception
Program manager, as well as a good friend to the Federation. Dr. Young
will now be filling the new position of Information Director in the
Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate. His former grant
program is a mainstay of basic research in psychology--do you know who
would be a good successor to Dr. Young?
7. OERI PAYING OUT AS IF THERE IS A TOMORROW
Like NSF, the Department of Education's Office of Educational Research
and Improvement is only funded until March 15. Despite the fact that the
agency can only count on seven weeks of funding, the hard-working OERI
staff is announcing and reviewing grants with vigor. Read on for a list
of education R&D centers grants.
PART III
8. ACADEMY REPORT ON R&D FUNDING MET WITH APPROACH, AVOIDANCE
In 1994 when the Senate passed its version of the fiscal '95
appropriation bill for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education,
the report accompanying the bill requested that a study be done by the
National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and
the Institute of Medicine on "the criteria that should be used in judging
the appropriate allocation of funds to research and development
activities, the appropriate balance among different types of institutions
that conduct such research, and the means of assuring continued
objectivity in the allocation process." The report is out so read on for
a comprehensive summary of the five principles and 13 recommendations
9. NSF SEEKS PROGRAM OFFICER FOR METHODOLOGY, MEASUREMENT, AND
STATISTICS
The Methodology, Measurement and Statistics (MMS) Program is searching
for a new Program Director at the National Science Foundation. Read on
for more information.
10. THE SOCIETY FOR THE QUANTITATIVE ANALYSES OF BEHAVIOR
SQAB is please to announce that ROGER SHEPARD, National Medal of Science
winner, will ddress the annual meeting this year. Read on for more
information and for the home page address of SQAB.
1. THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET
Each February the President is required by law to submit a proposed
budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Such budgets use the budget of the
current fiscal year as a baseline. This February, large segments of the
Federal government have no fiscal 1996 budget, making the construction of
a 1997 budget something of a challenge. Rather than the usual budget
request that comes out in several volumes and runs to thousands of pages,
the President this year opted to submit a twenty page "thematic overview"
of the budget and to delay submission of the multi- volume version until
at least March 18. Powerful members of Congress pronounced even the
thematic overview "dead on arrival," not a good sign for the negotiations
on the fiscal '97 budget that will likely drag on through the November
congressional and presidential elections.
The budget document sets two goals: to balance the budget in seven
years and to maintain "our commitments to economic growth and to
protecting the most vulnerable Americans, including senior citizens,
working families, and children." The President has long spoken of some
expenditures as "investments," and that theme is struck in the current
document: "The budget...invests in education and training, the
environment, science and technology, and other priorities;" The balanced
budget is to be reached through three kinds of controls "reforming
Federal entitlement programs, cutting deeply in discretionary spending,
and limiting corporate subsidies." The President proposes cuts of $596
billion over seven years. Included in the plan are cuts of $297 billion
in discretionary programs. Science and education are funded out of the
discretionary program accounts. In education, the President outlines the
following as his priorities: Head Start, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities program, Goals 2000, AmeriCorps, lower cost student loans
"with greatly increased flexibility for repayment," Pell grants, and
Skills Grants or job training vouchers for dislocated workers and
low-income adults. In science, among other things, he intends to protect
"environmental enforcement through the Environmental Protection Agency's
operating program." (The VA, HUD and Independent Agencies appropriation
bill for FY96 has not been passed in large part because the President
objects to a set of riders on that bill that would severely restrict the
ability of EPA to carry out its mission.) The President's stance toward
science funding is suggested in the following passage from the document:
"We need policies that grow the middle class and shrink the underclass.
And we need to invest in our future, both by balancing the budget and by
finding additional resources for education and training, the environment,
science and technology, and other priorities." The document notes that
the federal workforce has been cut by 200,000 since Clinton took office,
bringing it to its smallest level since 1933 "as a share of the Nation's
civilian workforce."
Treatment of children with disabilities who receive Supplemental
Security Income has been a concern for many psychologists. Here is what
the President proposes in this area: "The budget tightens eligibility
standards for childhood disability benefits; retains full cash benefits
for all eligible children; tightens eligibility for children now on the
rolls, but provides that children found ineligible would not lose
benefits until January 1998; trims cash benefits of children in families
with relatively higher incomes; eliminates eligibility for SSI on the
basis of drug addiction or alcoholism; adds resources for more continuing
disability reviews; and provides new tools to collect SSI overpayments."
In addition to the education priorities listed above, the President
also proposes a new educational technology initiative "to make children
technologically literate and connect every classroom to the information
superhighway by 2000." He also proposes expanding work-study programs
and giving $1,000 merit scholarships "for the top five percent of
graduates in every high school."
Congress has wanted to eliminate federal involvement in many areas
of technical development, including areas that involve partnerships with
industry. Running counter to that thrust, the President says this about
science and technology funding: "The budget also invests in science and
technology, through a balanced mix of basic research, applied research,
and technology development, including through cooperative projects with
private industry and universities. It adds funds for biomedical and
behavioral research at the National Institutes of Health, for basic
research and education at the National Science Foundation, for basic
research at NASA (including Mission to Planet Earth) and other agencies,
and for such important initiatives as the Advanced Technology Program and
the Technology Reinvestment Project."
The President's budget gives only very general figures on the
budget. There is no indication of requests for individual agencies. The
numbers that are given are presented in two ways: as they would be
computed under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) economic assumptions
and as they would be computed under Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
assumptions. Republicans in Congress have contended that the OMB
assumptions are too rosy, and have insisted on using CBO's more dour
assumptions. The President proposes a fiscal '97 budget of 1.6396
trillion dollars, $543.5 billion of it in discretionary spending and
$848.7 billion in mandatory spending with an additional $247.4 billion
for interest on the debt. Using the President's out-year budget
projections, which would place the budget at 1.8789 trillion dollars in
2002, CBO estimates a surplus of 3.7 billion dollars in 2,002 while OMB
estimates a surplus of 90.3 billion in that year. Discretionary spending
now makes up 33% of the budget; mandatory programs are 52%, and debt
service consumes 15%. In 2002, under the President's proposal,
discretionary spending would make up 28% of the budget while mandatory
spending would be 59% and debt service would be 13%.
2. NIH RECEIVES 5.7% FUNDING INCREASE FOR FY96
On January 5 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) scored a FY96
funding victory. The President and Congress agreed to award the sum of
$11.94 billion to NIH in a Continuing Resolution. This amounts to a 5.7%
increase, which is considered a substantial increase in this time of
fiscal belt-tightening. The funding amount is $655 million more than NIH
received last year and $175 million more than the President's request.
Now the NIH will be funded until the end of the current fiscal year on
September 30, 1996, protecting it from another shutdown in FY96.
Congressman John Porter (R-IL), Chairperson of the House
Appropriations Committee with jurisdiction over NIH, originally proposed
the $11.94 billion figure last August. Usually the House figure is
reconciled with the Senate figure, generally resulting in a cut from the
highest proposed funding figure. However, this year, while the House
bill passed on August 4, 1995, the corresponding bill in the Senate
stalled. So it is a testament to the dedication and political skills of
Rep. Porter that the large House figure was passed in the first year of
the anti-deficit Republican Revolution.
Although NIH and its supporters were thrilled at the increase, the
unusual passage of the FY96 funding has left some questions. The bill
language is difficult to interpret and is being deciphered by NIH.
Congress provided an overall sum for NIH, and did not divide the $11.94
billion among individual institutes or initiatives as is traditionally
the case. Only incomplete guidance is offered by the original House and
Senate appropriations bills. For example, the House bill distributes NIH
AIDS funding into the budgets of individual institutes while the Senate
bill distributes funds through the NIH Office of AIDS research.
If you'd like to express your thanks to Rep. John Porter (R- IL) for
his unwavering commitment to NIH, here is the address you need: The
Honorable John Porter, Chairperson, Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee, 2358 Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515.
3. NIH EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH DIRECTOR POSTS WEB PAGE NOTICE ABOUT DELAYS
Dr. Wendy Baldwin, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director for
Extramural Research, deserves kudos for her hard work and Web skills.
Between the Federal Government shutdowns and all the snow in Washington,
DC--including the blizzard of '96--NIH was open only one day between
December 15, 1995 and January 16, 1996. Furloughed NIH staff could not
answer mail, answer telephones or voice mail or receive faxes. So how
did the extramural community get information about NIH and inquire about
their grants? Thanks to Dr. Baldwin, who posted several timely
"Shutdown, Blizzard and Budget Updates" on the NIH home page, people knew
exactly how the furloughs and snow were affecting disbursement of grant
funds and exactly what NIH was doing about it.
Approximately 4,000 grant awards were backlogged due to the
interruption of work at NIH. By January 30, less than three weeks after
NIH came back to work, staff had issued almost 1,700 awards totaling over
$394 million. By Valentines' Day, February 14, 3,700 awards had been
issued for a total of over $898 million. Thanks to the dedication of the
hard-working NIH staff, there are only 600 awards to be issued that
remain from the backlog.
Many Advisory Council meetings were held as scheduled but initial
review group meetings were rescheduled from February to mid-March.
Because it now has FY96 funding, NIH can make competing continuations and
new awards, as well as process non- competing continuations. Dr. Baldwin
acknowledged the hardships research labs faced with the lapses in funding
for competing continuation awards and noted that those cases would be
given priority. Dr. Baldwin also noted that NIH's financial management
plan includes a 4% increase for continuing grants now that FY96 funding
is secured. Accordingly, all noncompeting grants that were already
awarded before the FY96 funding came through will be reviewed and will
have retroactive adjustments made.
Dr. Baldwin recently posted this message on the Net: "I want to
take this opportunity to thank the extramural community for its tolerance
and forbearance while we coped and continue to cope during these unusual
times. We especially want to thank the NIH extramural staff for their
willingness to be flexible, and for their hard work and extra efforts in
dealing with the disruptions to our already-tight schedules." For more
information about NIH, check out the home page at: http://www.nih.gov,
or send your comments to Dr. Baldwin at: DDER who-is-at nih.gov
5. NSF RECEIVES FUNDING THROUGH MARCH 15
NSF, along with the other federal agencies still lacking a fiscal
year 1996 appropriation, was slated to close down yet again on January
26, but thanks to another temporary funding measure, NSF can operate
until March 15. The combination of shutdowns and restrictive temporary
spending measures has set NSF seriously behind. NSF Director Neal Lane
told scientists at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society on
January 15 that "we returned from the shutdown to the sight of over 20
large mailroom carts crammed one against the other, brimming over with
four weeks of proposals and correspondence. The last report I had showed
over 2000 proposals in the queue (on the average, we receive and log in
about 240 proposals per day.) On a single day last week, I know we
received over 900 proposals. So, I expect that the queue is up to 3000
by now. Lane went on to say, "NSF staff are trying...to make sure the
science is not damaged by the disruptions and that the researchers and
educators we support can continue with their work with as little
interruption as possible. But, I must tell you that, however heroic the
staff, this year cannot be business as usual. The time period we have
lost is one that is critical to the smooth functioning of the proposal
review and award process. There is simply no way to avoid some negative
impact of a month's shutdown...NIH estimates the shutdown put them 6 to 8
months behind. It may be more for NSF."
The shutdowns have had an impact, but so has the nature of the
continuing resolutions that have allowed NSF to function, albeit in fits
and starts. The continuing resolution that expired on January 26 (the
second of, so far, three continuing resolutions during this fiscal year)
appropriated funds to NSF at the House, the Senate, or the previous
year's funding level, whichever was lowest. In that case, the House
level was lowest, ($2.254 billion for research and $599 million for
education and human resources compared to the '95 funding level of $2.280
billion and $606 million, respectively). The continuing resolution that
carries NSF from January 26 to March 15 allows spending at the level
agreed to by the FY96 House-Senate Conference Committee on the Veterans
Administration, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies
appropriations bill. That figure is a compromise between the House and
Senate figures. The Senate would have given an increase over '95 for
research. The compromise was $2.274 billion for research and $599
million for education and human resources. So, for seven weeks NSF will
be able to spend as though its '96 appropriation were slightly less than
that of last year.
Unfortunately, not knowing what the final appropriation figure will
be demands that NSF spend cautiously during the first half of the year.
And the necessary cancellation of meetings of many review panels assures
this slower rate of spending simply because there are delays in review of
grant proposals. Some panels are going to mail reviews to try to make up
for lost time.
The Federation joined many other scientific organizations in a
campaign during the two weeks before the expiration of the last
continuing resolution to try to convince key decision makers in Congress
to put forth a continuing resolution that included full- year funding for
NSF and remaining science agencies without appropriations. That effort
did not succeed, but may have played a role in winning a better temporary
funding figure in the current continuing resolution than had been the
case in the previous two such resolutions. We thank Federation members
for their response to our email request for stories of how the problems
at NSF are affecting faculty and students. Our letter to House and
Senate leaders included an attachment containing these stories. It is
estimated that several thousand letters were received by members of
Congress on NSF with Congressman Robert Livingston (R-LA), Chair of the
House Appropriations Committee--who had previously said scientists had
been silent on the issue of funding--receiving hundreds of letters. In
adition, Vern Ehlers (R-MI), a physicist and freshman legislator who is
gaining an informal role as science adviser to the Republican leadership,
drafted a letter to Mr. Livingston urging that NSF receive full-year
funding rather than another short-term continuing resolution. 89 of his
colleagues co-signed the letter. In his speech to the American
Astronomical Society, Neal Lane summed up this string of events as "an
unprecedented, abominable mess." That about says it all.
If this were going to be a single year of pain and then life were
going to return to normal, it would be one thing. But that isn't likely
to happen. Scientists who have previously kept Washington at better than
arm's length should give thought to this from Neal Lane: "we are not
operating in a healthy environment for science--research or education.
The overall cuts in spending over the next seven years (1996-2002) are
designed to help balance the budget, at least through the year 2002.
However, the specific reductions and cuts by which we reach that goal
can, in fact, spell trouble or triumph. My concern is that these plans
target major portions of the Federal R&D enterprise for dismantlement,
creating 'thin ice' on which we attempt to skate toward continued
economic success. The Federal investment in non-defense R&D is projected
by the AAAS to decrease by approximately 33 percent in real terms by
2002, and the cuts in education are larger. In essence, this nation is
getting ready to run an experiment it has never done before--to see if we
can reduce the Federal investment in R&D by one-third and still be a
world leader in the 21st century. Nobody knows the outcome. But it
seems pretty high risk."