Interesting People mailing list archives
CRA ELECTRONIC BULLETIN--Oct. 4, 1993
From: David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 21:52:16 -0400
********************************************** CRA ELECTRONIC BULLETIN--Oct. 4, 1993 ********************************************** =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Prepared By Juan Antonio Osuna (with Rick Weingarten) Computing Research Association 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 718 Washington, DC 20009 phone: (202) 234-2111 E-mail: juan () cra org =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CONGRESSIONAL CONFEREES COMPROMISE ON NSF FUNDING =============================== House and Senate conferees met Friday to resolve differences in legislation to determine 1994 appropriations for the National Science Foundation. The NSF now stands to get a seven percent increase over 1993 for research and related activities. The total budget for research is now at $1.986 billion; this figures lies between the House proposed budget of $2.045 billion and the Senate budget of $1.940 billion. However, the seven percent increase falls short of the 1994 budget request, which asked for an 18 percent increase for research. The conferees also decided to lessen Senate-proposed cuts to the High Performance Computing and Communications program. The Senate had originally recommended cutting $50 million from NSF's HPCC budget request. The cut now lies at $12.5 million. Keeping some of the tone of the Senate language, the conference report stated that NSF could not spend beyond its current 1993 level until it submitted a report "articulating specific and measurable goals in this area." The report also called for "timetables and milestones" for achieving those goals. According to NSF, the agency received a higher increase than any other agency falling within the purview of the subcommittee on HUD, VA and Independent Agencies Appropriations. Conferees also agreed to give Education and Human Resources $569.6 million--$13.5 million more than NSF requested and 17 percent more than was appropriated in 1993. The Senate's report, probably even more than its relatively low overall funding mark for research, raised concern and debate in the community. It broadly directed NSF to focus on so-called "strategic" research, and specifically cut HPCC funds. CRA and several CRA members in letters to key members protested strongly the targeted cut in HPCC funding. Vice President Gore reportedly personally visited appropriations subcommittee chairs. George Brown, chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, along with Rick Boucher, Chair of the Committee on Science, sent strong letters to the committees. Industry organizations also weighed in. The broader debate about NSF's role was marked by inflamed rhetoric on both sides, leading some observers to worry about a serious and growing gulf between the academic and political communities. In this view, the budget victory is only a temporary truce in the longer war. As one senior staff member on the powerful Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation said to us, "[the appropriations report] speaks for most of us in Congress." ARPA FACES THREAT OF FUNDING CUTS ======================== The House defense appropriations subcommittee took a cut at ARPA's Computing Systems and Communications Technology programs, slashing nearly $100 million from their budget request. The Senate committee reduced the cut to $42 million in their mark-up, still a large amount. The Senate bill is scheduled for floor action next week and conference with the House the following week. The conference can normally only adjust in the range between the two figures The potential effects of these cuts are a matter of contention. The Senate subcommittee claimed that, since the requested increase was so large, nearly 50%, the final figure represents a 15% increase for HPCC. Some ARPA sources argue that the cuts are real and painful, in part due to the way the Senate committee allocated them, specifically in removing $30 million from the scalable hardware programs. The "why" of the cuts is even more confusing. It has been attributed variously to - a fight between committee staff and ARPA staff - critical reports by congressional policy agencies, CBO and GAO - lobbying by computer companies that had not received funds from ARPA, and - Simply (and most plausibly to many we have talked with), a lack of money. Defense, including defense R&D, has been on a steep downward slope that promises to continue. In the face of this limitation, HPCC had its neck stuck out with a request for nearly a 50% increase. As usual, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. At this stage, the cuts resulted from a combination of events. ARPA supporters will probably focus their efforts onseeing that at least the Senate mark is the one that comes out of conference and that any restrictive language targeting cuts at the specific projects and programs are removed. As we have said before, the NSF and ARPA experiences suggest that a serious disconnect is developing between the research and the political systems that will take some effort and time to heal. As more develops, we will keep you informed, of course.
Current thread:
- CRA ELECTRONIC BULLETIN--Oct. 4, 1993 David Farber (Oct 08)