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

Public Policy Home

In short, the news for science funding for FY 99 was good. The NIH received a 14.7% increase while the NSF received an increase of 7.1% (with an 8.8% increase for Research and Related Activities). Both agencies received more money than requested in the President's budget; and the increases were funded without the "tobacco" money. The budget for instrumentation at the NSF remains at $50 million; the budget for NIH's Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) was submitted at $35 million. This is the first year to see this funding source move above its 1991 level of $33 million. As you may be aware, MSA began its Public Policy efforts in 1992 after the SIG was slashed from $33 million to $8.7 million. After receiving a congratulatory note from the head of this NIH program, we should feel confident in congratulating ourselves on attaining this goal. I have contacted NIH in December 1998 to encourage a further increase in the SIG, commensurate with the 15% budget increase, but that looks unlikely (see attachment #1).

The bill to double the science budget over the next 12 years was also passed. However, few lawmakers will still be around at the end of this time to ensure these goals are met, and with a twelve year doubling time, the yearly increases would be less that 7% per year. Thus, this action can be viewed as important in influencing the mindset of the current legislators only - but that is good because the outlook for FY00 is very grim (see below). Action of MSA members on legislation affecting instrumentation will remain extremely important. I again invite Council Members to contact me when they will be in Washington, so that I can arrange meetings for them with Congresspersons crucial to the science budgetary process.

Ehlers (R-Michigan) Vice Chair of the House Science committee and a Ph.D. physicist, has released his report on establishing federal science policy. As attachment #2, I include an email thank you from his office for our comments on the National Science Policy Study. This report weaves together some 40 recommendations and is available in its entirety at http://www.house.gov/science/science_policy_report.htm. Many have commented that its general nature will prevent it from having much impact.

The American Institute of Physics was contacted about its failure to include MSA on major opinion statements on scientific issues, for example the doubling of the S&T budget. They acknowledged this shortcoming and will try to improve their communication with us.

Work on creating a web page for the Public Policy Committee has begun. This will be accessible from the MSA web site maintained by Nestor Zalusec. It will be transferred to his server once we have it completed. Approximately $500 is currently encumbered to the Computer Assistance Program (UC-Berkeley) for these initial stages of preparing the primary ("splash") page and secondary links with an additional $500-$1000 anticipated. We are very excited about this efficient, inexpensive way to keep MSA members informed on public policy and budget progress.

The Outlook for FY00

FY00 Budget. Why is the outlook grim? The budget surplus is on reserve for social security and/or a tax cut, and some of the large increases in this year's budget were funded through forward funding (i.e., borrowing) from the FY00 funds. The President's new budget is rumored to request only 0.4% for the NIH, no figures are yet available for the NSF. For the first time in FY00, domestic and defense spending will compete for the same pie; defense has ardent supporters in Congress and will try for a bigger piece. The 106th will lose Gingrich who has been an ardent supporter of science, as well as Livingston. And, of course, if Clinton is impeached the game becomes very unpredictable.

In meetings I attended in December '98, Dr. Steven Morin, a staffer for Pelosi (D-CA) with 10 years experience pointed out that the binding Budget Agreement calls for a 16% decrease in funding over the next 5 years. Therefore, there will be a strict cap on discretionary money in the 1999-2002 budgets. Despite the current popularity of science with certain Congressmembers, Morin argued that personal contact with legislators remains the best positive influence. Hence, input from MSA scientists will continue to be crucial to Congressional decision making.

It is worth noting that in the new Congressional rearrangements after the elections, there are two members with whom we have had contact already: Rep. James Walsh (R,NY) from Syracuse is the new Chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies (the sub committee that controls the NSF budget). Representative Maurice Hinchey (D, NY) the Congressman from Ithaca is now on the House Appropriations Committee and one of us (M. Isaacson) has a good relationship with both him and his Chief of Staff, Chris Arthur.

Goals for MSA Public Policy Action in 1998:

Ensure that instrumentation is one of the priorities in the science and technology budget, by targeting the sponsoring Congresspersons with letters of support. These will be generated from our web site which we will have available to all members before the summer meeting.

Organize a Public Policy Program at our national meeting in Portland in 1999 and try to include their Congressional representatives. Charles Meshul, the LAC Chair has contacted us and feels we may have a unique opportunity to get the new House of Representatives member from the Portland area, David Wu, to come to the meeting. Wu has a great interest in science and technology. Representative Hooley, also from Oregon, who sits on the science and technology subcommittee might also be available. We will interact closely with the LAC to pursue these interesting options.

We understand that the issue of proactivity on the national science budget for instrumentation is a controversial one for the MSA Council, but we maintain that it is an extremely important issue. No activity is worse. Scientific instrumentation funding may go up or down, and that directly or indirectly affects both our members and exhibitors, and ultimately our annual meetings. We cannot complain unless we are willing to do something about it. We have managed to accomplish a great deal of good, as those who run microscope facilities, or receive funds from the MRI at the NSF, or apply for SIG funds can attest. We could of course do more.

ACTION ITEMS

1. Approve budget for next year (July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000)

   Washington FAX, Congresional Handboook	$ 800
   Program, 1999 in Portland	$1000
   Copying/FAX/phone	$ 250
   Partial funding for DC travel*	$ 750
   Total	$2800
   *To cover one day expenses for MSA members who are in D.C. and will visit Congressional offices. This will occur after President Clinton sends the FY00 budget to Congess.