ISDN subscriber line charges

[Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

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====