University Presidents Seek Higher FY 1998+ DOE Energy Research Budgets

Although Fiscal Year 1997 is just a few days old, attention is already shifting to Fiscal Year 1998. While Congress and the Administration avoided the budget wars of a year ago, the path to a balanced budget by 2002 promises to be tortuous.

There has already been talk about the difficulties that lie ahead, with the House Science Committee devoting two days of hearings last summer to outyear (or future) projections for science spending. The American Association for the Advancement of Science calculated that the Department of Energy’s General Science (Physics) budget could decline between (an inflation-adjusted) 12.6% and 20.7% under different scenarios between FY 1995 and FY 2002 (see FYI #134.)

This subject was raised last week at a two-day meeting of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (to be the subject of future FYIs.) At this meeting, Office of Energy Research Director Martha Krebs said that “outyears are crucial,” calling the Administration’s projected spending plans “extremely stringent.” She warned that funding for the Large Hadron Collider, Scientific Facilities Initiative, Human Genome Project, and global warming research cannot be sustained under the projected outyear budgets. Krebs stated that she is working to make this case with the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget, and while her message is being heard, nothing has officially changed. The “outyear issue is not resolved” she stated, and while guardedly optimistic, Krebs said that numbers will not start to become available until November or December (if President Clinton is re-elected.)

On September 13, twelve university presidents or chancellors wrote to President Clinton to express their concern about DOE outyear projections. Undoubtedly, they did so now because Congress - whichever party controls it - is unlikely to increase significantly either a Clinton or Dole administration budget request. Congress generally moves budgets down -- not up. These next few months will be critical for the eventual size of DOE’s FY 1998 budget, with decisions being made behind closed doors at DOE, OMB, and OSTP.

The complete text of this letter follows. It was signed by or on behalf of the presidents or chancellors of Stanford University (on whose stationary the letter was sent), University of California, The Johns Hopkins University, University of Colorado, University of Washington, University of New Mexico, Harvard University, Columbia University, University of Southern California, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Washington University in St. Louis.

The President The White House Washington, D.C. 20500

“Dear Mr. President:

“We strongly support and commend your efforts to balance the budget while working to protect federal funding for basic research. Your commitment to science is clearly demonstrated in this year’s research and development budget. However, as the Fiscal Year 1998 budget process begins, we are concerned about the long-term budget outlook for basic science, which you have pointed out is the cornerstone of the United States’ technological pre-eminence. And we are particularly anxious about the programs in the Office of Energy Research of the Department of Energy. If the Fiscal Year 1997 budget’s outyear projections for the Office of Energy Research are realized, some of this country’s most fundamental and exciting scientific research could be compromised.

“The Office of Energy Research is the largest federal supporter of research in the physical sciences. It builds and operates major research facilities that are essential for work in many fields. These include the particle accelerators used by high-energy and nuclear physicists; the synchrotron light sources and research reactors used by biologists, chemists, materials scientists and condensed-matter physicists; the fusion machines used by plasma physicists and so on. About 15,000 scientists, mostly from universities, rely on these facilities for their research. You have recognized the importance of the facilities, even in tight budget times, with the `Facilities Initiative.’ This added $100 million to the Office of Energy Research budget to increase available operating time in Fiscal Year 1996 and again in Fiscal Year 1997.

“The outyear projections in the Fiscal Year 1997 budget, however, showed a decline in the Office of Energy Research funding of about 25% in dollar terms by Fiscal Year 2000, implying a 34% cut in level of effort, including inflation. Because a large fraction of the Office of Energy Research budget supports its unique research facilities, this budget cut is particularly damaging. If the facilities were maintained, there would be little funding for the university groups to use them. If the facilities were cut back, there would be little opportunity for the university groups to carry out research. In either case, both science and the country’s long-term research program would be damaged.

“We very much hope that you can correct this situation as the Fiscal Year 1998 budget is being formulated and fund the Office of Energy Research at a level that sustains this fundamental branch of scientific inquiry not just in the next fiscal year, but for the future.”

Copies of this letter were sent to DOE Secretary Hazel O’Leary, Office of Management and Budget Director-Designate Franklin Raines, OSTP Director John Gibbons, and Martha Krebs.