Interesting People mailing list archives
ISDN subscriber line charges
From: Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 13:32:01 -0500
From: farber () central cis upenn edu (Dave Farber) Subject: IEEE -- HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS BILLIONS IN CUTS TO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Precedence: list To: interesting-people () eff org (interesting-people mailing list) X-Proccessed-By: mail2list IEEE-USA ELECTRONIC INFORMATION BULLETIN No. 95-14, March 23, 1995 HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS BILLIONS IN CUTS TO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Report prepared by Brian Dougherty, American Association of Engineering Societies (adapted from AAES FactsFax, 3/21/95) On March 16, 1995, the House Budget Committee, chaired by Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio), reported legislation (H.R. 1219) designed to produce $190 billion in 5-year savings needed to offset the cost of a tax cut package promised in the Republican's Contract with America. The bill lowers the spending caps set by Congress in 1993 to freeze the growth in Federal discretionary spending and extends them by two years from FY 1998 to FY 2000 to produce projected budget savings of $100 billion. Another $90 billion in savings is to be derived from cuts to Federal entitlements, including $65 billion from welfare, $10.5 billion from medicare, and $11 billion in civil service retirements. The House of Representatives will vote on this legislation within the next few weeks. While the specifics of the $100 billion in discretionary budget cuts would ultimately have to be decided by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and by the budget authorizing committees if the bill passes, the Budget Committee also released a 45-page report, entitled "Illustrative Republican Spending Cuts Toward Meeting Contract with America Offset Requirements," which outlines their recommendations for where the cuts should be made. The report was crafted after consultation with other committees in the House, however, and reflects the overall priorities of the majority party. As expected, Federal support for research and development was a major target of the Budget Committee, with over $12 billion in cuts identified. If adopted, these cuts would represent an estimated reduction of 3-5% percent in Federal support of research and development, which currently totals approximately $72 billion annually. Cuts were characterized by specific themes, such as discarding needless bureaucracy or eliminating corporate welfare. The following is a summary of recommended R&D and related cuts with text excerpted from the report: Discarding Needless Bureaucracy: =============================== * Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act ($2.6 billion) * Cut functions of the Department of Transportationþs Research and Special Programs Administration ($107 million) * Dissolve the National Biological Service ($326 million) * Accept the Administration's management reforms at NASA ($1.5 billion) * Begin terminating the Department of Energy by: --Reducing Energy Supply R&D ($2.3 billion), including technology subsidies in areas such as solar and renewable energy, environmental research and waste management, fusion energy, technology transfer, and DOE's precollege education program. --Reduce DOE's Fossil Energy R&D ($675 million). Much of this duplicates industry work and some is simply "corporate welfare for the oil, gas, and utility industry." --Reduce Energy Conservation ($840 million) * Restructure Interior's Mineral and Related Agencies ($1 billion): --Scale back, rather than eliminate, the U.S. Bureau of Mines and the U.S. Geological Survey. --Reduce Bureau of Mines funding for "near-term development of special products and technologies." --USGS Water Resources Division's federal program for global change hydrology and core program hydrology research would be reduced, and the state and local matching formula for the Federal/State cooperative program would be increased. Eliminate Duplication and Waste =============================== * Reduce Funding for GOALS 2000 education and School-to- Work programs ($723 million) * Reduce Education Research Programs ($214 million), including technology for education. * Accept White House cut in the Army Corps of Engineers ($630 million), and shift responsibility for local water projects and other programs to state and local communities. * Apply Cost-Benefit test to Superfund ($526 million). Emphasize controls and containment over permanent treatment technologies. Attacking Corporate Welfare ========================== * Begin termination of the Department of Commerce: --Eliminate Industrial Technology Services and National Telecommunications and Information Administration information infrastructure grants ($2.2 billion). According to the report, "Although the Federal Government has a role in basic research, it should not be engaged in applied research. Furthermore, considerable evidence exists that the Federal Government is not capable of picking projects with the greatest potential for technological and commercial success. Therefore, this proposal would terminate funding in the Department of Commerce for Industrial Technology Services, including the so- called Advanced Technology Program, and phase out the manufacturing extension partnerships." --Restructure the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)($1.2 billion) --Eliminate the Economic Development Administration ($1.2 billion), eliminate trade promotion activities of the International Trade Administration and the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration ($1 billion), and reduce the Export Administration ($47 million) * Eliminate funding for Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems. According to the report, "development costs are high and widespread commercial success is uncertain: federal involvement in IVHS would be long- term and costly." * Eliminate funding for High Speed Rail Development ($105 million) * Reduce Agricultural Research and Extension ($1.3 billion) Setting Priorities ================ * Achieve a 5% reduction through National Institutes of Health research prioritization ($2.5 billion). Empower Communities and the Private Sector ========================================= * Terminate EPA's environmental technology initiative ($273 million). Individuals concerned about the scale of these cuts should be aware that Chairman Kasich has announced that the House Budget Committee will propose additional cuts later this Spring, after the committee starts work on the FY 1996 budget in May. Whereas the $100 billion in budget cuts in H.R. 1215 awaiting House action are to fund tax cuts promised by the Contract with America, the next round of proposed cuts will be aimed at the goal of balancing the federal budget by the year 2002. Expect proposals to emerge for hundreds of billions of dollars in additional cuts in discretionary spending, with Federal support of research and develop targeted for proportionate hits. ------- This electronic bulletin is provided as part of an on-going effort by IEEE's United States Activities Board to apprise IEEE members of important developments related to U.S. technology and career-related policy issues. Please feel free to post this message and/or forward it to other individuals who you believe would be interested. Contact: Chris J. Brantley Manager, Government Activities Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - United States Activities 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1202 Washington, DC 20036-5104 Email: c.brantley () ieee org Phone: 202-785-0017 ====END OF ITEM==== IEEE-USA ELECTRONIC INFORMATION BULLETIN No. 95-15, March 24, 1995 =========================================================== The following is an uncopyrighted report prepared by Richard Jones, American Institute of Physics, issued as AIP's FYI electronic newsletter, No. 44, March 23, 1995. For more information on FYI, contact Public Information Division, American Institute of Physics, Richard M. Jones, fyi () aip org, (301) 209-3095 =========================================================== THE GLOVES COME OFF: SCIENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SPAR OVER R&D CUTS Perhaps it is inevitable, given the increasingly contentious climate on Capitol Hill, but Republican and Democratic members of the House Science Committee have now joined the fray over the future direction of federal spending. In a reversal of the committee's traditional bipartisan approach to science issues, both sides have just issued documents leaving little doubt about their approaches to science policy and spending, and about each other's positions. For the third time in recent days, documents have been filed suggesting cuts in future research and development spending. The occasion this time was what has been very much an inside-the-beltway document, the "Views and Estimates" of the Science Committee. This is an annual, and little noticed exercise in which committees provide the House Budget Committee with their recommendations about future spending. Its significance this year is that it is one of the first, if not the first, Republican congressional policy statements on federal R&D spending. The "Views and Estimates, Committee on Science," document is five pages long and was written by the committee's Republicans. Anyone looking for bottom line estimates or recommendations for NSF, DOE, NASA, NIST, and other science budgets that the committee has jurisdiction over will not find them. Instead, the document states: "While the Administration has elected not to make tough choices, the Committee will not shirk its responsibilities and intends to produce responsible authorization bills that will reflect a commitment to both good fundamental science and a balanced budget. As a starting point, the Committee intends to authorize every agency under its jurisdiction at less than FY 1995 levels. Every program under the Committee's jurisdiction will be examined closely." There are no recommended figures for any agency's FY 1996 budget. This document ends by stating, "The cuts required by the Committee as our contribution to deficit reduction will be real and will come from virtually every program under our jurisdiction; but as an authorizing committee of the House those decisions are our responsibility." The Democratic members of the House Science Committee issued their own set of "Views and Estimates." This document is 14 pages long, with additional attachments. The bottom line recommendations in this document are identical to the Clinton Administration's request, although the Democratic members state, "The President's FY 1996 budget request underfunds civilian R&D." While new numbers are not found in either document, both parties go to considerable length to expound their philosophy. The Republican document refers to previous deliberations over competitiveness, and states, "There is a school of thought that subscribes to the `Government as Oz' theory; that is, the bureaucracy knows all and sees all, including the future." Later on, "Members have a stark choice: technological freedom and opportunity embodied in the Contract With America, or the same old `contract:' command and control." In reply, the committee's Democrats state, "The majority of the Democratic Members of the Science Committee consider the Republican's approach to R&D policy short-sighted, naive, and damaging for the country." They continue, "The Republican Contract, if carried out to the letter, would require a 30 to 50 percent cut in Federal R&D spending to offset the costs of a socially inequitable and economically counter-productive $200 billion tax cut." This document criticizes the Republican document for focusing on "areas of divergence" and lack of specifics. Where this leaves science spending for FY 1996 and beyond is an unknown. The Democrats state, "We are pleased that there is still a broad area of shared, bipartisan support for many of these programs even as we acknowledge that there are real and perhaps growing differences on other programs." The extent to which the committee is able to preserve this "broad area of shared, bipartisan support," vital during coming budget cutting deliberations, in what has become a very contentious Congress is also an unknown. -------------- This electronic bulletin is provided as part of an on-going effort by IEEE's United States Activities Board to apprise IEEE members of important developments related to U.S. technology and career- related policy issues. Please feel free to post this message and/or forward it to other individuals who you believe would be interested. Contact: Chris J. Brantley Manager, Government Activities Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - United States Activities 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1202 Washington, DC 20036-5104 Email: c.brantley () ieee org Phone: 202-785-0017 ====END OF ITEM==== IEEE-USA ELECTRONIC INFORMATION BULLETIN No. 95-16, March 24, 1995 SCIENCE ADVISOR REPORTS TO PRESIDENT ON NATIONAL CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES On March 21, 1995, White House science advisor John H. Gibbons, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, presented the National Critical Technologies Report to President Clinton. With the report came a warning from the science advisor that while the U.S. maintains its position of parity or leadership in each of the 27 technology areas deemed critical, the U.S. lead in most of these areas is increasingly threatened by the rate of technology advance by foreign competitors, whose efforts are out-pacing U.S. research. The report shows the U.S. losing its technology position relative to Europe from 1990-1994 in the areas of environmental monitoring and assessment and remediation and restoration technologies, intelligent complex adaptive systems, and avionics and controls. At the same time, the U.S. has improved in position vis-a-vis Europe with respect to energy efficiency technologies, sensors, biotechnology, agriculture and food technologies, human systems, and human interface technologies in transportation. According to the report, the U.S. has also lost ground to Japan during the same period in the areas of environmental monitoring and assessment, remediation and restoration, communications and computing systems, agriculture and food technologies, advanced materials and structures, aerodynamics, avionics and controls, and propulsion and power for transportation. The U.S. has improved its position in the areas of information and communication components, information management, sensors, software and toolkits, medical technologies, human systems, micro/nanofabrication and machining, and human interface technologies in transportation. In releasing the report, Science Advisor Gibbons noted "the development and implementation of new technologies is the driving force behind U.S. economic prosperity and national security. This report documents the very tenuous lead we maintain in many of the technologies critical to our military and economic well-being at the very same time that the new Congressional leadership proposed to gut the very core of our strategy to preserve American preeminence in critical areas. What is also abundantly clear in this report is the degree to which certain technologies--such as information technology, manufacturing processes, sensor development, and advanced materials--are crucial to both military and economic security....[For example] the next generation of military systems and capabilities requires superior technology in five of seven major technology categories, including 21 of the 27 critical areas surveyed by the report. This is one of the best arguments I have seen for continued Federal support of dual use technology research and development--our very economic and security future may depend on critical technologies." The report lists a total of 27 critical technology areas (with subgroups), which are divided into seven broad categories--energy, environmental quality, information and communications, "living systems," manufacturing, materials, and transportation. The complete list of national critical technology areas is highlighted below: ENERGY * Energy Efficiency * Energy Storage, Conditioning, Distribution, and Transmission * Improved Energy Generation ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY * Monitoring and Assessment * Pollution Control * Remediation and Restoration INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS * Information and communication components * Communications * Computer Systems * Information Management * Intelligent Complex Adaptive Systems * Sensors * Software and toolkits LIVING SYSTEMS * Biotechnology * Medical Technology * Agricultural and Food Technology * Human Factors Research MANUFACTURING * Discrete product manufacturing * Continuous materials processing * Micro/nanofabrication and machining MATERIALS * Advanced materials * Structures TRANSPORTATION * Aerodynamics * Avionics and controls * Propulsion and Power * Systems Integration * Human Interface Systems Each critical technology area noted above is also broken down into sub-groups, and each sub-grouping encompasses a list of specific technologies. This report, mandated by Congress, is prepared every two years to advise the President and Congress where the United States stands in relation to competing nations on technologies deemed critical to the national and economic security. The 1995 report was prepared under the direction of OSTP by the Critical Technologies Institute, a federally funded research and development center associated with the Rand Corporation and created to provide non-partisan, objective analysis on science and technology issues. The report was reviewed by an independent panel of senior government officials and private-sector leaders chaired by John Young, chairman of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. The report is not yet in print for public distribution, but should be available within the next 5-10 days. Copies of the 197 page report can be purchased from the Government Printing Office or referenced in your local Government Documents Depository. An on-line version accessible through the World Wide Web (http://whitehouse.gov) is also anticipated. For more information on the report, you can also contact the Critical Technologies Institute, 2100 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20037-1270. -------------------------- This electronic bulletin is provided as part of an on-going effort by IEEE's United States Activities Board to apprise IEEE members of important developments related to U.S. technology and career-related policy issues. Please feel free to post this message and/or forward it to other individuals who you believe would be interested. Contact: Chris J. Brantley Manager, Government Activities Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - United States Activities 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1202 Washington, DC 20036-5104 Email: c.brantley () ieee org Phone: 202-785-0017 ====END OF ITEM====
Current thread:
- ISDN subscriber line charges Dave Farber (Mar 22)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- ISDN subscriber line charges Dave Farber (Mar 25)