|
As the September 30 deadline looms for approval of all
fiscal year (FY) 2000 appropriations bills, Congress is
deeply split on R&D funding, with the House approving significant
cuts and the Senate favoring spending increases. Budget
analysts are predicting that the FY 2000 appropriations
process is likely to grind to a halt because of severe restrictions
on discretionary spending and steep cuts to domestic programs.
Funding for R&D is likely to be decided as a minor item
in high-level, closed-door negotiations between the President
and Congress over the shape of the federal budget. In such
an environment, it is difficult to predict how federal R&D
will fare, but the proposed cuts already on the table stand
a fair chance of becoming reality.
The House has drafted twelve out of the thirteen appropriations
bills, except for Labor, Health and Human Services (Labor-HHS)
which funds the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Because
of tight budget caps within which defense spending would
rise considerably, the House would make cuts to key R&D
programs and deny funds for several White House initiatives.
The Senate, meanwhile, has approved only nine appropriations
bills and drafted two more, with Labor-HHS and Veterans,
Housing, and Independent Agencies (VA-HUD-IA) still to be
drafted. Working under the same budget caps the Senate would
provide increases for R&D because it has made R&D a high
priority and would provide less money for defense than the
House, freeing up funds for domestic programs. But the Senate
still must deal with two of the most difficult bills including
the VA-HUD-IA bill which funds the National Science Foundation
(NSF), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
So far, the House would cut nondefense R&D 5.1 percent
or $1.1 billion from FY 1999 funding levels. Especially
hard hit would be R&D in NASA ($9.0 billion, down 7.0 percent);
the Department of Commerce ($844 million, down 21.5 percent),
and the Department of Energy (DOE; $6.8 billion, down 2.9
percent). Even NSF, which received increases in previous
years, would see its R&D decline by 2.7 percent to $2.6
billion. Among the large agencies, only the Department of
Transportation (DOT) would see an increase, to $656 million
(up 8.9 percent) because most of its funding is under separate
budget caps.
In contrast, defense R&D would receive favorable treatment
in the House. The Department of Defense (DOD) appropriations
bill would provide a total of $40.9 billion, a cut of $304
million or 0.7 percent below FY 1999, but this would be
$2.4 billion more than the Administration request. The Senate’s
appropriation would be similar. The cuts would be concentrated
in DOD’s development activities and would be partly offset
by increases for basic and applied research. The “Science
and Technology” portion of DOD’s budget, which encompasses
basic and applied research, and exploratory technology development,
would increase by 5.6 percent to $8.2 billion.
Basic research in agencies whose budgets the House has
approved would be up by 2.2 percent to $9.0 billion. There
would be increases for basic research in DOD (up 3.1 percent),
Department of Agriculture (up 2.3 percent), and even NASA
(up 7.1 percent). But NSF, the second-largest funding source
for basic research and the leading source for most non-life
sciences disciplines, would see its basic research funding
decline by 0.3 percent to $2.3 billion. DOE basic research
would stay nearly level at $2.2 billion because of flat
funding for basic research-oriented programs such as High
Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, and Basic Energy Sciences.
The following are highlights of the appropriations for
key R&D agencies. The summary focuses primarily on the House
proposed bills since that chamber has progressed further
than the Senate.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
budget would decline steeply in the House plan, from $13.7
billion in FY 1999 to a proposed $12.7 billion, a cut of
7.4 percent. NASA’s Science, Aeronautics and Technology
(SAT) account, which funds most of NASA’s R&D, would decline
12.0 percent to $5.0 billion because of deep cuts to the
Earth Science and Space Science programs. The House would
cancel several missions, and dramatically reduce planning
and development funds for future missions in the Discovery
and Explorer space science programs. The House would also
reduce supporting research and technology funds and mission
support funds, which could affect all NASA programs. The
Senate has not acted yet on the NASA budget.
The House would cut the National Science Foundation
(NSF) budget by 2.0 percent to $3.6 billion. Most of
the research directorates would receive level funding; NSF
had requested increases between 2 to 5 percent. Cuts in
facilities funding would result in a 2.7 percent decline
in total NSF R&D. The House would dramatically scale back
first-year funding for the Administration’s proposed Information
Technology for the Twenty-First Century (IT2) initiative.
NSF requested $146 million for its role in IT2, but the
House would provide only $35 million. The new Biocomplexity
initiative would receive $35 million, less than the $50
million request. The Senate has not acted yet on the NSF
budget.
The House would slash R&D in the Department of Commerce
by nearly one fourth. The House would provide only $844
million for Commerce R&D, a reduction of $231 million or
21.5 percent from FY 1999 funding levels. The House would
eliminate the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and make
cuts to most R&D programs in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). Intramural research in the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would remain
at the FY 1999 level. The House would provide sufficient
funds for a two-track 2000 census, one with and one without
statistical sampling. The Senate, in sharp contrast to the
House, would provide generous increases to most Commerce
R&D programs, including ATP, for a 15.8 percent increase
in total Commerce R&D ($1.2 billion).
In the wake of growing congressional anger over allegations
of security breaches and mismanagement at Department
of Energy (DOE) weapons labs, the House would impose
restrictions by withholding $1 billion until DOE is restructured,
and would also cut funding for R&D programs. DOE’s R&D would
total $6.8 billion, 2.9 percent less than FY 1999. The Stockpile
Stewardship program, which funds most of the R&D performed
at the weapons labs, would receive $2.0 billion, a reduction
of 6.0 percent after several years of large increases. The
DOE Science account, which funds research on physics, fusion,
and energy sciences, would receive $2.6 billion, a cut of
2.8 percent. The House would deny the requested $70 million
for DOE’s contribution to the IT2 initiative, and would
also trim the request for the Spallation Neutron Source
from $214 million down to only $68 million. R&D on solar
and renewable energy technologies would decrease 7.7 percent.
The Senate would provide increases for most DOE programs,
without restrictions, for a total R&D appropriation of $7.3
billion, an increase of 4.9 percent.
The House would boost Department of Defense (DOD)
funding of basic and applied research above both the President’s
request and the FY 1999 funding level. DOD’s basic research
(“6.1”) would total $1.1 billion, 3.1 percent above FY 1999,
while applied research (“6.2”) would total $3.4 billion,
more than 7 percent above the current year funding level.
The House would provide $60 million for DOD’s role in the
IT2 initiative, down from the request of $100 million. The
House would also create a separate $250 million appropriation
for medical R&D, including $175 million for breast cancer
research and $75 million for prostate cancer research. The
Senate would provide similar increases for DOD “6.1”, “6.2”,
and medical research accounts.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would
receive $1.6 billion for its R&D, a cut of 2.1 percent.
This would be far below the request of $1.85 billion because
the House would block a new, non-appropriated competitive
research grants program from spending a planned $120 million
in FY 2000. (The Senate would allow the release of $50 million.)
An existing competitive grants program, the National Research
Initiative, would be cut 11.6 percent from the FY 1999 level
to $105 million. Congressionally designated Special Research
Grants, however, would receive $63 million, $8 million more
than this year and $58 million more than USDA had requested.
The Senate would be more generous with an appropriation
of $1.7 billion for total USDA R&D (up 3.8 percent).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would
receive $643 million for its R&D from the House, a decline
of 3.5 percent, but this would be the same amount as the
agency request. Most research programs would be funded at
FY 1999 levels. The Senate has not acted yet on the EPA
budget.
Much of the Department of Transportation (DOT) budget
is exempt from the caps because of two new categories of
spending created last year for transportation programs.
Spending on these categories automatically augments with
increased gas tax revenues. As a result, the House would
allow DOT’s R&D to increase 8.9 percent to $656 million
in FY 2000, with substantial increases for highway, aviation,
and transit R&D. The Senate would provide similar amounts.
Congress will struggle this September to draft the remaining
appropriations bills, but no one expects all of them to
be signed into law by the October 1 start of FY 2000. It
is likely that the President will veto some of them and
others will contain funding cuts so severe that they will
cause delays in House-Senate conferences. Any appropriations
bills not signed into law by October will likely be bundled
into an omnibus appropriations bill, and funding levels
will be hammered out in high-level negotiations between
the Republican leadership and Administration officials behind
closed doors. Agencies funded by the unfinished appropriations
will receive temporary funding (most likely at FY 1999 levels)
through continuing resolutions until final appropriations
levels are decided.
Kei Koizumi
AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program
|
