Friday, 6 November 1992 Washington, DC
1. WHAT ANTI-INCUMBENT VOTE? TURNOVER IN CONGRESS ABOUT
AVERAGE.
But in the House, the big changes are on committees
that affect science. George Brown (D-CA), chair of the Science,
Space, and Technology Committee returns, but 9 of the 33
Democrats on the Committee and 5 of the 20 Republicans will not.
Among those defeated was Don Ritter (R-PA), a metallurgy
professor in real life and the only PhD scientist in Congress.
The only scientist in the freshman class will be Ted Strickland
(D-OH), a psychology professor (stop rolling your eyes like
that!). But it is the Appropriations Committee that will undergo
the greatest upheaval with 19 departures. Jamie Whitten (D-MS),
the rickety chair of appropriations, who first came to Congress
during the ice age, was reelected. But last June, Whitten
relinquished control of the Committee to William Natcher (D-KY)
because of health, and it is likely that he will be replaced.
David Obey (D-WI) seems ready to challenge him. The ranking
minority member, Joseph McDade (R-PA), who is under indictment,
is also likely to be deposed--or worse. Out of the 9 members of
the VA/HUD/IA Subcommittee, 5 won't be returning; that includes
the chair, Bob Traxler (D-MI), who retired. Louis Stokes (D-OH)
is in line to replace Traxler as chair, but on that committee,
anything could happen.
2. BY COMPARISON, THINGS LOOK PRETTY TRANQUIL OVER IN THE
SENATE.
The departure of Al Gore seems to be the only big
change. He won't officially resign his Senate seat until the
electoral vote is counted; his replacement in the Senate will be
appointed by the Governor of Tennessee. Gore currently chairs
the Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee. Next in line to
chair the Subcommittee is Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), if he wants the
job. It could be important to science when re-authorization of
NSF comes up in the next session. The Labor and Human Resources
Committee, chaired by Ted Kennedy, also claims jurisdiction over
NSF. The debate is expected to focus on the proposed redirection
of NSF.
3. THE COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF NSF HOLDS ITS FINAL
MEETING
tomorrow. A letter to the Commission from the NSF
Advisory Committee on Physics (WN 30 Oct
92) points out that declining support of university research
even now threatens a critical link in technology transfer. The
mission of NSF to promote basic research and education, the
letter says, "cannot be jeopardized. NSF cannot take on greater
responsibilities without a concomitant increase in funding."
Meanwhile, according to an article in Nature, Allan Bromley, the
lame-duck White House Science Advisor, contends the charge to the
Commission goes outside the National Science Board's domain of
responsibility. The original charter of the NSB envisioned
oversight of all government science policy, but the Board has
always confined itself to the NSF. If it wants to go beyond that
now, it will find the territory has been occupied--by the Office
of Science and Technology Policy in the White House. The
Commission report is due on 20 November.
|
