previous month and 5.38 million in April 1974. This represents an almost 3% dip in the past year. Bad as it is, this decline is not nearly as bad as the cutbacks that have hit blue-collar workers in the manufacturing industries. In April 1974 manufacturing industries employed 14.6 million production workers. By April 1975 this had dropped a staggering 13% to 12.7 million—and it was still going down, if at a somewhat reduced rate. D
Senate NSF bill omits grant review The legislative portion of the controversy over a House amendment to the National Science Foundation budget bill, which gives Congress veto power over any and all NSF research grants, is drawing rapidly to a close. Within the past few days, the Senate Labor & Public Welfare Committee has unanimously approved for full Senate action an NSF budget bill drawn up by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's (D.-Mass.) special NSF subcommittee that contains no provision whatsoever relating to the House amendment. It doesn't even contain a small bone to pacify potential Senate backers of the House amendment, which was sponsored by Rep. Robert E. Bauman(R.-Md.). However, there are some substantive differences between the Senate committee bill, which probably will be approved mostly intact in the next week or so by the full Senate, and the House bill. For instance, the Senate committee bill requires for the first time that NSF set aside 10% of its applied research budget for small R&D businesses. This would give small R&D outfits their first substantive crack at NSF monies, with the funds most probably coming from NSF's Research Applied to National Needs program. Depending on whose budget figures are used—House-Senate committee, or Administration—that could mean upwards of $8.1 million for the small R&D firms. Dr. Sam Z. Cardon, president of the American Association of Small Research Companies, who has long been urging that small R&D firms get a crack at NSF research money, applauds the action, commenting that it's a "great start." He adds, "We would like to see the same kind of thinking extended to other government agencies like the Energy Research & Development Administration and the Department of
Health, Education & Welfare." Whether the provision for small R&D firms will be bargained away in a House-Senate conference committee—the House bill contains no such provision—remains to be seen. There are other significant differences to be resolved between the two bills. These include the Senate committee bill provisions for a broadening of public participation in internal NSF planning and policy setting, a roughly $71.2 million difference between levels of NSF's budget authorization, and a $5 million "Science for Citizens Program." This program is designed, among other things, to improve public understanding of public policy issues involving science and technology, and to enable nonprofit, citizens' public interest groups to acquire necessary technical expertise to assist them in dealing with the scien-
the Senate committee bill provides $7 million. Further, the conference committee will have to resolve what to do about the Bauman amendment. Senate conferees will insist strongly that the amendment be deleted. And most likely many of the House conferees will agree. However, whether it will be deleted still depends on Senate floor action—some vestige might be tacked onto the budget bill—and on the makeup and leanings of the conference committee members. D
Breeder reactor costs ballooning
Nuclear energy was in the news again last week, following a report two weeks ago questioning the safety of light-water nuclear reactors used to produce electricity (C&EN, May 5, page 5). Probably the biggest news of the week was a somewhat downbeat report from the General Accounting Office, the Congressional fiscal watchdog agency. The study claims that the current fast-breeder reactor program eventually could cost the federal government an additional $1.7 billion in subsidies before it becomes economically competitive with other forms of energy. Original estimates of $1.8 billion for the breeder program have ballooned to $10.7 billion, GAO says, including $3.5 billion due to inflation. Government subsidies probably would account for only about $300 million of this inflated figure, Kennedy: bigger NSF budget but could grow to $2 billion if subtific and technical aspects of public sidies are needed for more than the first demonstration reactor slated policy issues. As usual, the Senate committee is for operation in 1982 on the Clinch more generous in authorizing money River in Tennessee. for the NSF budget than either the Added subsidies may be needed, House or the Administration. The according to GAO, if the current Senate committee bill authorizes an program fails to achieve its develop$826.6 million budget for NSF. The ment goals and resulting improveHouse voted $755.4 million—pre- ments, and if more conservative cisely the amount sought by the Ad- estimates are made. In addition, the ministration. And there are differ- GAO report calls "optimistic and ences among funding levels for possibly unrealistic" the Energy Respecific programs. For example, for search & Development Administraresearch project support, the Ad- tion's prediction that 186 commerministration sought $380 million, cial fast-breeder reactors will be the House voted $366.3 million, and operating by the year 2000. GAO the Senate committee bill provides says it bases this view on talks with $389 million. For educational pro- utility industries and reactor equipgrams including graduate education ment manufacturers. The comsupport, the Administration sought panies told GAO that, by and large, $73 million, the House voted $89.5 few utilities would be willing to million, and the Senate committee commit the large amounts of capital bill provides $102 million. And for needed unless they were certain that science information activities, the fast-breeder reactors would be techAdministration sought $6 million, nically and economically sound. the House voted $6.2 million, and The GAO report also notes that May 12, 1975 C&EN
7
