|
Go to:
-Highlights
-Agency Highlights
-The Budgetary
Context for FY 2003: Big Increases for Defense, Back to Deficits
-Outyear Projections
for Federal R&D to FY 2007
-Historical
Trends and Outlook
-Table 1. R&D
in the FY 2003 Budget by Agency
-Table 2. Research
in the FY 2003 Budget
-Table 3. AAAS
Analysis of the Outyear Projections for R&D in the FY 2003 Budget
-Table 4. Major
Functional Categories of R&D
-Table 5.Interagency
Science and Technology Initiatives (NNI, NITR&D, USGCRP)
PDF version
of this document
Full
Text of AAAS Report XXVII: R&D FY 2003
-
|
(This AAAS analysis supersedes previous preliminary
analyses of R&D in the FY 2003 budget. It contains revised AAAS estimates
of R&D, based on agency data obtained after the release of the President's
budget. This analysis is a preview of the forthcoming AAAS
Report XXVII: Research and Development FY 2003, a comprehensive
look at the President's budget for R&D in FY 2003. The full report will
be released at the AAAS S&T Policy Colloquium
(April 11-12, Washington, DC) and will be available
online. More tables, the full text of the report, continually updated
supplemental materials on R&D in the FY 2003 budget, and information on
the Colloquium (including registration materials)
can be found on the AAAS R&D Web site at http://www.aaas.org/spp/R&D.)
Highlights
Congress begins consideration of the FY 2003 budget
this month. Citing the war on terrorism and a weak economy as justification
for a return to deficit spending, President Bush's fiscal year (FY)
2003 budget proposal, released last month, calls for large increases
in discretionary spending to follow on even larger spending increases
in FY 2002. Discretionary spending, the one-third of the budget subject
to annual appropriations decisions by Congress and the President, is
the part of the budget out of which nearly all federal R&D is funded.
The FY 2003 budget calls for overall discretionary spending to rise
6.8 percent or $49 billion in FY 2003 to $767 billion, on top of an
FY 2002 total already inflated by emergency appropriations approved
in the immediate aftermath of September 11. The FY 2003 budget request
calls for overall increases for the federal investment in R&D, especially
for the high-priority areas of defense, health, and homeland security
against terrorism. But in a repeat of last year's request, the increases
would be concentrated in the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), leaving all other R&D programs with
flat funding overall.
· Because DOD and
NIH are the two largest funding sources of federal R&D and are also
high priorities for the Bush Administration, total federal R&D
would increase substantially in FY 2003 to a record $112.0 billion,
$8.9 billion or 8.6 percent more than FY 2002 (see Table
1).
· As was the case
last year, the proposed increases for DOD ($5.2 billion) and NIH ($3.7
billion) would make up the entire $8.9 billion increase, leaving all
other R&D funding agencies combined with barely the same amount
as FY 2002. Thus, this would further reinforce the "missiles and
medicine" profile that federal R&D has assumed in recent years.
Unlike last year, when most of the other R&D funding agencies would
have seen their R&D funding decline, FY 2003 would see a mix of
increases or decreases averaging to zero growth (see Table
1 and Figure 1).
· Nondefense R&D
would increase by 7.2 percent to $53.3 billion. NIH would receive a
16.0 percent increase in its R&D funding to $26.5 billion to complete
the campaign to double the NIH budget between FY 1998 and FY 2003.
Excluding NIH, however, all other nondefense R&D would fall by 0.2
percent to $26.8 billion, a loss of $56 million (see Table
1).
· Defense R&D
would increase 9.9 percent to reach $58.8 billion, reflecting increased
attention to defense needs in a time of war. The entire $5.2 billion
DOD increase and more would go to development costs of new weapons and
missile defense systems; DOD basic and applied research would both decline
even as the DOD budget as a whole would increase by a record-breaking
amount (see Table 1). Department of Energy
(DOE) defense R&D would rise 2.8 percent to $3.9 billion.
Figure 1. (click on the image to view or download a color,
full-page PDF version of the chart)
· The federal investment
in basic research would grow by 7.9 percent or $1.9 billion to
an all-time high of $25.5 billion, primarily because of a 9.0 percent
requested increase for basic research in NIH (see Table
2). Total federal research (basic and applied) would climb by 6.5
percent to $51.9 billion because of a large boost in NIH investments
in applied research, particularly in the areas of bioterrorism and cancer.
Total research excluding NIH, however, would decline 0.2 percent
to $26.3 billion.
· The AAAS analysis
of the outyear projections in the FY 2003 budget shows that nondefense
R&D would increase from $49.7 billion in FY 2002 to $58.8 billion
in FY 2007, a gain of 8.2 percent after adjusting for expected inflation
(see Table 3). NIH would be responsible
for most of the increase; excluding NIH, nondefense R&D would rise
only 1.6 percent in inflation-adjusted terms. Defense R&D would
climb to a peak of $65.9 billion in FY 2005 before declining to $63.3
billion in FY 2007, still an 8.1 percent inflation-adjusted gain over
FY 2002.
· The Bush Administration
would once again place a high priority on defense R&D and health
R&D among national missions. Defense R&D (up 9.9 percent
to $58.8 billion) and health R&D (up 13.8 percent to $28.3 billion)
would together make up more than three-quarters of the federal R&D
portfolio, and their shares would increase. R&D funding for most
other national missions would decline (see Table
4).
· Within flat overall
funding for nondefense, non-NIH R&D, federal R&D in three interagency
initiatives would increase (see Table 5).
Funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative would climb
17.5 percent or $106 million to $710 million after an even larger increase
last year. The National Science Foundation's (NSF) lead role in the
initiative would rise by 11.1 percent to $221 million, but the largest
increase would go to DOE (up 52.9 percent to $139 million) for nanoscale
computing research and for initial funds to construct nanoscale scientific
user facilities.
· Networking
and Information Technology R&D would increase by 2.5 percent
to $1.9 billion across seven agencies (see Table
5). NSF would once again take the largest funding role with $678
million (up 0.3 percent), mostly in the Computer and Information Science
and Engineering (CISE) directorate. And the ongoing U.S. Global Change
Research Program would see its funding rise 2.6 percent to $1.7
billion in FY 2003 (see Table 5), split
nearly equally between NASA's space-based observations and other agencies'
scientific research, including surface-based observations. The Bush
Administration would allocate $40 million to a new Climate Change Research
Initiative in FY 2003; this effort, funded by five agencies, would aim
to improve the integration of scientific knowledge on climate change,
including measures of uncertainty, into decision support systems and
information useful to policymakers.
· Another multi-agency
effort, on counter-terrorism R&D, received an enormous funding
boost to $1.5 billion in FY 2002, nearly triple the FY 2001 funding
level. In FY 2003, counter-terrorism R&D would increase again to
a preliminary estimate of $2.8 billion, with NIH taking over the role
of lead agency with a $1.7 billion investment comprising bioterrorism
research support, construction funds for biosafety laboratories, and
research and procurement on anthrax vaccines.
Agency Highlights
· The National
Institutes of Health (NIH) would receive $27.3 billion for its total
budget in FY 2003, an unprecedented increase of $3.7 billion (15.7 percent)
that would fulfill the commitment to double the NIH budget between FY
1998 and 2003. NIH R&D would rise 16.0 percent to $26.5 billion
(see Table 1). This would follow 14 to 15
percent increases in each of the last four years. The big budget winner
would be the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
which would receive a boost of 57.3 percent to $4.0 billion as NIH's
lead institute for bioterrorism R&D. NIAID would introduce a new
extramural facilities construction program to build bioterrorism research
laboratories around the nation and would also fund competitive research
grants on bioterrorism. Cancer is another high priority for the Bush
Administration; the FY 2003 cancer research budget would be $5.5 billion,
of which $4.7 billion would go to the largest NIH institute, the National
Cancer Institute (NCI; up 12.2 percent). Most of the other institutes
would receive increases between 8 and 9 percent.
· The Department
of Defense (DOD), the largest federal sponsor of R&D, would
receive its second-largest dollar increase in history for its R&D
to $54.8 billion in FY 2003, an increase of $5.2 billion or 10.5 percent
after a record increase of $7 billion last year (see Table
1). The entire increase would go to the development of weapons systems
in the services (the Air Force and Navy in particular) rather than research.
Basic and applied research in DOD would decline despite the record $45
billion (or 13.4 percent) increase in the overall DOD budget to $379
billion. Basic research ("6.1") would fall 0.8 percent to
$1.4 billion, while applied research ("6.2") would fall 7.5
percent to $3.8 billion in FY 2003. DOD "Science and Technology"
(S&T), which includes research, medical research, and technology
development, would fall 3.7 percent to $10.0 billion, falling well short
of the DOD goal of 3 percent of the total DOD budget (see Figure 1).
After nearly doubling its budget in FY 2002, the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO) would see its R&D budget decline slightly to
$6.7 billion (down 4.0 percent), which would still be 60 percent above
the FY 2001 funding level. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) and the Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP) would
be big winners in FY 2003 with proposed increases of 19.2 percent and
69.7 percent, respectively.
· The National
Science Foundation (NSF) wins praise from the Bush Administration
for its management, and modest increases for its R&D programs. The
NSF budget would total $5.0 billion in FY 2003, an increase of 5.0 percent.
Excluding NSF's non-R&D education activities, NSF R&D would
total $3.7 billion, a boost of 3.5 percent. Three programs are proposed
to be transferred to the NSF Geosciences directorate from other agencies:
Environmental Education (presently at the Environmental Protection Agency);
the National Sea Grant program (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration); and Hydrology of Toxic Substances (the U.S. Geological
Survey). Without these transfers, NSF R&D would increase by only
1.4 percent. While mathematical sciences would receive a substantial
20.1 percent increase to $182 million, other programs in Mathematical
and Physical Sciences (MPS) such as chemistry, physics, and astronomy
would all decline. Another big winner would be Information Technology
Research (up 9.9 percent), though at the expense of other computer sciences
research. In the non-R&D education programs, NSF would boost funding
for the second year of the Administration's Math and Science Partnerships,
from $160 million to $200 million, but would cut most other education
and human resources programs.
· The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) would see its total
budget increase by 0.7 percent to $15.1 billion in FY 2003, but NASA's
R&D (two-thirds of the agency's budget) would climb 4.3 percent
to $10.7 billion. Much of the R&D increase, however, would be due
to the transfer of non-R&D support costs to R&D programs. While
the much-delayed International Space Station would receive $1.5 billion
for construction, down from $1.7 billion, most science programs would
receive increases. R&D in Science, Aeronautics and Technology (SAT)
would climb 9.9 percent to $8.9 billion, partially due to the transfer
of non-R&D costs into SAT. Space Science funding would climb 19.0
percent to $3.4 billion, including transferred programs. While canceling
the Outer Planets program (including Pluto and Europa missions), NASA
proposes a New Frontiers program to select promising planetary missions
through competitive proposals and would also invest $126 million in
new nuclear propulsion technology development to enable future missions.
The Biological and Physical Research program expanded greatly last year
to take on all Space Station research; BPR funding would rise 2.8 percent
in FY 2003 to $851 million. Aero-Space Technology would climb 12.3 percent
to $2.9 billion, including $759 million (up 63 percent) for the Space
Launch Initiative to continue efforts to develop new technologies for
space launch to replace the Space Shuttle. Earth Science would increase
0.2 percent, but program funding would decline after adjusting for transferred
programs.
· The Department
of Energy (DOE) would see its R&D fall 0.5 percent to $8.3 billion.
Funding for R&D in the Office of Science would remain flat at $3.1
billion, but most programs (including the physics programs, fusion energy
sciences, Basic Energy Sciences, and computing research) would receive
modest increases, offset by cuts in R&D earmarks and a planned reduction
in Spallation Neutron Source construction. In Fossil Energy R&D
(down 17.3 percent to $416 million), there would be steep cuts of up
to half in R&D on natural gas and petroleum technologies, with a
continuing shift in emphasis toward coal R&D. In Energy Conservation
R&D (down 10.9 percent to $413 million), DOE would abandon the Partnership
for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) to develop high-mileage gas-powered
vehicles and would replace it with FreedomCAR, a collaborative effort
with U.S. auto companies to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles.
DOE's defense R&D programs would increase 2.8 percent to $3.9 billion.
Although construction funding for the National Ignition Facility would
decline to $214 million, many other defense R&D areas such as Advanced
Simulation and Computing and Stockpile R&D would receive increases.
· R&D in the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would fall $216 million
or 9.3 percent to $2.1 billion, mostly because of steep cuts to R&D
earmarks and the loss of one-time FY 2002 emergency anti-terrorism funds.
Funding for competitive research grants in the National Research Initiative
(NRI) would double from $120 million to $240 million, offsetting steep
cuts in earmarked Special Research Grants from $97 million down to $3
million. The large NRI increase would partially make up for the Administration's
decision to block a $120 million mandatory competitive research grants
program from spending any money in FY 2003, as in FY 2002. In the intramural
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) programs, Buildings and Facilities
funding would fall from $119 million down to $17 million because FY
2002 emergency anti-terrorism security upgrades and congressionally
earmarked construction projects would not be renewed; ARS research would
fall $30 million to $1.0 billion, but selected priority research programs
would receive increases, offset by the cancellation of R&D earmarks.
Forest Service R&D would decline from $321 million to $294 million
because of the removal of FY 2002 earmarks.
· Department
of Commerce R&D would rise 0.3 percent to $1.1 billion in FY
2003. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) R&D
would increase 5.0 percent to $483 million; In particular, Science &
Technology Research and Services (STRS), which provides funding for
NIST's laboratories in Maryland and Colorado, would enjoy a 24.2 percent
boost to $348 million in R&D. Conversely, the extramural Industrial
Technology Services (ITS) would see yet another dip in funding as Advanced
Technology Program (ATP) R&D funding would be cut by 49 percent
to $81 million in FY 2003. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) R&D would decrease by 1.1 percent to $605 million, mostly
due to the transfer of the National Sea Grants College Program from
NOAA to the National Science Foundation (NSF).
· R&D in the
Department of the Interior would fall 4.8 percent to $628 million.
Even steeper cuts would fall on Interior's lead science agency, the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). USGS R&D would fall 7.0 percent to
$542 million, with cuts to all four USGS divisions. A significant portion
of the proposed decreases for USGS are in two water-quality programs,
one of which-the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program-would be transferred
to NSF.
· The Department
of Transportation's (DOT) R&D funding would drop 5.4 percent
to $736 million. These numbers, however, are provisional because the
transfer of some R&D programs from the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) to the new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has not
yet been finalized. The TSA will take over aviation security R&D
responsibilities from the FAA. Much of DOT's funding comes from revenues
in the transportation trust funds. However, because these revenues dropped
off significantly over the last year as a result of a stagnant economy,
highway R&D would decline by $10 million to $266 million, a reduction
of 3.5 percent.
· The Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) R&D budget would rise 5.9 percent
to $627 million, mostly due to an increased focus on homeland security.
EPA would receive $75 million in new funding from the Superfund program
for research towards the cleanup of sites contaminated with biological
or chemical agents. An additional $18 million (up from $5 million) would
be spent on other homeland security research.
· In other agencies,
the Department of Veterans Affairs VA R&D portfolio has expanded
steadily over the past decade. Its R&D budget of $810 million in
FY 2003 (up 6.5 percent or $49 million) would make it the eighth-largest
R&D funding agency. In recent years, VA's medical research has grown
in tandem with increasing resources available to veterans medical care
in general. The Smithsonian Institution, which conducts both
scientific-based and collections-based research, would receive $131
million in R&D for FY 2003. Smithsonian currently does not fund
research projects through merit-based competition; as an outside group
assesses this situation and future allocations begin to depend on merit-based
competition, the Smithsonian research institutes may see some funds
transferred to NSF as a result. R&D in the Department of Education
would increase by 16 percent to $311 million in FY 2003.This increase
is due to a 37 percent boost to $185 million for R&D in the Office
of Educational Research and Improvement. However, all other R&D
divisions in the Department of Education would decline or receive flat
funding in FY 2003.
The Budgetary Context for FY 2003:
Big Increases for Defense, Back to Deficits
The FY 2003 Bush budget proposes discretionary spending
of $767 billion in FY 2003, a large increase of $49 billion or 6.8
percent over FY 2002 (see Figure 2), following an even larger increase
in FY 2002, boosted in part by emergency funds to respond to the September
11 terrorist attacks. Much of the emergency spending on homeland security
would continue in FY 2003. Nearly all of the increase, however, would
go to the Department of Defense (DOD, up $45 billion). Two other agencies,
the National Institutes of Health (NIH, up $3.7 billion) and the Department
of Education (up $0.5 billion) would also rank as high priorities and
would receive increases. Just like last year's budget request, this
would leave all other discretionary programs with slightly less than
in FY 2002. Non-NIH nondefense R&D joins other programs such as
foreign aid, immigration, justice programs, national parks, and environmental
protection in a competition for shrinking resources. Not surprisingly,
then, in the FY 2003 R&D request NIH and DOD R&D programs would
receive substantial increases while other agencies' R&D programs
would be flat overall.
Figure 2. (click on the image to view or download a color,
full-page PDF version of the chart)
The federal budget is now back in deficit and looks
to stay that way for years to come. Thirty years of deficits gave way
to four years of surpluses beginning in FY 1998, but it now seems certain
that the federal government will end FY 2002 in deficit. And although
both parties committed to balancing the budget even without the Social
Security surplus, that commitment was fulfilled only in FY 1999 and
FY 2000; the non-Social Security accounts fell into deficit in FY 2001.
In a sign of just how much things have changed over the past year, the
FY 2002 non-Social Security deficit is now projected to reach $262 billion.
Instead of paying down the national debt, the federal government is
again adding to it.
President Bush's FY 2003 budget is the first budget
in five years to propose deficit spending for the coming year. Asserting
that the first priority of the federal government is to provide for
national defense, homeland defense, and economic security, the FY 2003
budget proposals would lead to a unified deficit of $80 billion (and
a non-Social Security deficit of $259 billion). The fact that the budget
proposes a deficit gives Congress and the President more flexibility
to reduce taxes or increase spending by whatever amounts they feel are
necessary, without the constraint of forcing the budget to balance.
Gone for now, of course, are any ideas about balancing the budget without
the Social Security surplus.
Outyear Projections for Federal
R&D to FY 2007
The FY 2003 budget also contains detailed projections
for federal spending to FY 2007. Although these projections are mostly
mere extrapolations of current policies, they are a statement of the
Bush Administration's budgetary priorities and their implications for
the future of federal R&D. The AAAS analysis of these outyear projections
reveals that the Bush budget would hold most discretionary programs
to inflationary growth over the next several years, allowing most R&D
programs to just stay even with expected inflation; but because NIH
and DOD, the two largest federal R&D funding agencies, would continue
to be high priorities, the overall federal R&D portfolio would grow
strongly in future years.
Federal support for R&D is projected to increase
from $103.2 billion in FY 2002 to $122.1 billion in FY 2007, an 8.1
percent increase after adjusting for expected inflation (see Table
3). The nondefense R&D portion would climb 8.2 percent over
the time period. The Bush Administration would fulfill a campaign pledge
to complete the doubling of the NIH budget between FY 1998 and FY 2003;
although NIH funding would only stay even with inflation thereafter,
the large increase in FY 2003 would allow NIH R&D to increase 15.9
percent ahead of inflation between FY 2002 and FY 2007. The outyear
projections in the President's budget call for total NIH funding to
reach $27.3 billion in FY 2003 and then increase only at the rate of
inflation thereafter to $29.9 billion in FY 2007. In other words, after
a $3.7 billion increase in one year (FY 2003) the NIH budget would increase
only $2.5 billion spread out over the next four years, dropping from
a 16 percent increase to a series of 2 percent increases. There are
concerns, however, that because much of NIH's budget involves multi-year
commitments of grant funding, the much-slower projected growth in future
years will impede NIH's ability to offer new grants or shift funding
to meet emerging research opportunities.
Excluding NIH, nondefense R&D would just stay ahead
of inflation with a 1.6 percent gain in inflation-adjusted terms between
FY 2002 and FY 2007.
Included in the budget projections are a few increases.
NASA R&D would increase from $10.2 billion in FY 2002 to $12.2 billion
in FY 2007 (up 9.3 percent after inflation). The increase is even larger
for key R&D programs because the International Space Station would
see its R&D budget nearly halved over the next five years as development
and construction wind down, leaving more room for other programs. NASA
plans a dramatic expansion of the Space Science program from $2.9 billion
in FY 2002 to $4.5 billion in FY 2007 (up 43.9 percent after inflation).
NASA Aero-Space Technology would jump from $2.5 billion to $3.6 billion
(up 28.9 percent after inflation) because of efforts to develop a new
generation of reusable launch vehicles. Other programs slated for increases
include intramural research in NIST, up 23.7 percent after inflation;
NSF R&D (up 3.4 percent); and VA R&D on medical topics (up 6.1
percent).
Most other programs' projections generally show modest
cuts over the next few years, or a gradual loss of purchasing power
to inflation. Some programs would face steep cuts over the next several
years, mostly in DOE: energy supply R&D (down 5.2 percent from FY
2002 to FY 2007), fossil energy R&D (down 17.4 percent), and energy
conservation R&D (down 11.0 percent) would all fall steeply. The
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) would also lose ground to inflation and
see its R&D budget fall 7.5 percent.
Projections, of course, are not predictions. At best,
projections are statements of one Administration's current priorities,
and priorities always change in the give-and-take process of federal
policymaking; nevertheless, they illuminate this Administration's future
plans of plenty for DOD and NASA, and relative austerity for most other
agencies, even NIH after the doubling process is complete.
Historical Trends and Outlook
Increases for NIH over the past few decades have resulted
in a dramatic rearrangement of the federal nondefense R&D portfolio,
an expansion which has accelerated in the past few years with the effort
to double the NIH budget in five years beginning in FY 1998 (see Figure
3). Other nondefense R&D agencies have not fared as well in recent
years; as a result, NIH R&D would grow in FY 2003 to be as large
as all the other nondefense R&D agencies' investments combined.
Figure 3. (click on the image to view or download a color,
full-page PDF version of the chart)
As shown in Figure 3, while NIH R&D has grown steadily,
funding for all other nondefense R&D has remained stagnant in real
terms for the past decade even during a decade of unprecedented growth
in the U.S. economy and growth in the total U.S. budget. So although
nondefense R&D (including NIH) would reach an all-time high in FY
2003, investments in non-NIH agencies would decline slightly after adjusting
for inflation and remain no higher than eleven years ago.
On the defense side, DOD is by far the largest supporter
of R&D in the federal government, accounting for nearly half the
total. In the 1980s, DOD supported nearly two-thirds of total federal
R&D. Because of defense cutbacks following the end of the Cold War,
however, DOD's support for R&D declined by a third since its peak
in FY 1987 but has increased dramatically in the past few years. DOE's
defense R&D has followed the same pattern, bouncing back from post-Cold
War cutbacks to increasing investments in recent years. But as Figure
4 shows, growth has mostly been in development investments rather than
basic and applied research. Funding for the DOD S&T accounts (basic
and applied research plus some technology development) dropped sharply
after the Cold War and has not recovered, despite gains in total R&D
and total defense spending.
Figure 4. (click on the image to view or download a color,
full-page PDF version of the chart)
The FY 2003 budget now moves to Congress. Congress
is faced with task of approving an FY 2003 budget resolution, Congress'
own blueprint of its budget priorities for FY 2003 and beyond. This
task occurs in a far different Congress than last year. With the Senate
now under Democratic control, the consensus on balancing the budget
shattered, and the temporary partisan truce in the aftermath of September
11 long ended, the process is expected to be lengthy and contentious.
Senate Democrats have already criticized the Bush budget for spending
too little on domestic programs, while on the other side there are conservative
Republicans who criticize the Bush proposals for spending too much and
would like to return to a balanced budget in FY 2003. But with President
Bush having taken the lead to prepare the public for budget deficits
for the next few years, the most likely outcome is that Congress will
spend whatever it feels it needs in order to adequately fund defense,
domestic programs, homeland security, other priorities, and its electoral
hopes in the November 2002 elections. Since the difference between a
deficit and a higher deficit is much more politically palatable than
the difference between a deficit and a surplus, Congress will treat
the Bush request as a base upon which it can add spending for its own
priorities.
Normally, what would come next in the budget process
that President Bush set in motion in February would be the congressional
budget resolution that would set spending totals and functional allocations
and would give budget instructions to various House and Senate committees,
including the Appropriations Committees. Though legally non-binding,
the resolution establishes a framework under which Congress considers
the current budget request and gives the Appropriations Committees targets
for discretionary spending that they will have to meet when drafting
appropriations bills. This year, however, there are serious doubts about
whether a budget resolution will even be adopted, given the convergent
circumstances of a divided Congress, an election year and residual resentment
in both parties over the previous year's fiscal battles. Though the
budget process will still proceed without a budget resolution, the absence
of such a framework may presage an exceedingly grueling FY 2003 budget
process; without a framework and a bottom line agreed upon in advance,
the FY 2003 appropriations process could become a free-for-all, especially
in an election year when politicians will be under intense pressure
to deliver spending to their states or districts.
Go to Tables
1-5
- March 14, 2002
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
|
