CRA ELECTRONIC BULLETIN--Oct. 4, 1993

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

**********************************************
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.