Re: the CRA response to the HPCC Senate Appropriations Message

[David Farber <farber@central.cis.upenn.edu>]

Date:         Wed, 22 Sep 93 22:27:00 EDT
From: Herb Lin <HLIN%NAS.BITNET@VTBIT.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: the CRA response to the HPCC Senate Appropriations Messa
To: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu (David Farber)


Dave -- for interesting-persons...  tnx  herb


Folks -- as a former staff scientist to a major Congressional committee (as
well as the CSTB staff officer who had to manage the "Computing the Future"
flap of last year), I'd like to make just a couple of comments about the
Weingarten/Lazowska message.


The general thrust of their message is right on target -- the scientific
community has as a general rule not been willing to engage the science
policy process with anything other than an entitlement argument -- give us
money and good things will flow from that; trust us. The Senate report
language reflects Congressional frustration with this argument.


The term  "curiosity-driven" research is their way of saying "we're not willing
to support you in pursuing your curiosity without knowing what we'll get from
it".  Moreover, in a time of hard budget times where everyone has to suffer
(the homeless, the sick, the elderly and so on), a claim on resources from
the scientific community suggesting that they (i.e., the scientists) should
not suffer just makes Congressional staffers mad.


CRA is undertaking the following steps:
...
First, we need to see that members of the Senate Subcommittee,
and of the House/Senate conference committee, understand the
implications of report language for computing research, for
the computing industry, and, in the longer run, for the
viability of multi-agency research programs (if agencies
can't make and fulfill long-term commitments).  This is being
done by means of letters and visits to key congresspeople
and staffers.


Second, we need to strike a compromise that buys some time
for a new NSF Director and CISE Director to open a dialog
with the Subcommittee.  We have had discussion with Neal
Lane and others on this subject.


In my opinion, the community cannot engage in a power struggle that attempts to
establish the merits; that battle it will lose.  I believe the best hope at
this time is
to propose compromise language that accepts the basic philosophy of the Senate
report.  Specifically, the community should propose that the $50 M for NSF HPCC
programs
remain in the budget, but that it be "fenced off" (i.e, be unavailable for
obligation) UNTIL
NSF submits the requested report.  Such an action would keep the money in the
budget, but
would put heat on NSF to come up with the report in a timely manner (a plus
from the Senate's
point of view).




Herb Lin CSTB