Analyses and Views on FY 1998 S&T Budget Request
The past few weeks have seen the release of several commentaries on President Clinton’s FY 1998 request for science and technology. Each examines the request in a different way. The National Academy of Sciences looks only at the portion of the research and development budget they define as federal science and technology (FS&T.) As in other recent Academy documents, this designation does not include testing and evaluation, but refers to only R&D funding supporting “new knowledge and new technologies.” Exclusive of a change in the way the Department of Energy requests construction funding, NAS finds that the FS&T request of $45.3 billion, if enacted, would result in funding remaining at FY 1996 and FY 1997 levels in constant dollars. The American Association for the Advancement of Science uses the entire federal R&D request of $75.0 billion for its analysis. It determines that, after adjusting for inflation, the request would represent a small decrease from FY 1997. The House Science Committee finds Clinton’s request unacceptable, and recommends 3.0 percent growth for R&D programs under its jurisdiction. A larger (7.0 percent) increase was called for in a March statement signed by 23 scientific and engineering societies (see FYI #34 .)
NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT: NAS’s Panel on FS&T Analyses, on March 24, released a 25-page study that reviews the science and technology portion of President Clinton’s fiscal year 1998 budget request. The Panel reports that the FY 1998 FS&T request of $45.3 billion, if enacted, would be a real increase of 2.0 percent over FY 1997 funding. However, this increase is entirely due to a change in the way the Department of Energy has requested construction funding. This year’s budget submission, for the first time, includes a request to fully fund construction projects through completion, although much of the money would not be spent in the 1998 fiscal year. Without this change, the FS&T request would remain basically equal to FY 1996 and FY 1997 funding. FY 1998 funding would be 5.3 percent less than the FY 1994 level.
Prior to the FY 1998 submission, only the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health experienced budget growth in real terms since FY 1994. With this request, the Departments of Energy, Commerce and Transportation would receive a real increase in FS&T funding over FY 1997 budgets, and see their funding rise above 1994 levels. The Departments of Defense and Agriculture would continue their trend of declining FS&T budgets since FY 1994.
This review of the FY 1998 FS&T request is available on the Academy’s Web page at http://www.nas.edu/fsrd/fsrd.html or call 202-334-3061.
AAAS REPORT: The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in a March 24 analysis, examines the total federal R&D budget request of $75.0 billion and looks at the Administration’s outyear (future year) projections. AAAS finds that while the request would increase total R&D by 1.8 percent over FY 1997, after adjusting for inflation, this becomes a cut of 0.8 percent. Also, AAAS calculates that “the President’s R&D budget for FY 1998 will cut federal R&D spending by an additional 14 percent (in inflation-adjusted dollars) by 2002.”
Details of AAAS’s analysis of the R&D request are available on their Home Page at http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/rd/rdwwwpg.htm or call 202-326-6607.
HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE VIEWS AND ESTIMATES: Another source of views on the FY 1998 budget request for science comes from a March 20 document to the House Budget Committee from the Science Committee, chaired by James Sensenbrenner (R-WI.) “Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for Fiscal Year 1998,” signed by a majority of both Republican and Democratic committee members, recommends an increase of three percent above FY 1997 for S&T programs within the committee’s jurisdiction. As the House authorizing committee for most federal R&D programs, it is the role of the Science Committee to provide guidance to appropriators by approving programs, and suggesting funding priorities and funding levels.
The committee supports the 3.0 percent growth requested by NSF in the FY 1998 submission. For NASA, the committee expresses disappointment in the requested 1.5 percent decline from the FY 1997 level. Committee priorities for NASA include safe operation of the shuttle, completion of the space station, space science, and development of a new reusable launch vehicle (RLV.) Conspicuously absent from the list is Mission to Planet Earth.
The committee “believes that DOE can accomplish its mission within existing or slightly reduced funding levels.” It expresses concern over DOE contract management, particularly of the national labs, and “intends to increase support for DOE’s long-term, high-risk, high-quality research...while simultaneously reducing funding for near-term, low-risk research and for commercialization and marketing efforts.”
“Within the framework of a balanced budget,” the committee supports the core laboratories of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as well as “efforts to modernize NIST’s aging infrastructure.” The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is also supported, but regarding the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), the committee finds “only anecdotal evidence that ATP has yielded any benefit to U.S. competitiveness,” and advises only “sufficient funding to cover the existing mortgages.”
Ranking Minority Member George Brown (D-CA) has appended some “Additional Minority Views,” in which he expresses support for Mission to Planet Earth and the ATP, and recommends “a growth path for R&D that actually keeps pace with the Gross Domestic Product -- that is, an annual increase of about 5 percent per year.”
Information on “Views and Estimates” can be found on the House Science Committee’s Home Page at http://www.house.gov/science/pressrel/105_37.html or call 202-225-0461.
