0.13 The clinton years: 1993-2001  (Page 4/7)

Two years into the Clinton administration, OSTP was receiving a “mixed midterm report.” Andrew Lawler, “OSTP: a Mixed Midterm Report,” Science (April 14, 1995), 192-94. George Brown, (D-CA), ranking minority member of the House of Representatives Science Committee, declared, “They’re just not producing. And a lot of what they are doing is disconnected from reality.” Brown and Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) complained that OSTP lacked sufficient influence in important decisions regarding science. They also pointed out that Science in the National Interest foresaw a goal of devoting 3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product to research and development, but that the Clinton administration had announced its intention of requiring 3 percent across-the-board reductions in budget requests by the federal bureaus, with no exemptions for the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, the principal supporters of basic research.

Neal lane

On February 2, 1998, Clinton unveiled his fiscal year 1999 budget request before a joint session of the Congress. Andrew Lawler, “The 1999 Budget: Science Catches Clinton’s Eye,” Science (February 6, 1998), 794-97. Thanks to a booming economy, the federal deficit had vanished and the administration could propose more generous budgets. Most of Clinton’s proposed R&D budget was packaged into a $31 billion Twenty-first Century Research Fund for America. Overall, it would rise by 6 percent, to $36.4 billion, “the largest commitment to civilian research in the history of the United States,” according to Gore. All agencies were slated to benefit, with the exception of NASA. NIH’s budget would increase by 8.4 percent, to $14.8 billion, and NSF’s by 10 percent, to nearly $3.8 billion. This commitment was reiterated in a weeklong series of speeches by the president and vice president. For the first time, research on climate change was specifically included in a budget request.

At the time he presented his proposed budget, Clinton was still seeking a successor to Gibbons. Various individuals close to the White House advocated an industrial scientist as Gibbons’ successor. Andrew Lawler, “Wanted: the Ideal Science Adviser,” Science (December 12, 1997), 1872-73. One reason for Clinton’s protracted search was that he was over a year into his second term as president when Gibbons announced his intention to resign. Many qualified scientists who might have been tempted by the position no doubt decided that they could make little impact on national science policy under a lame duck president. By the time Clinton announced his intention to nominate Lane in February 1998, there were slightly less than three years remaining in his term. Presidents are unlikely to announce broad, innovative programs at such late stages in their administrations. So Clinton, reportedly in close cooperation with Gore, sought a qualified individual who would keep a low profile and hold a steady course.

Neal Lane was a perfect choice in that respect. Genial and low-key, he had been NSF Director since October 1993 and soon gained a reputation for being a good listener and a conciliator. At the time of his appointment, the Republican majority in Congress, particularly the House of Representatives, was becoming increasingly vocal in its opposition to Clinton. Early during his tenure at NSF, Lane made several trips to the Hill to speak with key members of congressional committees, convincing them that support for R&D—particularly basic research—should be a non-contentious issue exempt from the increasing rancor Republicans directed at Clinton.