(The complete series of AAAS R&D Funding Updates,
including continually updated analyses of R&D by agency in FY 2000
appropriations, is available on the AAAS R&D Web Site (http://www.aaas.org/spp/R&D)
in the "FY 2000 R&D" or the "What's
New" sections.)
Just before the October 1 start of fiscal year (FY)
2000, President Clinton signed into law the FY 2000 Energy-Water bill,
which funds most of the Department of Energy (DOE). This week, Congress
is scheduled to give final approval to the Interior bill, which funds
the remainder of DOE's activities. The two bills give slight increases
to DOE's Science programs funding R&D in high-energy and nuclear
physics and biological and environmental research. They also give substantial
increases to DOE's support of magnetic fusion research, weapons-related
R&D, and fossil-energy R&D programs (see Table).
Total DOE R&D rises $223 million or 3.2 percent to $7.2 billion.
DOE's weapons-related activities, however, have been moved to a new
semi-autonomous agency within DOE called the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) as a result of the FY 2000 defense authorization
bill, which President Clinton signed into law on October 5.
In the Science account, Congress provides $2.7
billion for R&D, a slight increase of 0.1 percent after adjusting
for general reductions (see Table). All
but two accounts receive more than requested. Physics and fusion research
are high priorities within Science. Fusion Energy Sciences receives
$247 million, an increase of 11.6 percent after several years of flat
or declining budgets. This amount is well above the request of $223
million. Both High Energy Physics (up 0.9 percent to $695 million)
and Nuclear Physics (up 4.3 percent to $348 million) receive
increases. In order to accommodate these increases, Congress cuts Computational
and Technology Research (CTR) by 16.3 percent to $131 million. The
final Energy-Water bill denies funding for the proposed Scientific
Simulation Initiative, part of the Administration's proposed Information
Technology for the Twenty-First Century (IT2) initiative.
Within the Basic Energy Sciences program, Congress reduces funding
for the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) to $118 million, down
from a requested $214 million because of several critical internal and
external reviews of the project's management. Most of the SNS funds
are for construction of the facility in Tennessee.
DOE's investments in energy R&D are a mixed bag
of increases and cuts. In the Energy Supply account, spending on Solar
and Renewable Energy R&D falls 7.0 percent to $276 million,
$76 million less than the request. The House version of the Energy-Water
bill criticizes DOE for continuing to invest federal research funds
on technologies that already receive private investment rather than
more fundamental, peer-reviewed research. Both the House and Senate
bills would have cut funding even further than the final funding level.
Nuclear Energy R&D, however, is favored with a 19.8 percent
increase to $91 million because of congressional concern that nuclear
energy has been neglected as a potential non-atmospheric polluting energy
source. DOE's R&D on Fossil Energy receives $322 million,
an increase of 9.3 percent or $27 million over the FY 1999 funding level.
Although DOE and the House had proposed cuts, the conference funding
level is close to the Senate-proposed level. This program funds R&D
on more efficient coal, gas, and oil technologies. Energy Conservation
R&D, however, declines by 3.0 percent to $388 million. This program
aims to develop new technologies for conserving energy in buildings,
transportation, and industry, and new ways of energy management.
DOE's defense R&D programs receive large increases,
consistent with increases for total defense spending in Republican budget
plans. Total DOE defense R&D in FY 2000 is $3.4 billion, an increase
of 5.2 percent over FY 1999.
Despite the controversies over security at DOE weapons
labs, the Stockpile Stewardship program, the cornerstone of DOE's
effort to use science-based methods to ensure the safety and reliability
of the nation's nuclear stockpile, receives $2.3 billion, $134 million
or 6.4 percent more than FY 1999. The additional dollars fund an expansion
of the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI; $316
million, up 5.0 percent), a program to develop the next generation of
teraflop computers (capable of several trillions of operations a second)
in order to simulate nuclear explosions without nuclear testing. There
are large increases for the core stockpile stewardship program, which
applies science to weapon stockpile issues through the development of
new technologies and processes, and also funds design and engineering
activities for weapons. There is also an increase for Inertial Confinement
Fusion ($228 million, up 3.8 percent), a different approach to fusion
than the magnetic fusion research funded in the Science account. Construction
funding for that program's major facility, the National Ignition
Facility, declines from its peak funding of $284 million to $228
million, unaffected by recent news that the project is now behind schedule
and over budget. The bill directs DOE to prepare a revised construction
schedule and project budget by next June.
DOE's defense programs, despite increased funding,
will be in for turmoil this coming year as they are reorganized into
a new semi-autonomous agency within DOE. For much of the year, DOE has
been the target of intense criticism over lax security and thefts of
classified nuclear information at its three weapons laboratories. The
labs (Los Alamos and Sandia in New Mexico, and Lawrence Livermore in
California) are operated by contractors but are owned by DOE and report
to DOE management. Over the past several months, DOE Secretary Bill
Richardson and other top agency officials have been called before Congress
several times to respond to a growing chorus of demands to radically
reorganize the labs' management and to correct persistent problems in
keeping nuclear information secret. A report issued by an advisory board
appointed by the President called for the creation of either a semi-autonomous
agency within DOE to oversee the labs and other nuclear programs or
a separate agency to run DOE's nuclear weapons programs.
In response, after much discussion of possible options,
Congress attached legislation to the FY 2000 defense authorization bill
creating a new agency within DOE, the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA). NNSA is now responsible for ensuring the security and reliability
of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and promoting nuclear safety
in a manner consistent with environmental protection and national security.
Although DOE Secretary Bill Richardson had previously opposed the creation
of NNSA because a new agency could undermine his authority, last month
he reluctantly gave his consent to the provisions in the defense bill,
removing the last possible obstacle to President Clinton signing the
bill into law on October 5.
The legislation creating NNSA declares that it is responsible
for "nuclear weapons development, naval nuclear propulsion, defense
nuclear nonproliferation, and fissile material disposition." The agency
is headed by a presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed Under Secretary
for Nuclear Security who also serves as Administrator for Nuclear Security
in NNSA. All NNSA employees and NNSA contractors report only to this
new Administrator and no one in the non-NNSA parts of DOE, except that
the Administrator reports to the Deputy Secretary of Energy and Secretary
of Energy who retain ultimate control of NNSA and the rest of DOE. The
DOE budget will be reorganized so that NNSA will have its own budget
accounts within DOE. In practical terms, this means that all of DOE's
defense R&D (in Atomic Energy Defense Activities in the Table)
with the possible exception of Environmental Management will become
part of NNSA in the next budget.
Despite the creation of the NNSA, President Clinton
and Secretary Richardson appear determined to forge their own path in
interpreting the law. The President angered Congress by immediately
appointing Secretary Richardson as the Under Secretary head of NNSA
and giving high-level DOE officials dual appointments to similar jobs
in NNSA, thwarting Congress's intention of creating two separate structures
staffed by different people. The President appears determined to seek
adjustments to the law to allow the Secretary of DOE greater authority
over the NNSA. It is unclear at this time whether his unusual appointments
are a bargaining tactic, a temporary arrangement until regular appointments
can be made, or an act of resistance against the law. Nor is it clear
how Congress will act, though there have been threats to make NNSA a
completely separate agency.
The Stockpile Stewardship program, at the core of the
new NNSA's activities, funds most of the R&D at the three weapons
labs which are responsible for the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile
and which are at the heart of the DOE security controversy. The contract
managers of the labs (the University of California for Los Alamos and
Livermore, Lockheed Martin for Sandia) and all laboratory employees
will report to NNSA.
The weapons labs, although they rely on the Stockpile
Stewardship account to fund most of their R&D, also perform R&D
funded through other nondefense accounts, and there is concern that
this nondefense work could be negatively affected in NNSA because non-NNSA
program managers in DOE who manage DOE nondefense R&D programs now
have no direct authority over R&D activities or personnel in the
labs. It is unclear at this time how nondefense R&D performed at
the three labs will fit into the new organizational structure, and it
is equally unclear whether NNSA will implement new restrictions on the
flow of scientific personnel and information between the labs and other
institutions. (Please see the special July 12 DOE
Funding Update for information on R&D funding at the three weapons
labs).
DOE is a key funding source for research in many disciplines,
as shown in Figure 2. Although DOE accounts for only a little more than
10 percent of total federal support for research, it is by far the largest
supporter of physics research, accounting for nearly two-thirds of total
federal support. Among the physical sciences, DOE is also an important
supporter of chemistry research, with a little less than 30 percent
of total federal support. DOE is second behind only the Department of
Defense in its support of mathematics and computer sciences research.
DOE is the third-largest supporter of engineering research behind DOD
and NASA, with about 15 percent of the total, but in the sub-disciplines
of chemical engineering and mettalurgy / materials engineering DOE provides
a half and a third of total federal support, respectively.
The President signed the Energy-Water bill on September
30, before the start of FY 2000, and signed the defense authorization
bill creating NNSA on October 5. Although there will be a transition
period to get NNSA organized, the new agency is required to start operations
immediately, with a detailed organizational plan due to Congress by
January 1. The Interior bill, which funds DOE programs in Fossil Energy
and Energy Conservation, has emerged from House-Senate conference but
it is uncertain whether the House and the Senate will give final approval.
Even if it clears Congress, the President has threatened to veto the
bill because of numerous environment-related legislative provisions
attached to the bill. If it is vetoed, the bill becomes a likely candidate
to be rolled into an omnibus appropriations bill, and it is highly uncertain
whether funding levels for its programs will stay the same. Congress
may reallocate funds within the bill to satisfy the President's demands,
and in addition Congress is seriously considering enacting across-the-board
cuts in discretionary spending to get all FY 2000 appropriations under
budget targets, which could affect even the programs funded in the Energy-Water
bill.
