Congressional Reaction to FY 2000 R&D Request

FYI’s coverage of the Clinton Administration’s FY 2000 R&D request is now complete. AIP’s Science Policy page at http://www.aip.org/gov/ has previous FYIs on the DOD, DOE, NASA, NIST, NSF, and the Department of Education’s Eisenhower Professional Development Program FY 2000 requests arranged by department or agency. Readers wishing additional information beyond that covered in these FYI budget summaries may contact us at fyi@aip.org Please be specific in the information you are seeking.

Press releases have been issued by both senators and representatives about the president’s R&D request. The Senate release, issued by Senators Bill Frist (R-TN) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT), co-chairs of the Senate Science and Technology Caucus, has a bipartisan flavor, while that issued by House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) is much more critical. Rep. George Brown (D-CA) has not released any statement. Sections of the two releases follow:

“FRIST, LIEBERMAN SEE PRESIDENT’S R&D BUDGET AS MIXED BLESSING”

The senators “expressed their concern over his [the president’s] proposed decreases in funding for defense R&D, but were pleased that his civilian R&D budget request met their authorization funding levels.”

“Research and development represent the cornerstone of our modernizing economy,” said Frist in the press release. “I’m pleased that the President’s civilian R&D budget requests are similar to ours, but I’m concerned that he’s neglecting the importance of defense R&D. Additionally, it’s unfortunate that the White House is including non-traditional R&D programs in its R&D budget which overstates its true commitment to long-term fundamental research.”

Lieberman agreed, stating “The President’s budget underscores the Administration’s commitment to civilian R&D which we applaud. But it raises serious questions about the future of R&D funded by the Defense Department.... Unless we commit to a goal of enlarging the entire R&D budget and find a way to maintain funding for the scientific disciplines historically funded through Defense, we’ll lose our technological advantage in key areas critical to our economic growth.”

As described by the Office of Management and Budget, the administration’s FY 2000 request would increase civilian R&D funding by 3 percent. Defense R&D funding would decline by 5 percent. Viewed from another perspective, civilian basic research would increase 4 percent, while defense basic research would decline by 1 percent. Lieberman and Frist also charge that the administration included testing and related activities in the long-term R&D projections, spending which is usually not included in making these calculations. Both senators indicate their support of the Information Technology research initiative.

Frist and Lieberman are also concerned about the administration’s long-term R&D spending projections. These projections were discussed at the February 1 OSTP budget briefing, where an OMB official said that the projections were not a policy decision but a mechanical device. Projections always bear watching, but no one should put too much stock in them -- favorable or unfavorable.

On the House side, a press release on Sensenbrenner’s analysis of the request begins with the statement that he “commended the Administration for proposing a three percent increase overall for agencies under the Science Committee’s jurisdiction for FY 2000.” That was about the last positive sentiment in either the release or the analysis, Sensenbrenner saying, “It appears that the President’s budget proposal fails to match the strong long term congressional commitment to our R&D programs. Nonetheless, the Science Committee will continue its diligent work to ensure that the federal R&D commitment remains sufficient to maintain U.S. leadership in science and technology.”

Sensenbrenner’s analysis levels much criticism at the over-all budget’s projected five year increase in spending, for breaking the spending caps, and for utilizing “taxes, fees and accounting gimmicks” to balance the FY 2000 budget. He charges that “The President’s FY 2000 proposal fails to provide long-term stable funding necessary for the proper conduct of R&D.” With a series of statements and charts, the chairman concludes that the administration’s projections for R&D spending would result in declines over the next five years in inflation-adjusted dollars. He states, “The Clinton budget proposes to decrease R&D funding (Defense and Non-Defense) for FY 2000 by 1 percent below FY 1999 levels. When adjusted for inflation, this decrease is almost 3 percent in FY 2000. From FY 1999 to FY 2004, when adjusted for inflation, a nearly 8 percent reduction in the conduct of R&D occurs.”Sensenbrenner’s analysis also hits the defense R&D budget, proportionate funding for basic research, and a number of other projections. The entire analysis can be found at www.house.gov/science/welcome.htm

A theme running through much of Sensenbrenner’s analysis is, he states, the Clinton Administration’s failure to provide enough support for R&D in both the short run and the long run. Chairman Sensenbrenner has previously said that his colleagues on the House Appropriations Committee look to his Science Committee for guidance. The chairman is at the right place, at the right time, to work with his committee and with House appropriators to correct the deficiencies he has identified in the Clinton Administration’s FY 2000 R&D request. The ball is now in Congress’ court.