6. To the Hill
During the early part of 1993, there was much concern on the part of the
telecommunications industry that the Federal government might "build"
the National Information Infrastructure on its own, rather than as a collaboration
with industry. Needless to say, powerful political forces were at work until
the Administration was able to articulate its vision for the National Information
Infrastructure in various policy documents.
I had the opportunity to attend a Congressional hearing on the reauthorization
of the National Science Foundation budget for the National Research and
Education Network (NREN). The NREN was a crucial piece of the High Performance
Computing and Communications program that funded high speed connectivity
for the Nation's Colleges and Universities. [27]
In observing these deliberations, I was left wondering about the true purpose
of Congressional hearings. Almost no member actually showed up, and only
a handful of staffers were present at any time during this particular session.
In greatest attendance, and packing the standing room only hearing rooms,
were the legions of lobbyists (kitted out in their proverbial "expensive
suits" and Gucci shoes). To this cynic, the purpose appeared to be
little more than reading some position statements into the Congressional
record (which until recently, could be amended at a later date, at least
by Congressmen).
Perhaps the most surprising observation is that the most powerful people
in Washington are not the Congressmen themselves, but their congressional
staffers. Congressmen are too busy to grasp the full range of issues of
every piece of complex legislation for which they are responsible. The staffers
specialize on issues, and are delegated most of the responsibility for drafting
legislation (assuming this is not already done for them by the lobbyists!).
And of course, nobody votes for the staffers. As a program manager at ARPA,
we lived in almost daily fear of the micromanagement of our programs by
the Congressional staffs. This would sometimes involve Congressional reviews
at the level of individual contracts. Some congressmen were particularly
interested in the contracts (or lack thereof) in their home districts.
The particular great debate I witnessed was whether the NREN was a research
project or a public utility. One witness, a former congressman himself and
a Vice President of Government Affairs for NYNEX, described in his view
how the Internet lost revenue for the phone company by allowing people (mostly
university students) to exchange email messages rather than place telephone
calls. [28] Another dimension of the debate was how
wide a constituency benefited from the NREN. Was it just "pork barrel"
for the NSF supercomputer centers? Senator Kerry of Nebraska wanted to know
whether the NREN would reach rural Nebraska. These kinds of debates will
no doubt continue as the Federal allocations in research and development
continue to decline.
One final observation about the Hill: money is power. The following is extracted
from the 1994 Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
proposed legislation for the Department of Defense:
"Recognizing the need to leverage Federal investments
and minimize duplication, the Committee directs that $7,000,000 of the high
performance computing project funds shall be made available only to the
Maui High Performance Computing Center to allow this center to collaboratively
support research and development efforts planned by ARPA in fiscal year
1995."
This is what Congress calls an "earmark," and what you or I would
call "pork." Maui is not well known for having a high density
of supercomputer users, and it is one place to place such a resource that
is particularly wicked-and expensive-to reach with high bandwidth communications.
In a similar manner, the DoD also underwrites the cost of an Alaska Supercomputer
Center. These Defense budget items are perhaps less surprising when you
discover that Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii is the ranking Democrat on
this crucial appropriations subcommittee (and had a reputation as "King
of the Pork Barrel," directing several hundreds of millions of dollars
of Defense projects to his state). If you think that pork is related to
party line, then guess again. The leading Republican on this same subcommittee
is Ted Stevens of Alaska. Don't expect the real politics to change just
because the Republicans currently control Congress.
To illustrate some of the power politics played on the Hill, it is instructive
to recall what happened to the Department of Defense's University Research
Initiative funding in FY95. The funding was held hostage by Rep. Murtha,
ranking Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations Committee. The reason?
Representative George Brown, a staunch defender of science and research,
was out to curb Murtha's predilection for earmarking funds for his eastern
Pennsylvania district. To get even, Murtha selected a program for cuts that
was close to Brown's heart, the University Research Initiative. The result
was a $900 million cut, later reduced to $200 million, based on the efforts
of strong supporters of University research within the Department of Defense.
Since there is no natural constituency for University research, this program
could be targeted for even more cuts in the future.
Footnotes
27. It should be noted that the government no longer runs
the NREN, having turned its management over to private sector regional Internet
providers. The National Science Foundation continues to support research-oriented
experimental networks and testbeds of various kinds, but is no longer in
the business of providing operational support.
28. Most of the people in the hearing room found this
position to be ridiculous, and expressed themselves with a roar of laughter
over this remark. The government has dug no new trenches or pulled new fiber
in its support of the NREN. It has leased bandwidth from and generated good
revenue for the very industry this lobbyist represented.
[Prev] [Top]
[Next]
Randy H. Katz, randy@cs.Berkeley.edu, Last Updated: 21 December
95