On May 16, the House Appropriations Committee released
its version of the FY 2001 Agriculture appropriations bill, which provides
funding for most of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). [After
many delays and several amendments, including amendments to R&D
programs, the House approved the bill on July 11. The House bill would
provide $1.7 billion for USDA R&D in FY 2001, a cut of 2.0 percent
or $36 million, mostly because the House would block a $120 million
mandatory competitive research grants program (see Table).
The House appropriation would be $97 million less than the President's
request.] Earlier, the Senate Appropriations Committee released its
own version of the Agriculture bill. The Senate bill would be far more
generous toward USDA R&D and would provide increases for most programs
(for details of the Senate bill, see the May 12
AAAS R&D Funding Update).
[Total USDA R&D funding of $1.7 billion would be $36 million
or 2.0 percent below FY 2000, and even further below the Senate appropriation
and the President's request. While USDA's intramural research program
would stay level, USDA's extramural research grants would fall dramatically
in funding, especially its competitively awarded grants. Major increases
would go toward extramural congressionally designated research projects,
which would jump 16.2 percent to reach $74 million in the Special Research
Grants program, and R&D in the Forest Service, which would jump
10.4 percent to $233 million. In addition to the Special Research Grants,
in June the President signed into law a crop insurance bill containing
$51 million in FY 2001 funding for other congressionally designated
research projects.] (For full details of the President's request for
USDA R&D and full information on USDA R&D programs, see Chapter
13 of AAAS Report XXV: R&D FY 2001.)
The House bill would block two mandatory (non-appropriated) grants programs from spending their funds. The Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) was created in June 1998 as a mandatory program to spend $120 million a year for five years on competitively awarded grants for agricultural research, to be administered by USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES). The Appropriations Committees were upset that this program, created by the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, would take spending decisions on agricultural research out of their jurisdictions, so they blocked USDA from spending the first $120 million installment of these funds in FY 1999. But because these funds were made available by law for two years, the FY 1999 money became available in FY 2000. USDA earlier this year announced requests for proposals for these funds, and barring further congressional action the first grants should be distributed this summer. Last year, Congress blocked the use of the FY 2000 funds but again only for one year, so USDA anticipates that these FY 2000 funds will become available in October for the second round of grants. Because USDA assumes that FY 1999 and FY 2000 funds will cover spending in FY 2000 and FY 2001, the budget request proposed to defer the FY 2001 funds for a year.
The House bill would block the program from spending
any of its funds as soon as the bill is signed into law, which would
prevent the use of FY 2000 funds in FY 2001. The Senate bill would block
only the FY 2001 funds, which should allow the program to spend its
FY 2000 funds next year as planned. (To more accurately reflect when
the money would be spent, the Table shows
$120 million in FY 1999 funds in the FY 2000 column and the FY 2000
funds in the FY 2001 columns. The Table
assumes that the House bill would block any spending in FY 2001; if
the House provisions become law soon enough, FY 2000 spending could
also be blocked.)
Similarly, the Fund for Rural America in the Office of the Secretary was reauthorized last June for five years, but FY 1999 funds were blocked by Congress and became available in FY 2000, while FY 2000 funds were also blocked but would become available in FY 2001. The House bill would block any spending on this program as soon as it is signed into law, while the Senate bill would block FY 2001 funds for this program but would allow other years' funds to be spent. [Total R&D spending in the Office of the Secretary would quadruple over FY 2000, however, because the FY 2001 totals include $51 million in one-time appropriations for congressionally designated R&D projects signed into law in June as part of the crop insurance bill. These funds will be distributed through the Office of the Secretary.]
Other competitively awarded research grants would fare badly in the House bill. CSREES also administers appropriated research grants programs. The National Research Initiative (NRI), the existing competitive research grants program which IFAFS was designed to supplement, would receive only $97 million, far below $119 million in FY 2000 and more than a third below the $150 million request. The Senate would be more generous with a $121 million appropriation. Instead of competitively awarded grants, the House would direct funds toward Special Research Grants, which would receive $74 million, $10 million or 16.2 percent more than FY 2000 and $68 million more than the request. These funds would go to 132 itemized projects, all but six of which are for geographically specific congressionally designated projects. The Senate would provide $62 million for 129 projects, many of which are the same as in the House bill. The House bill also contains nearly two dozen other congressionally designated projects in other parts of the CSREES budget. Most formula funding programs for academic R&D such as the Hatch Act ($181 million, same as FY 2000) would receive level funding.
[Total CSREES R&D, which includes IFAFS spending, would
be $437 million, down $101 million or 18.8 percent from FY 2000.]
By contrast, the Senate would keep CSREES R&D even with FY 2000
at $538 million because it would preserve IFAFS funding.
[Agricultural Research Service (ARS) R&D
would total $867 million in FY 2001 in the House bill, a slight increase
of 1.6 percent. ARS funds intramural research through a nationwide network
of intramural laboratories and agricultural experiment stations. The
House bill would provide a 1.6 percent increase for ARS research programs
to $867 million, offset by a $14 million or 25 percent cut to ARS Buildings
and Facilities funding, the same as the request.] The Senate would provide
large increases to both accounts for a total ARS appropriation of $951
million, 5.0 percent more than FY 2000.
[The Agriculture bill passed the full House on July 11 after the House leadership removed a controversial provision that would terminate existing U.S. unilateral agricultural and medical sanctions for several nations, most notably Cuba. Although U.S. farmers generally support the measure, which would allow donations or sales of grain and other food to Cuba, the measure ran into anti-Cuba opposition. The provision may be reinstated in House-Senate conference. The Senate version of the Agriculture bill is scheduled for floor action this month.]
- May 18, 2000 (revised July 11)
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
