My colleague asked me to pass this along to the group.
Although we are a smaller user of helium, we are of course quite concerned
still. Prior to Dean Olson's email, we were in fact able to initiate a
formal lobbying effort using the lobbying firm on retainer by Bucknell, and
we would urge others to do the same as Dean has described so well.
At a minimum any one preparing to engage their institution's lobbying arm
should point out the two bills (H.R. 527 and S.783) and make specific
suggestions to be advanced by lobbyists.
We presented two lobbying concerns : (1) continued access to helium and (2)
affordable helium. We did this in the context of research and teach
preeminence in American Colleges and Universities. We are taking the route
of recommending 'outcomes' as opposed to taking a side with a particular
solution.
Let me explain: Item 1 for us is the concern that some users could face
drastic shortfalls regardless of prices. We are concerned that some
reports in popular press suggest preferential access to helium may result.
Item 2 for us is that we would likely not be able to afford some of the
drastic increases in prices that have been tossed around in popular press.
With two bills being floated (House and Senate) and a lot of backroom
dealings, one of our primary worries is that academic institutions are not
being heard. The popular press is focusing instead on big dollar lobbying
by heavy industry, semi-conductor industry and self-advocacy by government
entities such as NASA.
One key detail in asking for institutional help to lobby is that they will
ask you for specifics of what you want Congress to do. Telling them that
we are 'worried' doesn't cut it, and understandably so.
Along those lines, we have indicated that a need to pass legislation prior
to the cliff is essential in the short term to preserve continuity, and
that in the long term there should be provisions in legislation to
prioritize academic access to helium. We are of course worried that
stop-gap legislation could be poorly worded or have other undesirable
outcomes.
If some consensus were to emerge among AMMRL or elsewhere on specifics of
legislation then that would help us all as we engage our lobbying resources.
But there are more complex issues. Should NASA be forced to reclaim the
vast He that it uses? Should we be advocating for a more free market
approach or a more subsidizied approach? These are not easy questions and
might even be considered 'hot button' issues. We did not mention these and
stuck to the two "outcomes" above.
-David Rovnyak
Received on Mon Sep 16 2013 - 10:00:44 MST