|
Go to:
-R&D in the
FY 2001 Budget: More for NSF, Fundamental Research, and Academic R&D;
A Call for "Balance" in the Federal Portfolio
-The Budgetary
Context for FY 2001: Raising the Caps, Paying Off the National Debt
-Recent Historical
Trends in Federal R&D
-Impacts of
Funding Trends on the Federal Research Portfolio
-Outlook
for the FY 2001 Budget Process
-Table
1. R&D in the FY 2001 Budget by Agency
-Table
2. Major Functional Categories of R&D
-Table 3. Research
in the FY 2001 Budget
-Table 4. Federal Support
for Conduct of R&D at Colleges and Universities
PDF version
of this document
-
|
(All figures in this analysis are preliminary
and will be revised in later AAAS releases. This analysis is a preview
of the forthcoming AAAS Report XXV: Research and Development FY 2001,
a comprehensive look at the President's budget for R&D in FY 2001, which
will be released at the 25th Anniversary AAAS Colloquium on Science and
Technology Policy, April 11-13, 2000, in Washington, DC. More tables and
supplemental materials on R&D in the FY 2001 budget can be found on the
AAAS R&D Web site at http://www.aaas.org/spp/R&D.
More information on the report and the Colloquium can be found at the
end of this analysis.)
President Clinton released his proposed budget for
the coming fiscal year on February 7. The proposed FY 2001 budget projects
a string of surpluses well into the next century, and sets forth a plan
to pay off the national debt by 2013 while still providing expanded
Medicare coverage and real increases over the next decade in discretionary
spending, the part of the federal budget out of which nearly all federal
support of research and development (R&D) is funded.
R&D in the FY 2001 Budget: More for NSF, Fundamental
Research, and Academic R&D; A Call for "Balance" in the Federal
Portfolio
Budget requests in the past several years have been
constrained because of tight caps on discretionary spending enacted
in 1997. Although final appropriations have been generally favorable
after Congress and the President figured out how to circumvent the caps,
the FY 2001 cap would have required sharp cuts in discretionary programs
in the FY 2001 request. The President, however, proposes to repeal the
existing caps and replace them with far more generous ones that would
allow a 5.2 percent increase in total discretionary spending in FY 2001.
As a result, the budget finds room for increases in most R&D programs,
including a 19 percent increase for R&D in the National Science
Foundation (NSF).
- The request for total federal R&D in FY 2001 is $85.3
billion, $2.6 billion or 3.1 percent more than FY 2000 (see Table
1).
- For the second year in a row, the budget requests more for nondefense
R&D than defense R&D. Nondefense R&D would increase
by $2.5 billion or 6.2 percent to $43.3 billion, or 51 percent of
total R&D (see Table 2). In FY
2001, defense R&D would increase slightly by $66 million to $42.1
billion (up 0.2 percent).
- The budget places a high priority on a balanced allocation of
resources among science and engineering disciplines. Although
a series of large increases for the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) has resulted in an emphasis on biomedical and life sciences
research in recent years, the FY 2001 budget proposes a more balanced
federal research portfolio through large increases for R&D programs
in non-life sciences disciplines. Every major R&D funding agency
would receive an increase except the Department of Defense (DOD),
although even DOD would receive an increase for its basic research
programs. The centerpiece of the request is the National Science Foundation
(NSF), the only federal agency responsible for supporting R&D
across the breadth of science and engineering disciplines. NSF would
receive $3.5 billion for R&D, an increase of $561 million or 19.3
percent. There would also be a large increase for the Department of
Energy (DOE; up 8.0 percent to $7.7 billion), a strong supporter of
physical sciences research and also the sponsor of major scientific
facilities used by a variety of disciplines.
- The FY 2001 budget packages many of the proposed increases in new
or existing multi-agency initiatives organized around a common theme.
The new National Nanotechnology Initiative proposes $495 million
in FY 2001, double the current funding level for existing programs,
for fundamental research at the nanoscale level. The budget also includes
an Information Technology (IT) R&D initiative which assembles
several existing IT R&D programs into a $2.3 billion package,
up from $1.7 billion in FY 2000. This includes $823 million for fundamental
IT research, up from $309 million, for the second year of what was
called the IT2 initiative in last year's request. There
is also a new initiative in biobased products and bioenergy, and funding
boosts for existing initiatives in climate change technology, global
change research, and the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles.
- Among mission areas, R&D in general science, commerce, energy,
and health are priorities in the FY 2001 request (see
Table 2). General science R&D would see the largest jump of
16.5 percent or $916 million to $6.5 billion because of a 19.3 percent
requested increase for R&D in NSF to $3.5 billion, spread over
the entire NSF portfolio of disciplines. There would also be substantial
increases in general science R&D in the Department of Energy (DOE;
up 13.3 percent to $3.0 billion), including boosts in funding for
IT research and construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS).
Energy-related R&D would increase 5.1 percent to $1.3 billion
because of additional funding for renewable energy technologies and
energy conservation R&D in DOE. Commerce R&D would increase
15.8 percent because of large requested increases for technology programs
and industrial standards research in the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST). Health R&D would also increase (up 5.0
percent to $19.6 billion) because of a nearly $1 billion requested
increase for R&D in the National Institutes of Health (NIH), following
a more than $2 billion increase in FY 2000.
- Basic research across the breadth of science and engineering disciplines
is a high priority for the Clinton Administration. Basic research
would total $20.3 billion, an increase of $1.3 billion or 6.8 percent,
following an even larger increase of $1.5 billion in FY 2000 (see
Table 3). Unlike in FY 2000 appropriations,
however, where the bulk of the increase went to NIH basic research
in the life sciences, the FY 2001 request would increase support across
the broad range of science and engineering disciplines. NSF, the leading
supporter of basic research in most non-life sciences disciplines,
would receive $3.0 billion for support of basic research, an increase
of 19.4 percent. Basic research funding would increase significantly
at the Department of Defense ($1.2 billion, up 4.7 percent) and DOE
($2.4 billion, up 6.1 percent), the primary sponsors of engineering
and physical sciences basic research. In the non-biomedical life sciences,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is a key sponsor, and would
receive $740 million (up 6.9 percent) for its support of basic research.
NIH would remain the largest federal sponsor of basic research with
$10.4 billion (up 5.7 percent), more than half the total federal portfolio.
- Because the majority of federally funded basic research is performed
by colleges and universities, the Clinton Administration's emphasis
on basic research would result in significant increases for federal
R&D performed by colleges and universities. Total federally
funded academic R&D would be $17.8 billion in FY 2001 (up 7.8
percent; see Table 4). NSF, the
largest sponsor of academic R&D for most non-life sciences disciplines,
would increase its support by $493 million or 21.2 percent to $2.8
billion. The largest agency sponsor of academic research would continue
to be NIH, with 61 percent of federal support for a total of $10.9
billion (up 6.1 percent). The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA; up 9.0 percent to $1.1 billion) and DOE (up 10.2 percent to
$444 million), key sponsors of academic research in the physical sciences
and engineering, plan to significantly expand their support.
Figure 1. (Click on the image to view
a full-size PDF chart)
- The NIH budget (including non-R&D components) would increase
by $1 billion or 5.6 percent to $18.8 billion in FY 2001, less than
the $2.2 billion increase NIH received in FY 2000 (see Figure 1).
Most institutes and centers would receive increases between 5 and
6 percent. One of NIH's key priorities is HIV/AIDS research, which
would receive a total of $2.1 billion, up nearly 8 percent. The National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the leading
NIH institute for HIV/AIDS research, would receive an increase of
6.1 percent to $1.9 billion. The National Human Genome Research Institute
(NHGRI), responsible for NIH's contribution to the Human Genome Project,
would receive $358 million (up 6.5 percent).
- The NSF budget is the centerpiece of the Clinton Administration
R&D request. Not only is it the lead supporter of the Administration's
initiatives in nanotechnology research, biocomplexity, and IT research,
but it also plays a key role in the Administration's goal of achieving
a more balanced research portfolio. The total NSF budget would jump
$675 million or 17.3 percent to $4.6 billion. NSF's R&D would
total $3.5 billion, up nearly 20 percent from FY 2000. The Directorate
for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) would
receive $190 million for fundamental IT research (up from $90 million
in FY 2000), within a total CISE budget of $529 million, an increase
of 36.2 percent. The other research directorates would all receive
increases of approximately 20 percent.
- DOD's R&D would fall slightly by 0.2 percent to $38.6
billion, mostly because of sharp cuts in applied research (down 8.7
percent to $3.1 billion) and exploratory development across all three
services and the Defense Agencies. Although there would be a substantial
$11 billion or 4.0 percent increase in the total FY 2001 DOD budget
to $292 billion, the additional funds would mostly go toward weapons
procurement and DOD's day-to-day operations. Among the DOD R&D
categories, the "6.1" (basic research) category would receive
a $55 million or 4.8 percent boost to $1.2 billion following an even
larger increase in FY 2000. The Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA; $2.0 billion, up 4.0 percent) would receive large increases
in its fundamental IT and biological warfare research programs. The
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) would receive a 15 percent
boost in its R&D budget to $3.9 billion, including $1.7 billion
(up from $1.0 billion in FY 2000) for national missile defense development.
- The total NASA budget ($14.0 billion) would increase 3.2
percent in FY 2001. NASA's R&D would increase 2.9 percent to $10.0
billion. The International Space Station project would decline $209
million or 9.0 percent to $2.1 billion, but there would be substantial
increases for several NASA research programs. Space Science would
receive $2.4 billion, a boost of $206 million or 9.4 percent. The
Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications program would receive
$302 million (up 10.1 percent), including expanded efforts in biomedical,
microgravity, and health research. After several years of cuts, the
Aero-Space Technology program would increase 6.1 percent to $1.2 billion,
including a $107 million boost to $290 million for development work
on reusable launch vehicles.
- DOE's nondefense R&D budget of $4.2 billion (up 11.0
percent) includes $182 million (up 42.3 percent to $182 million) for
Advanced Scientific Computing Research, renamed from Computational
and Technology Research. There is also a large requested increase
for Basic Energy Sciences (up 30.3 percent to $1.0 billion). Most
of the increase is for construction of the Spallation Neutron Source
($262 million, up from $100 million), but BES research programs would
also receive an 11.0 percent increase to $754 million. Most of DOE's
defense R&D programs are now in the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) within DOE. There would be considerable restructuring
of the defense R&D programs, but R&D funding would still increase
by 4.4 percent to $3.4 billion.
- The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) R&D budget
of $1.8 billion in FY 2001 would be a 3.1 percent increase from FY
2000. USDA proposes $150 million for the National Research Initiative
extramural competitive grants program, $31 million more than the current
year, and an expansion of its intramural Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) R&D program to $956 million (up 5.5 percent). In both FY
2000 and FY 2001, USDA expects to distribute up to $120 million a
year in competitive research grants under a new mandatory program.
- The other major R&D funding agencies would all receive increases
in the FY 2001 budget. The National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) would see its R&D budget increase 9.4 percent
to $501 million because of increases for both its intramural and extramural
(Advanced Technology Program) research programs. The U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), the lead science agency in the Department of the
Interior, would receive $538 million for its R&D activities, an
increase of 7.2 percent. After declining last year, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) hopes for a 4.8 percent increase in its
R&D ($679 million). The Department of Transportation (DOT)
requests $733 million for its R&D programs, a 25.3 percent increase.
Most of the increase, however, would depend on congressional approval
of a proposal to divert transportation tax revenues from state transportation
projects to R&D. Congress rejected a similar proposal last year.
The Budgetary Context for FY 2001: Raising the Caps,
Paying Off the National Debt
Nearly all federal R&D is funded through the discretionary
portion of the budget, the one-third of the budget subject to annual
appropriations. The President proposes $622 billion in discretionary
budget authority for FY 2001. This represents an increase of $31
billion or 5.2 percent over the FY 2000 funding level. The increase
would be spread over both the defense and nondefense accounts. To stay
ahead of Republican calls for dramatically increased defense spending,
the budget proposes $307 billion (up 4.2 percent) for defense, while
the budget also proposes increases for many domestic programs, for a
total of $316 billion, up 6.2 percent from FY 2000.
In past years, the Administration was constrained in
drafting its discretionary proposals by discretionary spending caps
signed into law in 1997. The caps are still law, even though Congress
and the President have found ways in the past two years to circumvent
them in order to spend far more than the caps, and thus provide increases
for R&D programs (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. (Click on the image to view
a full-size PDF chart)
To comply with the FY 2001 cap, the President would
have had to cut discretionary spending by nearly 10 percent below the
FY 2000 level. Instead, the President's budget proposes a new set
of caps for FY 2001, extending to FY 2010. As shown in Figure 2,
the new cap for FY 2001 is more than $70 billion above the existing
one, and is high enough to accomodate the President's requested increases
for discretionary programs. In future years, the caps rise at the rate
of expected inflation and would thus allow for small future increases
in R&D and other discretionary programs.
Despite the requested increases for discretionary programs,
and despite proposals to dramatically expand the Medicare program to
cover prescription drugs while at the same time offering net tax cuts,
the President's budget still projects large and growing budget surpluses
over the next decade. Federal revenues have been growing rapidly in
the past few years because of unexpected strength in the U.S. economy.
The President's budget assumes that economic growth and thus growth
in federal revenues will outpace growth in federal spending over the
next decade, which would result in budget surpluses so large that the
federal government is expected to record surpluses even without counting
large surpluses in the Social Security trust fund (the off-budget surplus).
There is bipartisan agreement that all Social Security surpluses should
be used to pay down the national debt, leaving the remaining on-budget
surpluses to be used for other purposes such as tax cuts, spending,
or paying off more debt. The President's budget proposes to use projected
on-budget surpluses for a mixture of these three options.
Under the President's budget plan, the surpluses would
be so large that the national debt to the public would be paid off
in FY 2013 (see Figure 3). This would make it easier later in the
century for the federal government to pay off the government's internal
debt, most of which is held by Social Security, and would eliminate
net interest on the national debt ($220 billion in FY 2000) as an expense
in the federal budget.
Figure 3. (Click on the image to view a full-size
PDF chart)
Figure 4. (Click on the image to view a full-size
PDF chart)
Recent Historical Trends in Federal R&D
Over the past decade, federal R&D has generally
increased, but in the mid-1990s the drive to achieve a balanced budget
through cuts in discretionary programs took its toll on the R&D
programs of several agencies. As shown in Figure 4, except for NIH the
largest federal R&D funding agencies have been through ups and downs
in their R&D budgets over the past decade. While NIH has received
regular increases every year, and in the past two years received increases
of 15 percent or more, NSF endured a period of stagnant funding in the
mid-1990s before winning increases the past two years and a sharp requested
boost for next year. Similarly, NASA R&D stagnated in the mid-1990s
and remains well below the FY 1994 level. DOE R&D bottomed out in
FY 1997 as a result of post-Cold War cutbacks on the defense side and
Republican hostility to its energy R&D programs on the nondefense
side, but its R&D funding has been on the rise for the past few
years. DOD's S&T programs would fall below the FY 1990 funding level
in the FY 2001 request, despite increasing concern in the defense community
that current DOD S&T investments are inadequate to prepare the U.S.
military for the warfighting challenges of the coming decades.
Impacts of Funding Trends on the Federal Research
Portfolio
Figure 5. (Click on the image to view a full-size
PDF chart)
Increases for NIH over the past few decades have resulted
in a dramatic expansion in federal support for life sciences research,
nearly three-quarters of which is funded by NIH. Other disciplines,
funded by agencies with stagnant or declining budgets, have not fared
as well; it is this disparity that the proposed budget's call for a
more balanced research portfolio aims to address.
Not surprisingly, the upward trend in federal support
for life sciences research (see Figure 5) mirrors the steady growth
in the NIH budget over the past three decades. This trend is remarkable
when contrasted with how other disciplines have fared during this time
period. Federal support for engineering research, which was greater
than life sciences support in FY 1970, has stagnated for three decades.
Support for the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc.)
showed slow but steady increases until the early 1990s, but has declined
since then due to cuts in DOE and especially DOD.
Of the total federal research portfolio of $35 billion
in FY 2000 (excluding development and R&D facilities), $16 billion
(or nearly 45 percent) goes to life sciences research, compared with
less than 30 percent in FY 1970. This dramatic growth for the life sciences
combined with flat or declining funding in other agencies' support of
non-life sciences disciplines has resulted in increasing concern within
the scientific community that the federal portfolio has become unbalanced.
In response to this concern, the FY 2001 budget proposal
calls for further increases for NIH, but larger increases to R&D
programs in other agencies whose support is key to non-life sciences
fields. NSF, as the only federal agency with responsibility for funding
nearly all science and engineering disciplines, would receive enough
new money to significantly boost funding levels for nearly all the disciplines
represented in Figure 5. Other agencies with significant funding roles
in the physical sciences (DOE) and environmental sciences (USGS, EPA,
NASA) would also receive large funding boosts in their research budgets.
Outlook for the FY 2001 Budget Process
Because of the optimistic economic outlook and bipartisan
agreement to increase R&D spending in last year's appropriations
process, the outlook for federal R&D in FY 2001 is highly favorable.
Congress, of course, will have its own priorities and will alter the
President's request, but it seems almost certain that final FY 2001
appropriations for R&D in the aggregate will be similar and maybe
even higher than these requested funding levels. Although many Republicans
would like to set the new cap for FY 2001 discretionary spending lower
than the President's cap, there is nevertheless a near-consensus that
it will have to be far higher than the existing one. Within whatever
cap is agreed upon, Congress is almost certain to boost NIH and DOD
funding above the requested level, and in an election year Congress
may decide to spend whatever is necessary to reach agreement with the
President on an early end to the appropriations process. With the concern
for a balanced research portfolio articulated by no less than President
Clinton himself, there is a high probability that programs across the
breadth of the federal R&D portfolio will benefit.
- February 10, 2000
(More information on the 25th Anniversary AAAS Colloquium
on Science and Technology Policy, supplementary materials on R&D
in the FY 2001 budget, historical data and charts, and more information
on AAAS Report XXV: Research and Development FY 2001, can be
found on the AAAS R&D Web site at http://www.aaas.org/spp/R&D,
or by calling 202-326-6607.)
AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program
American Association for the Advancement of Science
1200 New York Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 326-6607
science_policy@aaas.org
http://www.aaas.org/spp/R&D
Go to Tables
1-4
|
