This was among the most exhausting weeks of my entire life, and though it was painful in the planning and tiring in the execution, it was worth it. In the coming weeks, a number of us will be compiling a more complete version of what we learned. Here, I put down my own thoughts on the messages we received from Washington.
FY08 and the Omnibus
A lot of stories have been floating around concerning how science – high-energy physics in particular – took such a big hit last year. I put little stock in rumors, and I feel it’s counterproductive to seek the pleasure of such things. While they can breed caution in the wise, they sow the seeds of revenge in the careless. It is clear that HEP suffered the choke of both its present and its future. With the cuts to the B factory and the countless layoffs and furloughs, with the cancellation of linear collider research this year and the zeroing of the NOvA program at Fermilab, it’s easy to assume targeting of this field was involved. Maybe, maybe not.
Some messages I got this week on FY08 were helpful, and some sobering. The biggest message was that just about every member of Congress we met regretted what happened. Many expressed general concern for the nation, some specific concern for HEP, and a few even expressed anger at the outcome and a sense that this must never happen again. Staffers closest to those with the most vested interest in the sciences and national science policy hinted that the cuts were indeed targeted, but in a broad way: things were cut that couldn’t be cut. That is, faced with a veto from the President on any spending over his limits, the majority went straight for the things that would cause the most outcry. ITER is an excellent example.
An outcry leads to outrage, outrage to action, and action can perhaps restore some of the cuts. Maybe, in the end, a better political position would be achieved for those programs, HEP included.
What might such an action be? The President is likely to send a supplemental request to the Congress for Iraq war funding. It’s unlikely that he’ll tack a request for science supplemental funding onto that, as it could cause outrage in Congress that he chose one program over others for supplemental aid. It’s also that the President would be unlikely to be seen as fixing a problem he thinks is Congress’ – the inability to fund basic science [1]. There is a growing effort in both the House and Senate to insert such supplemental funding into the war supplemental.
FY08 Supplemental – The Danger of Partisan Politics
A supplemental would reset the FY08 budget baseline to a higher level and restore our participation in ITER (for sure), ILC (likely), and NOvA (likely). These are all international programs with international partners, including some agreements already negotiated, and with domestic contracts for equipment and resources. They are high-priorities. Supplemental funding probably won’t save or restore many jobs, but it can put the U.S. back on a path, stabilize international relations in the field, and prepare our field for the likelihood of a difficult funding year.
Inserting money into the supplemental will be the job of the House, which must initiate all spending. However, the House doesn’t need a strong bi-partisan effort to pass something. There is a danger that Democrats might roll over the spending concerns of the Republicans, violating the long bi-partisan support of science. This could derail the whole effort, as the Senate DOES need strong bi-partisanship to accomplish the passage of bills. The majority in the Senate is too slim. An omnibus passed by partisanship in the House will die before reaching the Senate floor, or on it.
The Senate is building a coalition to support a bi-partisan supplemental request. I cannot find a reference for this yet on the internet, but a letter and a press-release were supposed to come from several key Senate offices yesterday, backed by a coalition of about eight Senators, in support of supplemental science appropriations for FY08. When I find it, I’ll post it.
FY09 and Beyond
It’s going to be a very tough year. Although the President requested lots of additional money for basic research to get back to the American COMPETES Act, he cut money on renewable energy and education programs dear to the Democrats. One need only look at the chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water to see the anger:
“I am not a logician and therefore when looking toward fiscal year 2009 I fail to comprehend the President’s logic in requesting a huge increase for Science while cutting funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs by $467 million. I fail to comprehend the reason behind requesting a huge increase in Science while decimating the DOE environmental clean-up and the water programs under our jurisdiction by more than $1 billion.” – Congressman Pete Visclosky (D-IN) [2]
This suggests, and was backed by appropriators handling both DOE and NSF, that Congress will restore the money left out by the President and thus start a fight with him. They said that he’s already made his veto threat – if the Congress attempts to appropriate more than he requested, he’ll veto it. Of course, that means reductions in the proposed basic research spending, which could be OK depending on how large they are. More likely, it means that Congress could wait until after the elections to try passing spending bills.
The most likely scenario is that we enter continuing resolution (CR), meaning that Congress votes to fund FY09 at the FY08 level until they pass the bills next year. Without adjustments to science in the CR, the damage to our scientific enterprise will continue unabated. While layoffs and furloughs took that into account, it doesn’t make the job of doing research any easier.
There is some hope. Members of Congress seem amenable to the idea of adjusting science in the CR, although it will take political will and champions. Key to this is the passage of supplemental FY08 science money, which then redefines the baseline for FY08 and softens the CR into FY09.
What To Do Next?
What can we do? Here is a short list:
- Write to your members of Congress during the Easter Recess, when they are in their districts worrying about district concerns. Do the following in your letter:
- Thank them, as appropriate for their efforts to support science (voting for America COMPETES, etc.). Express your gratitude for the bi-partisan efforts of the Congress to support science and make it a priority for the nation
- Emphasize that FY09 appropriations for basic research, in line with the America COMPETES Act, are critical to the health and growth of the nation’s science program. Emphasize that science has large economic benefits to the nation, by training the workforce of the 21st century, educating the next generation of skilled workers and creating the nation’s brainpower, and providing technological innovations that become critical to the nation’s industry and medicine. To cite specific examples, go online and look at material about particle beam-related cancer treatments, super-cooled magnets for MRIs, precision atomic clocks for the GPS system, computer algorithms for improving online experiences in search and shopping, and outreach programs for K-12, including science competitions and education programs.
- Finally, emphasize that a bi-partisan effort is needed to appropriate supplemental money for science in the FY08 budget to address the immediate emergency that the field is in. Note the loss of scientific opportunities in fusion research (ITER) for future alternative energy, the loss of ability to build the next generation of particle collider experiment needed to address discoveries at the Large Hadron Collider (e.g. the loss of ILC R&D money), and the loss of the near-term neutrino program at Fermilab. Stress the ripple effects on the job losses and mandatory furloughs at Fermilab, SLAC, and other labs. Stress that this damage to the scientific infrastructure cripples the U.S. science program at a time of increasing opportunity for scientific breakthroughs in areas such as particle physics.
The Way Forward
The way forward is through unity of message and the power of the community. Squabbling with Congress over this or that project will get us nowhere – we need the peer review to point the way. A consensus formed through community mandated processes is critical to moving forward. If your project isn’t picked, complaining to Congress about it will do exactly two things: divide the field, and kill the real consensus. Ultimately, selfishness and short-sightedness could destroy all that is left of the U.S. high-energy physics programs, and possibly other areas of science in parallel.
Also, don’t focus on the past. FY08 is done, and we need to focus on the future: FY09 appropriation and FY08 supplemental appropriation, critical to re-baselining the year, which can help us bounce up into an FY09 continuing resolution. Complaining about what happened in December will not – I repeat, NOT – light the way to FY09. It will seed bitterness, both in the field an in Congress, and in that path I can only foresee the death of the field.
Emphasize what is positive. We have champions in Congress, who need our support even if things don’t work out perfectly (Biggert, Holt, Ehlers, Eshoo, Foster, Alexander, Bingaman, Domenici, Mikulski, to name just a few!). We have broad support from the Congress for our work, even if they don’t understand it. We have to emphasize what is understandable: educational benefits and brainpower for a 21st century economy, technology and infrastructure to build the future of the nation, and scientific opportunity to inspire the next generation of great minds. A movement is starting for FY08 supplemental funding, something deemed “impossible” until just the last few weeks by many members of Congress. FY09 looks healthy but there is hard work to get there, an Congress needs to know we’re ready to move regardless of how the funding profile changes.
References:
[1] http://steve.cooleysekula.net/blog/?p=923
[2] http://aip.org/fyi/2008/036.html
