From the Hill – Spring 1997

President proposes 2.2 percent boost in R&D budget

President Clinton has proposed a $75.5 billion R&D budget for FY 1998, which is 2.2 percent or $1.6 billion more than the FY 1997 appropriation. However, the 2.2 percent increase may overstate the year-to-year trend, because the president would include about $1 billion in the Department of Energy (DOE) budget to fully fund in advance the costs of constructing several R&D facilities. Most of this money would not be spent until FY 1999 or later. As a result, the R&D facilities budget would jump by 50 percent to $3.4 billion, while funding for basic research, applied research, and development would rise by only 0.7 percent to $72.1 billion. Funding for basic research alone, for both civilian and defense agencies, would increase by 2.8 percent to $15.3 billion.

Every major civilian R&D agency except the Agriculture Department would receive an increase at or above the expected inflation rate.

National Institutes of Health (NIH). The budget would hit $13.1 billion, of which $12.5 billion would fund R&D, a 2.7 percent increase. NIH’s top priority is funding Research Project Grants (RPGs)-competitively awarded grants to investigators-which would increase by 3.9 percent to $7.2 billion. The total number of RPGs would increase by 3.6 percent to a record level of nearly 27,000.

The president’s budget would consolidate all of NIH’s AIDS research in the Office of AIDS Research (OAR), which would then distribute funds to the other institutes. In the past two years, Congress has allocated AIDS funds directly to the institutes. During that time, OAR received enough to cover its expenses. NIH funding for AIDS research would total $1.5 billion in FY 1998, a 2.7 percent increase.

National Science Foundation. The overall budget would increase by 3 percent to $3.4 billion, while the R&D budget, which excludes overhead costs and education activities, would rise by 3.9 percent to $2.6 billion. The Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate’s participation in the Next Generation Internet initiative would earn it a budget increase of 7.6 percent, to $294.2 million. The Major Research Equipment account would increase by $5 million to $85 million and would fund construction of two new projects, the Polar Cap Observatory and the Millimeter Array, in addition to two current projects.

Department of Defense (DOD). Although DOD’s basic research budget would increase by 7.8 percent to $1.2 billion, reversing a cut in the FY 1997 budget, its applied R&D funding would decline. Thus, the overall $36.8 billion budget represents a 1.8 percent cut. Funding for the Dual Use Applications Program (DUAP), which is designed to promote the integration of off-the-shelf commercial technologies into DOD products, would increase to $225 million from $181 million. DUAP replaced the Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP) in FY 1997. At its peak, TRP funding was $500 million.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The budget would dip from $13.7 billion to $13.5 billion. Cuts in the Space Shuttle program, which NASA does not classify as R&D, account for most of the decrease. NASA’s R&D activities would climb by 3.1 percent to $9.6 billion. Several of NASA’s priority areas would receive increases of about 4 percent, including the Mission to Planet Earth and space science. The X-33 Reusable Launch Vehicle program would get a 35 percent boost to $330 million. The space station project would receive $2.1 billion in FY 1998.

Department of Energy (DOE). The special request for full advance funding of the construction costs of several facilities would boost the R&D budget by 18.2 percent to $7.3 billion. Subtracting the funding, DOE’s support for basic research, applied research, and development would rise by 3.6 percent.

About $876 million of the special request would fund construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Less than $200 million of this would be spent in FY1998. NIF, which is part of DOE’s defense R&D effort in inertial confinement fusion, is scheduled to be completed in 2003.

The president’s DOE budget would also increase funding for several programs that came under attack in the 104th Congress, including Solar and Renewable Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Energy Conservation.

Department of Agriculture (USDA). R&D would fall by 3.9 percent to a $1.5 billion because of cuts in R&D facilities, most of them congressionally designated in last year’s appropriation. R&D in USDA labs and extramural research grants would increase. The president has proposed a 38 percent increase to $130 million for competitively awarded National Research Initiative grants.

Department of Commerce. The R&D budget would rise 6.2 percent to $1.1 billion. Of that, $600 million would go to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for applied research on oceans, atmosphere, climate change, and marine resources.

The National Institute for Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) Advanced Technology Program, which funds commercially oriented technologies and has been opposed by the Republican majority in Congress, would get an increase to $275.6 million from $225 million. NIST’s labs would get a 3.3 percent increase to $276.8 million for their work on technical standards and measurement technologies. The budget for NIST’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership (not classified as R&D) would jump from $95 million to $123.4 million.

Gramm bill would double R&D funding

Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), a conservative who has pushed hard for much lower federal spending, surprised a lot of people in the science policy community on January 21 when he introduced a bill that would double federal spending in basic science and medical research by FY 2007, from $32.5 billion to $65 billion.

In introducing the National Research Investment Act of 1997 (S.124), cosponsored by Sen. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), Gramm said that in order to maintain U.S. technological and economic competitiveness, the federal government must once again make science funding a high priority. He noted that R&D funding as a percentage of the federal budget had dropped from 5.7 percent in 1965 to 1.9 percent in 1997. He also pointed out that for the first time in 25 years, federal R&D funding has declined for four years in a row.

S. 124 would ensure that funding for NIH would double from its 1997 authorization of $12.17 billion to $25.5 billion by 2007, according to the schedule laid out in the bill. NIH is the only agency whose authorizations are specifically outlined. The legislation dictates that funding would be allocated by peer review, with priority given to basic research. Funds provided by the bill could not be used for commercializing technologies.

Skeptics, pointing out that it is far easier to get Congress to authorize such a major increase than to actually get it appropriated, said the legislation is unlikely to succeed during a period of intensive budget cutting.

Russian delay on space station causing alarm

Concerned about Russia’s delay in building a key component of the international space station, the Clinton administration has begun developing contingency plans. At a February 12 House Science Committee hearing, John H. Gibbons, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Daniel Goldin, administrator of NASA, stressed the importance of Russian experience and technology to the space station’s success but said that alternate solutions must be developed in case Russia cannot complete work on its part of the project.

Russia announced last fall that construction of the station’s service module, which would provide orbital control and life support, was running eight months behind schedule due to lack of funding. With other station components scheduled for launch in less than a year, the delay in building such a critical element could jeopardize the project. Gibbons testified that Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, who met in early February with Vice President Al Gore to discuss Russia’s commitment to the project, had promised Gore that Russia would provide the funds needed to resume construction of the service module by the end of February. However, Gibbons outlined two possible backup plans: using existing hardware from the Naval Research Laboratory to keep the station in orbit or adapting a Russian-designed component called a functional cargo block to serve as a “more robust interim control module” until the service module could be completed.

Testimony from Marcia Smith, a specialist in aerospace and telecommunications policy at the Congressional Research Service, provided a sobering assessment of the critical nature of the Russian contribution to the space station. Regarding the administration’s 1993 decision to make Russia a partner in the project, Smith said, “It was clear almost immediately that Russia’s role was enabling, not enhancing. That is, the space station cannot be built as currently designed without Russia.” Smith asserted that Russia’s failure to complete its work would require redesign of the space station. She added that too much last-minute tinkering with the station’s design could compromise the project’s success.

Although many members of Congress are frustrated with the uncertainty surrounding the service module’s status, the space station retains wide bipartisan support, even if Russian participation does not. The administration was expected to make a decision on what steps to take next by the end of February or early March.

Biennial budget urged

As he has done for years, Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) has again proposed changing the federal budgeting process to a two-year cycle. This year, however, he has won the support of key Republican legislators, including minority whip Sen. Wendell H. Ford (D-Kent.) and Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.). Thus, the prospects for approval have improved considerably.

Under Domenici’s proposed Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act, cosponsored by 20 senators, the appropriations process for the two-year budget period would take place entirely within the first year of a congressional session. The second session would be devoted to oversight activities that, Domenici argues, are often neglected in the current annual budget cycle. Domenici has said that a biennial budget system would benefit the science and technology (S&T) community by allowing more effective long-range planning and improved oversight and priority-setting for complex projects. Although S&T-oriented agencies are unsure of how a biennial system would affect their operations, the consensus is that any changes that simplify the workings of Congress and create greater funding stability would improve the effectiveness of their programs. This would particularly be the case for long-term capital-intensive projects.

Despite the increasing support for Domenici’s proposal, important members of the House and the Senate, including House Appropriations Chairman Bob Livingston (R-La.) and Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, oppose the bill. Under a biennial budget, appropriations committees would be able to wield their full powers only once every two years.