504 HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



taking some of the sharp increase away from the RANN program and 

 giving it to science education and institutional support. The decision 

 to restore funding for high school summer institutes and college 

 undergraduates was accompanied by a very effective letter-writing 

 campaign. A spokesman for the committee was asked whether the 

 campaign had been organized, and the response was: 



I don't know whether it was organized or not. If it was, it was damn well done. 



During the floor debate on the NSF authorization in 1971, 

 Chairman Miller took note of the public and university campaign to 

 fight the NSF cutbacks in science education: 



These cutbacks, I might say, produced strong quakes throughout the academic 

 community and, as all Members know, the reverberations were clearly felt here on 

 Capitol Hill. 



The committee's efforts received overwhelming support on the floor by 

 a rollcall vote of 319-8 on June 7, 1971. The Senate was very bullish 

 on increasing the total NSF budget from $622 to $706.5 million, and 

 the conference compromised on $655 million. 



IMPOUNDMENT OF NSF FUNDS IN 1971 



But who gets the last word when Congress and the President 

 tangle over policy? In the early 1970's, President Nixon used a very 

 clever technique to thwart the will of Congress. He called it "im- 

 poundment" and it simply meant that when Congress appropriated 

 money for programs Congress wanted and the administration didn't 

 want, the money just was not spent, on orders of the Office of 

 Management and Budget (acronym "TOMB"). In September 1971, the 

 committee was particularly angered by impoundment of $30 million 

 appropriated for science education and institutional support. Chair- 

 man Davis wrote a sharp letter to the President on September 14, 

 1971, pointing out: 



It is ironic that this OMB action, which endangers the long run health of Amer- 

 ican science, was taken at almost exactly the same time as your call was made for 

 proposals to preserve American scientific leadership and the economic advantages it 

 entails. I hope that you will take steps to reverse this action, which contradicts the 

 will of Congress, including the NSF authorizing and appropriating committees in 

 both the House and the Senate, as well as the almost unanimous expert opinion of 

 educational authorities and scientists. 



The letter did not produce the desired results. Although the 

 impounded funds were released in 1972, the new budget presented 

 once again made very deep slashes in funding for science education 

 and institutional support. It was with some frustration that the com- 

 mittee in 1972 voted sharp increases in these areas, increases which 

 were sustained in the House and maximized in the Senate. 



