MSA Public Policy Committee Reports
Summer 1997
Winter 1998
Summer 1998
Winter 1999
Summer 1999

Public Policy Home

I will briefly present highlights since the summer Council meeting. I am also including a 1-page summary to acquaint new Council members with the history of this program.

Thank you to everyone who attended the presentation, "Funding for Instrumentation in an Era of Balanced Budgets" in Cleveland. We were pleased to have the heads of the instrumentation funding programs from both the NSF and the NIH, as well as our own Bob Cardell who discussed the university view of instrumentation issues.

Overall, the news for science funding in FY 98 was good. The NIH received a 7.1% increase, following a Conference Committee compromise between the 6% increase engineered by Rep Porter (R-IL) and the 7.5% increase generated by Sen Spector (R-PA). The NSF received an increase of 4.6%. Both agencies received more money than requested in the President's budget; it is interesting that science funding is not currently a top priority in the Executive Branch. The NIH bill was not signed until early November, the NSF bill in late October.

I have established individual listservers by states of MSA members who signed up as "grass roots" supporters. Thus, I can target constituents of individual Congresspersons.

I have expanded the Public Policy Committee which now includes: M. Isaacson, P. Ingram, Andrew Somylo, Avril Somylo, John Hren (pending), myself, and Ann Goldstein (ex officio).

What is the outlook for FY99? What issues should MSA be watching?

1. FY99 Budget. In a series of meetings I attended in December '97, Barney Frank (D-MA) and George Gekas (R-PA) commented that it is unlikely the current budget agreement will be changed, because it is now the law. Therefore, there will be a strict cap on discretionary money in the 1999-2002 budgets. This, despite the greatly improved economy and increased tax revenues (for which the competition will be fierce). For example, the Congressional Budget Office suggests there may be a $135 billion surplus over the next 5 years. Hence, input from MSA scientists will continue to be crucial to Congressional decision making.

   For FY99, OMB and Clinton have recommended level funding the NIH budget at the FY 98 figure of $13.6 billion. I do not yet know the requested budget for the NSF, but it is not expected to be generous. However, Sen. Gramm (R-TX) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) have introduced a bill (S1305) calling for a doubling of the Federal science and technology budget over the next 10 years which would equate to a 7% increase for FY99. Some 50 congresspersons are expected to sign on and include so far Domenici (R-NM), Bingaman (D-NM), Porter (R-IL). MSA members should be encouraged to contact their congresspersons in support of this goal.

   This issue of doubling the S&T budget enjoys strong society and scientist support. However, MSA was not listed as one of the >100 who supported it, although other affiliate members of the American Institute of Physics were contacted. A few of the >100 societies include: Acoustical Soc, American Vacuum Soc, ASEE Engineering Deans Council, Materials Research Society.

   In summary, weighing the facts that the Federal deficit is the lowest it has been since 1974, and that the Council on Competitiveness figures show a plummeting of federal funding for science and technology in the past decade, the situation for science may actually allow for some reversal, if Congressional education remains a strong goal of MSA scientists.

2. Language in the FY98 NIH appropriations bill urges that the Biomedical Research Support Grant Program (BRSG) be re-established. This program which disappeared in 1992, brought discretionary scientific money to campuses based on a percentage of their funded NIH research grants; it disappeared in 1992. MSA needs to monitor that its growth not be at the expense of our microscopy facilities.

3. Ehlers (R-Michigan) who is currently Vice Chair of the House Science committee and a Ph.D. physicist by training, has been appointed by House Science Committee Chair Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Gingrich (R-GA) to head a committee charged with writing a new federal science policy. MSA needs to have input to this policy.

4. Rep Gekas (R-PA) has introduced a bill to establish a National Goals Commission to work on eradicating disease. This commission would be modeled on the Medicare, and Social Security Commissions. MSA should monitor its activities for appropriate input. Gekas is a long-time friend of science.

5. Sen Kennedy (D-MA) is seeking $0.85/pack tax increase on cigarettes to raise $325 B for biomedical research, primarily at the NIH, by amendment of the tobacco agreement. This would raise the tax to $1.50/pack. The present agreement allows $.65/pack increase that would go mostly to the states. MSA should monitor progress of this bill.

   Goals for MSA Public Policy Action in 1998:

   Act to ensure that instrumentation be included as one of the priorities in the proposed doubled science and technology budget, by targeting the sponsoring Congresspersons with letters of support.

   Designate P. Calarco as the contact for the American Institute of Physics, so we are informed of their actions and are contacted whenever statements of support are being sought.

   Argue that funds for any re-established BRSG program should not come from either the Shared Instrumentation Grant program or from the Biomedical Technology Resources program which supports all our major microscopy facilities.

   Act to guarantee that instrumentation is mentioned specifically in Ehlers new science policy.

   Budgetary Accounting:

   Due to the transer of the business office, I do not have a current figure on what has been spent. I do know that with half the dues in, $1134 has been contributed toward public policy. This will not enable us to establish even a short term consulting relationship with Kyros & Cummins, thus, in my mind there is no question that the public policy program will suffer from not having on-the-scenes input. Success will have to depend more on individual actions of each MSA member. The Public Policy Committee will try to keep the importance of funding for instrumentation in front of the 105th Congress.

   ACTION ITEMS:

   1. Approve budget for next year (July 1, 1998 - June 30, 1999)

      Washington FAX, Congresional Handbook	$ 750
      Program, 1998	$1000
      Secretarial Expenses	$1000
      Copying/FAX/phone	$1000
      One trip to D.C. for Chair	$ 800*
      Supplemental DC travel (day "tack-ons")	$ 450
      Total	$5000
      *To occur after President Clinton sends the FY99 budget to Congess.

      Add industry representation to the MSA Public Policy Committee. I suggest Mike Thompson of Philips.

      Working with Nestor Zaluzec, establish a page on the MSA web site which will list the Congresspersons with their addresses who are most involved in setting the scientific budget priorities.