Friday, May 23, 1997

1. BUDGET DEAL: ANOTHER FIVE YEARS OF CUTS IN SCIENCE FUNDING?
It looks like a done deal. The House and Senate failed to reach a final agreement before the Memorial Day break. Differences are small, but reconciliation will have to wait. As it stands, the agreement is bad news for science. Budget Function 250, General Science, Space and Technology, would drop 7% by 2002, the year the budget is supposed to be in balance. That's on top of the 7% cut in science spending over the past five years. It came down to a choice between investment and tax cuts. George Brown's "Investment Budget" (WN 28 Mar 97), which called for annual increases of 5% in research, but no tax cuts, was offered in the House as a substitute; it was defeated 91-339. Meanwhile, a General Accounting Office report was released showing that investment in research, infrastructure and education has already dropped from 2.6% of the GDP in 1981 to 1.9% in 1996.

2. REALITY CHECK: BUDGET RESOLUTIONS ARE NOT APPROPRIATIONS.
It may be a done deal, but it's not necessarily a big deal. A budget resolution is a lot like a New Year's resolution -- it sets broad goals, but does not have the force of law. We should view the budget agreement as a reminder that the scientific community still has a lot of persuading to do -- and not a lot of time.

3. GRAMM BILL: A BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS IS BEING FORGED.
The heads of five scientific societies, including Allan Bromley of the APS, met last week with Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), who asked for their help in building bipartisan support for the National Research Reinvestment Act, S. 124 (WN 24 Jan 97). His bill calls for doubling basic science funding in ten years, but Gramm indicated he is willing to broaden the language to include precompetitive engineering research. That would appear to bring S.124 into line with the objectives of the Senate Science and Technology Caucus (WN 14 Feb 97), a bipartisan group headed by Bill Frist (R-TN).

4. LHC: SENSENBRENNER NEGOTIATES AGREEMENT BETWEEN DOE AND CERN.
The Chair of the House Science Committee announced on Wednesday that his concerns are satisfactorily addressed by modifications to an agreement reached between CERN and DOE in February. A tough negotiator who is willing to engage in shuttle diplomacy, Sensenbrenner had insisted that the interests of U.S. taxpayers and researchers be protected in writing. His specific concerns included a guarantee of open access to CERN facilities for U.S. scientists and an appropriate management role for the U.S. He also insisted on written protection in case of LHC cost overruns, reciprocity if and when the next high-energy facility is built, and a funding cap on U.S. contributions. Sensenbrenner insisted that these concerns be addressed before any funds were actually transferred to the project. Changes to the initialed February agreement must still be approved by the CERN Council.



Bob Park can be reached via email at whatsnew@bobpark.org
THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the University, but they should be.