Congress Gets Down to the Heavy Lifting

Congress came back from the President’s Day recess this week, and started the heavy lifting of passing authorization legislation and the all-important appropriations bills. This is going to be a short legislative session, with adjournment scheduled for October 9.

R&D has a much higher profile in Washington this year, and leaders on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are making favorable comments about science. Four additional senators have cosponsored S. 1305, the National Research Investment Act of 1998. They are Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Conrad Burns (R-MT), Thad Cochran (R-MS), and John Glenn (D-OH). They join the four original sponsors: Phil Gramm (R-TX), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Pete Domenici (R-NM), and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM).

There has not been a great deal of official Republican reaction to President Clinton’s FY 1999 budget request for R&D. Two key Republicans who exert major control on science authorization and, on a larger scale, R&D appropriations legislation, issued statements. Both should serve as a caution to the physics community.

Following the release of the budget, the House Appropriations Committee issued a four-page statement entitled “President’s Failure to Produce Balanced Budget Leaves Congress with Headache.” The introductory paragraph states: “While the President contends his budget for FY99 is balanced, the truth of the matter is that it falls at least $9 billion short on the discretionary side of spending because of its reliance on funding streams that simply don’t exist, like the $3.5 billion tobacco settlement, phony user fees, and legislative initiatives that will never materialize. Cuts in veterans medical care and elderly housing cannot be used to fund the litany of new programs the President proposes.

"`The President’s budget is like going out and spending all the money you hope you win in the lottery - it ignores reality,’ said House Appropriations Chairman Bob Livingston (R-LA). The real headache is left to the Congress.’

“The following are some examples of new programs in the President’s budget:"

"$17 million for the resurrection of previously terminated programs: Solar Technology Transfer ($1.4 million); Climate Challenge ($500,000) and University and Science Education ($15 million).”

"$14 million for a new Solar Program Support program, including $4 million for research and outreach and $10 million for a five-year open solicitation for renewable energy technology.”

"$157 million for the new Spallation Neutron Source, a research facility in Oak Ridge, TN.”

$29 million for implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to ban all nuclear testing. The treaty has not been ratified by the Senate.”

Livingston does not characterize these or any of the other seven items except for calling them “new programs.”

Livingston’s release has another category called “Questionable funding increases in the President’s budget.” Among the 20 items are the following:

"$99 million increase (+36%) for Solar and Renewable Resources Technology, including a $7 million increase (+$540%) for the international solar energy program and an $11 million increase (+34%) for wind energy systems.”

"$400 million increase (+22%) in Department of Energy’s Efficiency programs.” "$30 million increase (+85%) for the U.S. contribution to the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland.”

All of the programs listed above will be considered first by the subcommittees of the House Appropriations Committee. After they complete their draft bills, the legislation will move to the full committee, which Livingston chairs. Judging from history, the full committee will accept the subcommittees’ bills. What is difficult to know is the extent to which Chairman Livingston will make known his sentiments to his subcommittee chairmen as they mark up their bills. Recent indications point to possible delay in the drafting of appropriations bills because of concerns over tax cuts, Social Security, and highway spending.

The House Science Committee also plays an important role in this process. Committee members note that they consult with the appropriators. Authorization legislation also guides the process. Yesterday, the House Science Committee released a twelve-page document entitled “Overview of the President’s FY 1999 Budget.” This will be the subject of a future FYI. In commenting on the report, House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) states:

“The Administration’s FY99 R&D budget builds on momentum gained from congressional successes last year in support of a strong R&D program. Members of both parties on the Science Committee have worked diligently to ensure that federal science funding is sufficient to maintain U.S. leadership in science and technology for the next generation.”

“While I’m glad the President’s budget recognizes the importance of funding civilian R&D, particularly in FY 1999, I am concerned the increases for science rely on uncertain tax increases, an unsettled tobacco deal and unspecified program reductions. In addition, we can’t turn a blind eye toward future years where inflation will erode gains made in R&D for FY99.”