The Budget Blues--Outlook on DOE, NASA and NSF R&D Funding (II)

How should the federal government’s research agencies respond to projected significant reductions in nondefense R&D spending through FY 2002? This was the major question asked of NSF Director Neal Lane, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin, and DOE Office of Energy Research Director Martha Krebs at a House Science Committee hearing in late July. The day before, the committee received testimony from Al Teich of AAAS and Congressional Budget Office Deputy Director James Blum (see FYI #130.)

Several important notes: all figures cited below are inflation-adjusted projections calculated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Many assumptions were necessarily made in determining these projections, which are outlined in Teich’s testimony at the following AAAS web site: http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/cstc/hsc-tstm.htm

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY:

Krebs testified that: “The outyear funding levels projected for the programs I am responsible for in the President’s budget plan beyond FY 1997 will be a challenge for us to meet. However, in both the congressional and executive branch budget processes, appropriation decisions for individual programs are made on an annual basis. During each year’s process, there will be opportunities to tie funding proposals to specific policies, priorities and goals.”

In response to a question, Krebs said it would be “very difficult” to choose among various physics programs in determining future funding priorities. She spoke of DOE’s efforts to sustain U.S. funding for the Large Hadron Collider, and refocusing fusion from an energy to a science program. Krebs later added that she is telling physicists “saving physics by itself” will not make for a strong R&D enterprise.

AAAS calculated that under the administration’s budget plan, “Total DOE nondefense R&D” spending could decline 24.9% between FY 1995 and FY 2002. “General Science (Physics)” funding could decline 20.7%, and “Energy Supply R&D” could drop by 27.8%. Under the Congressional Budget Resolution, AAAS projected, DOE nondefense R&D spending could decline 44.0%; General Science (Physics) funding could decline 12.6%, and Energy Supply R&D could decline 38.0%

NASA:

Goldin testified that: “Instead of viewing the outyear budget projections as hard and fast policy guidance, and worrying about their consequences, I recommend we focus our attention on the strong statement made by the President in his request for NASA in FY 1997.” “We have no illusions about the likelihood that NASA’s budget for FY 1998 will be higher than our FY 1997 request of $13.8 billion.... our internal planning assumes a steady decline in our future budgets as we approach the end of the decade.” “I see no reason to sound the alarm now about future budget prospects for NASA. The past four years have taught me that the amounts actually appropriated by the Congress will be based on NASA’s ability to make a case that our programs merit funding.”

Later in the hearing, Goldin said that he would not cancel programs prematurely because of possible funding cuts. He also said that the budget situation has served as a “wake-up call” that has been “very helpful for the R&D community.”

AAAS projected that “Total NASA R&D” spending could be 23.7% less in FY 2002 as compared to FY 1995 under the administration’s budget plan. The “SAT [Science, Aeronautics, and Technology] Space R&D” budget could be 19.6% less. The comparable declines under the Congressional Budget Resolution, AAAS found, could be 22.5% and 18.9%.

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION:

“Both the President’s proposals and the Congressional Budget Resolution have protected NSF’s total budget and left us with a relatively healthy bottom line,” testified Neal Lane. “These figures are real, but they are not set in stone,” he added.

AAAS calculated that “Total NSF R&D” spending could be 18.1% less and “Research and Related Activities” spending could be 6.5% less in FY 2002 as compared to FY 1995 under the administration’s budget plan. Under the Congressional Budget Resolution, total NSF R&D could decline 6.8%, while Research and Related Activities spending could increase 4.6%.

Lane cautioned the Science Committee that "...before we devote too much time to analyzing the precise details of decisions that lie years away, I would remind the committee of an insightful phrase often attributed to the great physicist, Niels Bohr: `prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.’”