(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.)
Before adjourning for a month-long August recess, the House Appropriations
Committee drafted an FY 2000 VA-HUD appropriations bill (HR 2684) that
would make steep cuts to R&D programs in the National Science Foundation
(NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA budget would fall 3.7 percent
in the House plan, [down $283 million to $7.3 billion, but this would
be $101 million more than the agency had requested]. EPA's R&D
would decline 3.5 percent to $643 million, but this amount would be the
same as the agency request (see Table).
[The House approved the bill on September 9 without making any changes
to EPA R&D. An amendment reduced the total EPA budget by $5 million.]
In the same week that both chambers of Congress agreed to a ten-year
$800 billion tax cut amid projections of trillions of dollars in projected
surpluses over the next decade, Congress chose to stick to ever-tightening
discretionary spending caps that are forcing sharp cuts to domestic
discretionary programs. The discretionary spending caps, enacted in
1997, require FY 2000 discretionary spending to be nearly $20 billion
below FY 1999 funding levels. The House managed to pass 11 of the 13
appropriations bills before the August recess while staying under the
caps, but did so by providing substantial allocations to the defense
spending bills and providing flat or slightly declining allocations
for the first few bills out of committee, thereby shortchanging the
later ones, a tactic that has now reached its logical limit. The 11th
of the appropriations bills to pass, the Commerce-Justice bill, proposes
severe cuts to its domestic programs (including Commerce R&D), and
was able to avoid even steeper cuts only by designating $4.5 billion
of its funding as emergency spending (which is exempt from the caps)
and increasing its allocation by $1 billion borrowed from the last bill
to be drafted, the Labor-HHS bill.
The FY 2000 VA-HUD bill, the 12th bill to be drafted,
totals only $69 billion in discretionary budget authority, nearly $3.5
billion below the FY 1999 level and $5 billion below the amount needed
to keep pace with inflation. The total would have been even lower, but
the Appropriations Committee rejected a proposal to designate $5 billion
of the bill's funds as emergency and managed to restore the funds only
by raiding the Labor-HHS bill's allocation. As a result, the unlucky
Labor-HHS bill, when it is drafted in September, now has an allocation
that is nearly $12 billion below the FY 1999 funding level, a level
that could require cuts of almost 20 percent for its programs. (The
Senate has not drafted its VA-HUD and Labor-HHS bills.)
Within the $69 billion total for the House VA-HUD bill, the Committee
made clear its priority for veterans' programs and increased funding
by nearly $2 billion, putting even more pressure on other programs in
the bill. As a result, the other agencies funded in the bill, including
EPA, NASA, and NSF, face steep cuts. (Please see the NASA
and NSF Funding Updates for information
on proposed House appropriations for R&D in these agencies.) While
NASA would be the hardest hit among the three major R&D funding
agencies in the bill, with a $1 billion cut in its total budget, the
EPA budget would also decline. EPA would receive more than it had requested,
however. The House proposed appropriation of $7.3 billion would be $106
million more than the request of $7.2 billion, but compared to FY 1999
funding levels it would represent a 3.7 percent decline (see Table).
EPA's R&D, mostly funded in the Science and Technology
account, would total $643 million, the same as the request and a 3.5
percent cut from FY 1999. In contrast to past years, there are no general
reductions in the House bill, and most research programs would be funded
at FY 1999 levels, including programs for which EPA had requested increases.
Although EPA had requested $62 million for transportation-related research
in the Climate Change Technology Initiative, more than double
the FY 1999 funding level, the House would provide the FY 1999 funding
level of $27 million. Global change research would receive $17
million, slightly above the FY 1999 level, instead of the request of
$23 million. The House bill would spend the money saved from denying
requested increases on more than 20 congressionally designated and geographically
specific projects. The amounts for these projects appear to be less
than last year's appropriation, however, resulting in the decline for
total EPA R&D. In contrast to past years' House bills, there is
only minimal guidance for EPA in the management of its research programs.
In the overall EPA budget, the House bill would add $362 million to
the requested amount for State and Tribal Assistance Grants,
bringing the total to $3.2 billion, still $207 million short of the
FY 1999 level. Most of this money goes to state and local governments.
For Environmental Programs and Management, which funds most of
EPA's operating expenses, the House bill would provide $1.8 billion,
nearly the same amount as FY 1999 but $197 million less than EPA had
requested. The Superfund program would be cut $45 million below
the FY 1999 funding level, for a total of $1.4 billion. In addition
to these funds, Superfund also funds R&D on hazardous substances
managed by EPA's Office of Research and Development paid for out of
a $35 million transfer to the Science and Technology account. Within
the Superfund account, EPA would transfer approximately $34 million
to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) for
its research activities related to hazardous substances.
The House bill contains a legislative provision, carried over from
last year's EPA funding bill, that would prohibit EPA from implementing
actions called for under the U.N. Kyoto Protocol, which has not been
submitted to nor ratified by the Senate. Otherwise, in contrast to past
years' House bills, the EPA appropriation is free of legislative language
that could curtail EPA's activities.
The House VA-HUD bill was originally scheduled to be debated on the
House floor this week, but floor action has been postponed until after
Congress returns on September 8. [The House approved the bill on September
9.] The Senate version of the bill will not be drafted until September,
but it may contain cuts as severe as the House bill because its VA-HUD
allocation is well below the House allocation. The Clinton Administration
has issued a veto threat over the funding levels in the House bill,
though not specifically over EPA funding, making enactment of the bill
in anything resembling its current form highly unlikely. During floor
debate, there are likely to be several proposed amendments to restore
some of the funding cuts, but any increases in funding will have to
be offset. Currently, the only offset available is to cut another program's
funding in a zero-sum game, which could endanger the proposed EPA appropriations
if its funds are diverted to shore up shortfalls in other agencies such
as NSF and NASA. The total amount available for the bill can only be
raised if 1) the discretionary cap is raised; or 2) some funds are designated
"emergency" as they were in the Commerce-Justice bill; or
3) a further raid on the Labor-HHS bill's allocation takes place.
The summer recess may provide time for advocates of NASA, NSF, and
EPA R&D programs to organize a call for increased funding during
the House floor debate, and it may also provide time for congressional
leaders to figure out a strategy for either getting the current bill
through the House or adding additional funds. But with the October 1
start of FY 2000 just three weeks away by the time Congress returns
to session and the Senate far from drafting its version, it is increasingly
likely that the VA-HUD bill, and therefore final funding levels for
NSF programs, will be rolled into an omnibus appropriations bill that
will be negotiated behind closed doors and in a frantic rush. Although
such an omnibus bill will likely contain a number of budgetary mechanisms
to raise total funding above the House-proposed levels, in such an environment
it is highly uncertain what the appropriations outcome will be, and
impossible to predict whether the House's proposed funding levels will
have any relation to what EPA will eventually receive.
- August 6, 1999 (revised September 10)
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
