I posted a short note about a week ago, expressing concern that the hyper-politicization of the war supplemental had begun. Well, it has begun. As reported in several online news articles [1] [2], the Democrats in the House are trying to bypass the appropriations committee (with what looks like at least the implicit consent of Rep. Obey) and take the war supplemental straight to the floor. The House Republicans are, predictably, up in arms. I expected some poltics, but this is a pretty damned forceful move by the Democrats.
Normally, I guess I wouldn’t much pay attention to this business. However, as I’ve mentioned there are efforts to insert about $500M in science supplemental spending into this bill. The primary goal of this is to restore our participation in ITER, an international energy project for which we’d already signed agreements. In addition, money is planned for DOE and NSF to help alleviate the layoff burden at many labs, and get other canceled projects out of intensive care and into the recovery ward.
However, since the Senate requires bi-partisanship to pass anything (it’s a one-Democrat majority in the Senate), a highly polarized war supplemental bill could die on arrival in the Senate.
One could interpret the move by the House Democrats as “passing the buck” – that is, skip the House process in the hopes that the Senate can work out a more bi-partisan bill, which the House could then agree to. However, the danger is that if Republicans in the House feel steam-rolled, then their Senate colleagues, better tempered though they may be, could choose to take up arms against the process. That’s why the bill could die on arrival.
The Democrats’ strategy is summarized as follows:
But Democratic leaders are exploring the possibility of including funds
for domestic programs, such as increased veterans’ education benefits,
extending unemployment insurance and energy tax credits. When House
leaders bring the measure to the floor, the plan is to have three
separate votes on the war spending, war policy and other domestic
considerations. The maneuver is expected to ease passage of the measure
by winning the support of the Out of Iraq Caucus, a group of over 70
Democrats seeking to bring combat troops home. [2]
So, I guess I see two outcomes from the current strategy. Either Senate Republicans and Democrats see the House maneuver as granting them control over the process, ending with a committee conference to hash out any differences in a (hopefully) bi-partisan way; or, the House Republicans could stir up the Senate Republicans, who take up the fight against the bill in the Senate. The first possibility could lead to a positive outcome, though with political shake-up; the second possibility could lead to the death of the bill, with the next Congress and next President left to sort out the war spending (and the science spending).
In the second case, science remains at the omnibus baseline, and more layoffs are likely in the autumn. At a time when Congress pays lip-service to the poor state of the economy, you’d think they’d be concerned about highly skilled workers losing their jobs. The labs are unlikely to get those people back, either. They’ll be forced into retirement, laid off and unable to find work commensurate with their skill set, or snapped up immediately by a private company or university. In the last two cases, the industry might benefit at the expense of the nation’s long-term research investment, or we might remain stable if universities can afford to hire these people. It’s just not clear. Regardless, there is much to be said for job stability in the role of making for good science. Certainly, regardless of where these people wind up, the instability alone is enough to endanger America’s scientific enterprise.
I worry about the future.
P.S. One hidden danger of the process of steam-rolling the Republicans is that, should it succeed, scientists will likely draw Republican ire for participating, even implicitly, in a process that was so partisan. For the first time in a long time, science and the funding of science may be seen as a legislative partisan issue, not just tied to any one specific values issue (e.g. abortion, climate change, sex education, etc.). Remember that in science, it’s the PROCESS that matters. The process of getting a little more money for science could be seen as not separate from the war spending, but intimately tied to the war spending fight. It’s a terrifying prospect.
[1] Republicans launch protest on House floor
[2] House Democrats to hash out war funding floor strategy
