On June 7, the House Appropriations Committee drafted
an FY 2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill that would provide mostly level
funding for 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 [5.5 percent or $417 million
to $7.1 billion,] but this appropriation would essentially be the same
total as EPA's requested cut to $7.3 billion after adjusting for two
transfers of funds. EPA's R&D would be funded at almost the same
level as FY 2000 for a total of $649 million, just $3 million or 0.4
percent more than FY 2000 (see Table).
The House would reject EPA's proposal to increase its R&D spending
in FY 2001 and would provide what is essentially a status quo budget.
The House FY 2001 VA-HUD bill would provide $76 billion for
discretionary programs, an increase over the $72 billion FY 2000 total,
but the increase would go mostly to the bill's veterans and housing
programs, leaving flat funding for most R&D programs. The President
requested a far higher $85 billion for the bill's programs, including
substantial increases for NSF and a smaller one for NASA, but because
Congress chose to allocate only $605 billion for total discretionary
spending compared to the President's $622 billion, while at the same
time increasing defense spending more than the President, Congress has
far less money than the President to allocate for domestic programs
such as the ones in the VA-HUD bill.
[On June 21, the full House approved the bill after
making several amendments, including one that reduced a non-R&D
EPA account by $5 million to pay for an increase in veterans programs.]
While the President requested increases for most agencies
funded in the VA-HUD bill, EPA was an exception. EPA requested $7.3
billion for its total budget, a decline from $7.6 billion in FY 2000
because of a requested cut in State and Tribal Assistance Grants from
$3.4 billion to $3.2 billion. The House would provide nearly the same
total amount for EPA as the request after adjusting for two transfers
of funds. [The $7.1 billion House appropriation is $130 million less
than the request,] but the House would appropriate $130 million directly
to two agencies rather than the traditional pattern of including the
funds in the EPA budget and having EPA transfer the funds to them (see
Footnote in Table). The Superfund program
traditionally transfers part of its appropriation to the National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS, part of the National Institutes
of Health) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) for their work on hazardous substances. The House bill would
bypass Superfund and provide $60 million to NIEHS and $70 million to
ATSDR directly. If the transfers are included in the EPA budget, the
House appropriation would actually be slightly higher than the EPA request,
though below FY 2000.
EPA's R&D, mostly funded in the Science
and Technology account, would total $649 million, nearly the same
as FY 2000 for a $3 million or 0.4 percent increase. This would be $23
million below the request, however, because the House would fund programs
for which EPA had requested increases at FY 2000 levels. Although EPA
had requested a doubling of funding for transportation-related research
in the Climate Change Technology Initiative, the House would
provide $27 million, the same as FY 2000. Climate change research
would receive $21 million, the same as FY 2000, instead of the requested
$23 million. In contrast to past years' House bills, there is only minimal
guidance for EPA in the management of its research programs and only
three congressionally designated research projects, in contrast to dozens
in other years.
Although the House bill would stick closely to the
requested total for the EPA budget, there would be several changes in
priorities. The House would add $272 million to the requested amount
for State and Tribal Assistance Grants, bringing the total to
$3.2 billion, still $267 million short of the FY 2000 level but well
above the request. Most of this money goes to state and local governments,
and is perennially more popular with Congress than EPA. For Environmental
Programs and Management, which funds most of EPA's operating expenses,
the House bill would provide $1.9 billion, nearly the same amount as
FY 2000 but [$204 million] less than the request. The Superfund
program would be cut $127 million below the FY 2000 funding level for
a total of $1.2 billion, but would be slightly above the FY 2000 level
after factoring in the NIEHS and ATSDR appropriations. $40 million of
the $60 million separate NIEHS appropriation would fund a hazardous
substances research program related to Superfund issues, and Superfund
would continue to fund $35 million (down $3 million) in EPA's own research
on hazardous substances.
The House bill contains a legislative provision, carried over from previous years' bills, 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, the EPA appropriation is free of legislative language that could curtail EPA's activities.
[The VA-HUD bill was approved by the full House on
June 21 after long, contentious debates between Democrats and Republicans.
Most proposed Democratic amendments to boost funding levels failed.
A few amendments to shift funding betweeen programs were approved, including
one to reduce EPA Environmental Programs and Management by $5 million
in order to boost funding for veterans programs.] The Senate has not
drafted its version yet. The House bill is likely to draw a veto threat
because its funding levels fall far short of the request, and because
it would eliminate the Corporation for National and Community Service,
one of the Clinton Administration's high-priority programs. Because
of the unusually strong leverage the President has in this election
year, it is likely that final funding levels for VA-HUD bill programs
will be far higher than House-proposed levels before the appropriations
process is over. It is unclear, however, whether EPA will receive any
extra funds since the House total already matches the request.
- June 8, 2000 (revised June 22)
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
