|
|
Budget Brinkmanship Leads to Unexpected Gains in Fiscal 2000 for R&D at NSF, DOD, and DOE
Let’s get this straight:
For all the dire predictions of across-the-board reductions, spending
caps, and the sanctity of the Social Security trust fund, the Republican-controlled
Congress just about finished the sometimes chaotic session by spending
roughly $31 billion more in fiscal 2000 than last year. And in a few R&D
agencies, Republican lawmakers were able to boast that they delivered
more than President Clinton had requested last February, though, for the
most part, they did this after the starting gun had gone off for fiscal
2000. And, as Physics Today went to press, the period of controversy
and compromise persisted without a final resolution. The fact is that
both Clinton’s team and the Republican leadership strode confidently to
the brink on many of the appropriations bills, only to step back when
challenged to leap into a contentious maelstrom. When only two of the
13 appropriations bills had been enacted at the start of the new fiscal
year on 1 October, the political strategies changed on both sides. In
the ensuing five weeks, Clinton vetoed four of the bills and then turned
conciliatory. But both sides remained strident and adamant on several
issues—namely, federal or local authority to hire new teachers, payment
of two years of back dues to the United Nations, and environmental issues
relating to the president’s land conservation program and to dumping mine
wastes. When Physics Today went to press, Congress had passed its
fifth “continuing resolution,” sustaining federal expenditures for another
few days and extending budget negotiations to prevent a government shutdown. The budget problem this year was aggravated by the caps set firmly in place in 1997. The spending limits leave little money for discretionary programs, such as science and technology. When House appropriators issued their allocations for R&D before leaving town during the August recess, the reaction was explosive. “This year’s federal budget for science is a disaster,” said D. Allan Bromley, a Yale University physicist who served President Bush as science adviser. “Congress has lost sight of the critical role science plays.” Rankled by the House numbers, presidents of several research universities and lobbyists for many scientific societies bombarded the White House with appeals for President Clinton to speak out on the situation. On 1 September, Clinton’s chief of staff, John Podesta, addressed reporters at the National Press Club and accused House Republicans of shortchanging the future by favoring tax cuts over R&D funding. “Investments in science and technology—both public and private—have driven economic growth and improvements in the quality of life in America for the last 200 years,” said Podesta. “Many of the products and services we have come to depend on for our way of life—from lasers to communications satellites to vaccines—are all products of US policies to encourage investments in science and technology.” He then attacked Republicans for proposing to slash the Clinton administration’s budget request by $1.8 billion, or about 10%. The cuts would reduce the information technology research initiative by 70%, block increases for the National Science Foundation (NSF), and knock off $1 billion from NASA’s budget, thereby threatening to eliminate or eviscerate some 30 space missions. “If such cuts are allowed to stand, we will all be leading lesser lives in a lesser land,” declared Neal Lane, Clinton’s science adviser, a former Rice University physicist. But, as often happens in the Washington budget game, threatened cuts in R&D have a way of being restored in last-minute dealmaking. “Lifting the caps will be politically difficult,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, a powerful Republican from New Mexico, home of two Department of Energy weapons labs, “but we can get around that with bipartisan agreement.” A month into fiscal 2000, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the 13 appropriations bills passed by Congress would provide about $609 billion in discretionary outlays—up from $574 billion last year and $15 billion above the limit set under the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. Some of the increase went to defense, a traditional Republican priority and, to the surprise of many, to such customary Democratic mainstays as education and science. The cause for improving R&D budgets has been invigorated by two new Washington phenomena: One is the Senate bill doubling the size of the science budget, which was passed earlier in the year under the leadership of a bipartisan group, led by Republicans Bill Frist of Tennessee and Domenici and Democrats Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. A similarly worded bill recently introduced in the House by Heather Wilson, a New Mexico Republican, is also likely to gain wide support. Though no longer in Congress, Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the House and now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote an op-ed article in The Washington Post on 22 October, calling for a doubling of federal spending on scientific research in the next five years. “No other federal expenditure would create more jobs and wealth or do more to strengthen our world leadership, protect the environment, and promote better health and education for all Americans,” he stated. “For the security of our future, we must make this investment now.” Gingrich also noted that, in his experience, scientists were among the least effective lobbyists in Washington. Gingrich’s comment about scientists underscores the other new phenomenon—the mobilization of the scientific and engineering communities, which have usually tread different paths in Washington, to join together in efforts to influence members of Congress on funding matters. Such activities have aleady had an effect. Even with the tight spending caps in place, Congress approached its appropriations end game by allocating a total of $82.7 billion to R&D programs—an increase of $3.4 billion, or 4.3%, over fiscal 1999. Not surprisingly, the largest gains would go to research at the National Institutes of Health (13.7%) and Department of Defense (10.4%). Other agencies would also benefit, though by much smaller amounts—Department of Energy research (2.2%), NSF (5.4%) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (3.2%). Still, NASA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology gain little. Despite what seemed like a wrap-up of the R&D budget, White House negotiators, led by Jacob Lew, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Republican lawmakers remained deadlocked on some of Clinton’s other issues. Lew told reporters the issues “aren’t small,” though the difference can be counted in millions, not billions, and have “significant political content.” One of the biggest unresolved issues is the Republican demand for a 0.97% reduction in all domestic discretionary programs, even for those whose appropriations bills have already been signed into law by the President. Another is a year-old $1.2 billion program that already has put thousands of new teachers into the nation’s public schools—most particularly, 200 in Los Angeles, nearly 300 in Philadelphia, and 800 in New York City. Both sides agree that qualified teachers are necessary, but Republicans in Congress argue that school districts should be allowed to spend the money to meet their perceived needs, such as reducing classroom size, hiring teachers trained in math and science, and other priorities. Clinton counters that the program is already coming up with creative answers to local problems and that tinkering with it would undercut its mission. National
Science Foundation House–Senate appropriators gave $697 million for NSF’s education and human resources directorate, $35 million more than 1999, and $37 million more than the House had proposed. Within this amount, the conference committee designated $55 million for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), a program to improve the ability of researchers in 18 states and Puerto Rico to compete for federal grants. In addition, the conference committee allocated $10 million to establish a new office of innovation partnerships, which will manage the EPSCoR program and find techniques that colleges and universities can use to raise their research capabilities “so as to develop a truly national scientific research community with appropriate research centers located throughout the nation,” the report observed. On 24 September, during a Senate discussion of the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies bill, in which NSF and NASA are funded, senators commended appropriations subcommittee leaders Kit Bond, a Republican of Missouri, and Barbara Mikulski, a Democrat of Maryland, for persuading their colleagues to increase the funds for both NSF and NASA after the House had allocated smaller amounts for most programs. “We were forced to forage for funds,” said Mikulski. “The spending caps have put us in a terrible position. We have had to pit one group against another, and one of the biggest losers in this battle has been education.” Believing that House lawmakers also deserve credit, NSF’s director, Rita Colwell, issued a statement extolling two House appropriations committee “cardinals,” chairman James Walsh of New York and subcommittee chairman Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, for “extraordinary leadership and clear understanding of the importance of investing in science and engineering.” e Department of Energy. The department’s appropriation for R&D increased $223 million, or 3.2%, to $7.2 billion for fiscal 2000. Of this amount, DOE science programs received $2.7 billion, after adjusting for general reductions. The amount is about $100 million less than the administration’s request, but roughly $50 million more than either the House or Senate had proposed. Nonetheless, the total is a paltry 0.1% above the previous year’s budget. High-energy physics went up 0.9% above 1999, to $695 million. Nuclear physics was given $348 million, or 4.3% more than 1999, and $5 million more than the president’s request. The magnetic fusion program did a lot better. A House–Senate conference committee agreed to give the program $247 million, $24 million above the administration’s request. The committee explained its largess by citing a recent report of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. SEAB endorsed the revised scope of the program, which has more or less abandoned “a nearly exclusive focus on the achievement of fusion energy in tokamaks” and adopted “a broader program that would also explore scientific foundations and other confinement approaches.” In conference, the appropriators allocated $475 million for inertial fusion in DOE’s defense programs budget for fiscal 2000. Of this sum, $248 million is for the National Ignition Facility (NIF), under construction at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and $228 million for core program activities. The conference committee expressed disappointment that NIF has encountered cost overruns, schedule delays, and management troubles, and directed the Secretary of Energy to certify by 1 June a new cost and schedule baseline. “If the secretary is unable to provide such a certification, the department should prepare an estimate of the costs necessary to terminate the project,” the committee declared. In response to the conference committee’s threat, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson asked SEAB to review NIF’s problems and chose John McTague, a retired Ford Motor Co vice president for research and technology, to head the study. Livermore officials have already acknowledged that NIF, the $1.2 billion cornerstone of the stockpile stewardship program, needs to design better clean rooms for its laser optics systems and is working with Silicon Valley companies to achieve this. Livermore also has admitted that NIF will not be completed on its original schedule of 2003. SEAB is not alone in looking at the project. The General Accounting Office, Congress’s watchdog agency, acting on a request by House Science Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr, a Wisconsin Republican, is also investigating NIF. NIF isn’t the only troubled project at DOE. Congress and DOE are concerned about the progress in building the $1.3 billion Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. SNS’s timetable is somewhat uncertain because of funding delays, which causes a classic Catch–22. Congress failed to agree to the administration’s plan for construction costs, providing $118 million for the project in fiscal 2000, $96.1 million below the request. Still, DOE has about $70 million in carryover funds for SNS from 1999, when the project received $130 million. Martha Krebs, director of DOE’s science office, has warned that insufficient funding is almost certain to delay the project’s planned opening in 2005 and lead to higher costs for its completion. Meanwhile, DOE has appointed a new project manager, Lester Price, to work alongside of SNS’s project director, David Moncton. Price, previously executive director of Oak Ridge’s environmental management program, is charged with ensuring that the Oak Ridge team interacts smoothly with SNS’s four collaborating DOE labs—Argonne, Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, and Los Alamos DOE’s energy R&D program emerged from the appropriations process as a mixed bag of increases and decreases. The solar and renewables energy programs fell 7% to $276 million, some $75 million below the request. The House criticized DOE for continuing to spend federal research dollars on technologies that already receive commercial funding. House lawmakers argued that the program should concentrate on more fundamental, peer-reviewed research. Energy conservation R&D was also hit, declining 3% to $388 million. By contrast, nuclear energy R&D fared extremely well. It was favored with a 19.8% increase, to $91 million, because of Congress’s concern that the department had neglected nuclear energy as a source of abundant power that does not contribute to atmospheric pollution. Despite funding increases, DOE’s defense programs are likely to be in turmoil in fiscal 2000 as they are reorganized into a new semi-autonomous agency within the department. Last summer, Republican lawmakers crafted legislation creating the National Nuclear Security Administration as a reaction to allegations that China had acquired data and other “secrets” on nuclear weapons from Los Alamos and perhaps other DOE labs. The concept of the NNSA originated with the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which issued a report titled “Science at its Best, Security at its Worst.” The board proposed that the weapons labs should be independent of DOE management—in effect returned to the status of the old Atomic Energy Commission. (See Physics Today, August, page 49) On 5 October, Clinton signed the fiscal 2000 Defense Authorization Act, which established the new agency. At the same time, he directed Richardson to assume all the duties of the NNSA administrator, who was to have the title of under secretary of energy for nuclear security. The designation of Richardson has angered many legislators, both Republicans and Democrats. NNSA is authorized to begin operating on 1 March, and until then Congress and the administration are likely to continue grappling with the president’s attempt to “end-run” Congress’s intent for the agency. The final appropriations bill provides $13.7 billion for fiscal 2000, just $12 million, or 0.1%, less than the previous year. R&D was increased by 1% to $9.8 billion. Legislators apparently robbed housing programs and the international space station to divert some money into space science, which had been shortchanged by both House and Senate bills. In September, the House had approved $240 million less than the agency’s $2.1 billion request, and the Senate had cut the request by $120 million. Both actions were loudly protested by White House and NASA officials, as well as by space scientists who sent letters and e-mail to their legislators, arguing for restoration of the budget request. The science, aeronautics, and technology sector, which funds nearly all of the agency’s R&D not related to the space station, received $5.6 billion, a reduction of 0.8% from fiscal 1999, but $182 million more than the request. The final bill has $2.2 billion for space science, 3.1% more than 1999. But Congress reduced funding for future Discovery and Explorer missions, which is almost certain to result in fewer exploratory launches over the next few years and fewer missions to Mars than had been planned. -- Irwin Goodwin © 1999 American Institute of Physics
|
