Segment 9 Of 9 Previous Hearing Segment(8)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 564 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
Appendix
VIEWS AND ESTIMATES
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
BACKGROUND
Science and technology are the keystones of our economic prosperity: Economists attribute much of the Nation's improvement in productivity in recent years to the fruits of research and development (R&D)—and that productivity improvement has fuelled the longest period of economic expansion in our nation's history.
Moreover, science and technology have the potential to cure numerous domestic and global social ills—disease, poverty, hunger, cultural isolation and environmental degradation, to name just a few.
But advances in science and technology do not come cheap or without focused effort; nor are they solely the responsibility of the private sector. Throughout our history, and especially in the years since World War II, the Federal Government has played a fundamental role in underwriting research and development, especially (but not exclusively) basic research at the Nation's universities. This investment, which has a long history of bipartisan support, has paid off with handsome benefits for all Americans.
While the percentage of national R&D sponsored by the Federal Government has declined in recent years, the federal role remains essential. Indeed, as competitive pressures have led many industrial enterprises to focus research on projects with shorter-term benefits, longer-term research depends more than ever on federal support.
Page 565 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
None of these assertions is new or unfounded. They are, for example, discussed in the Committee's report Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National Science Policy, prepared by Congressman Vernon Ehlers, at the request of the Speaker, in the 105th Congress.
ISSUES FOR THE 107TH CONGRESS
In the 107th Congress, the Committee intends to continue to build on, and implement the principles in the Ehlers report and similar reports that have underscored the need to invest in R&D.
The Committee will be especially attentive to issues relating to education, energy policy and the environment—three issues central to the Nation in which the science agencies under the Committee's jurisdiction play a significant role.
No research and development agenda will be successful or long-lived without a strong, healthy education system—a system that from kindergarten through graduate school ensures that the Nation has a scientifically literate citizenry and an adequate science and engineering workforce. Currently, our system provides neither. The most recent international surveys show American students lagging behind their foreign counterparts in science, and American performance gets worse the longer students are in school. Moreover, the continuing need to increase the number of H–1B visas is a glaring indication that too few Americans are prepared for jobs that require technical skills.
Page 566 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
In his Budget Blueprint, the President rightly acknowledges that the National Science Foundation (NSF) has an important role to play in improving science and mathematics education. The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration and our colleagues in Congress to ensure that NSF has the funding to contribute significantly to federal efforts to improve science and math education.
Energy policy also depends on science and technology—to improve the extraction and efficiency of fossil fuels, and to develop newer, safer, more efficient and more environmentally benign ways to generate and exploit energy. Therefore, the energy supply programs of the Department of Energy must be adequately funded. Those programs also must be reviewed to ensure that they are operating in the most efficient and effective way.
Environmental policy is also—or certainly ought to be—founded on science and technology. Environmental laws and regulations must be based on the soundest and most recent research. In addition, R&D can lead to environmental solutions by developing more environmentally friendly technologies.
The Committee intends to work to improve the quality of environmental research. The Committee will be reviewing the organizational structure of research at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Committee is pleased to see more agencies, most notably NSF, making a commitment to environmental research—an area in which many fundamental questions remain unanswered.
The Committee will also work to enhance federal research in other fundamental areas, such as information technology, which are important to our economy. The Committee will once again draw on the recommendations of the Congressionally-chartered President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC), whose term was recently extended by President Bush.
Page 567 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
Finally, the Committee will review the balance within the federal research portfolio, which has become a growing concern as the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has grown far faster than that of any other science agency. No one would gainsay the contributions of NIH, but nor can anyone deny that scientific progress, even in biomedical fields, depends on advances in a wide variety of disciplines.
The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration and our Congressional colleagues to try to develop ways to determine whether the current portfolio is too heavily weighted toward NIH, and, if it is, to figure out what a balanced portfolio would be.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AGENCIES
These recommendations are general because the President's budget document, A Blueprint for New Beginnings, understandably, provides only sketchy details at this point for most of the agencies under the Committee's jurisdiction.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
National Science Foundation
NSF, which the Committee intends to reauthorize this year, funds about 25 percent of the basic research conducted at U.S. universities, and a far higher percentage of the research in selected fields. In addition, NSF funds programs to improve K–12 and undergraduate education, and its fellowships and research assistantships support many graduate and post-doctoral students.
Page 568 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
In Fiscal 2001, NSF received a 14 percent increase, the largest dollar increase in its history, and some Members of Congress, on a bipartisan basis, have called for doubling NSF's budget over five years. President Ronald Reagan called for such a doubling in the 1980s.
The Committee is concerned that the Budget Blueprint calls for only a minuscule increase in the NSF budget for FY 2002, and appears to cut funding for research grants and/or research equipment (even in current dollars). While the Committee understands that macroeconomic constraints may prevent NSF from increasing at last year's unprecedented rate, NSF should continue to grow in FY 2002 and future years. The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration, which has expressed support for NSF's mission and programs, to ensure that its funding is commensurate with its importance.
In addition, while the Committee is gratified that the President has recognized the essential work of NSF in improving science and mathematics education, the Committee believes that greater funding may be necessary to carry out that mission. The Administration has recommended spending $200 million on a program of new grants for partnerships among states, universities and school districts—a promising approach. However, the proposal includes only $90 million in new funding, and the Committee awaits with interest the specific proposal for redirecting current education spending at NSF.
The Committee is pleased that the Administration will be reviewing NSF programs to determine the optimal grant size and duration, and to improve management of large projects.
Page 569 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
Federal Emergency Management Agency—United States Fire Administration
The Fire Administration helps localities improve their ability to prevent, control and extinguish fires. The enacted authorization level (P.L. 106–503) for the Fire Administration programs within the Committee's jurisdiction for FY 2002 is $47.8 million.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)
NEHRP is an interagency program led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and including NSF, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The program is credited with reducing the loss of life and property from earthquakes through improving emergency response, knowledge of earthquake risks, and earthquake engineering. Most states face at least some risk from earthquakes.
The enacted authorization level (P.L. 106–503) for NEHRP for FY 2002 is $108.5 million for the base program, with additional authorizations for multi-year efforts to create and operate the Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System, to create the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, to study the New Madrid fault, which threatens the eastern half of the United States; and to fund a Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee at the Geological Survey.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Page 570 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
The Committee has jurisdiction over EPA research and development funded in three appropriations accounts: Environmental Programs and Management, including the Science Advisory Board; Science and Technology, including Superfund R&D; Leaking Underground Storage Tank R&D; and Oil Spill Research; and State and Tribal Assistance Grants (Clean Air Partnership Demonstration Fund).
The Budget Blueprint provides no indication of funding levels for EPA's R&D programs, although it does, encouragingly, state that ''EPA intends to improve the role of science in decision-making.'' The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration to accomplish this, both by reviewing the organizational structure of R&D at EPA, and by ensuring adequate funding for R&D programs. In doing so, the Committee will draw heavily on the National Research Council's report Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, published last year.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The work of NOAA, which accounts for more than half of the Department of Commerce's budget, affects every American, particularly through the National Weather Service.
The Committee is pleased that the Budget Blueprint calls for an increase in funding for NOAA overall and increased funding of $83 million to continue procurement of the next generation of weather satellites. The Committee also notes the Administration's stated intention to reallocate funds within NOAA ''to ensure that funds are targeted to the highest priority environmental needs.'' The Committee awaits, with interest, the specific details of the proposed reallocation.
Page 571 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
The Committee believes that the Nation must vastly increase its knowledge and understanding of the atmosphere, oceans and climate—areas of research in which progress has been made in recent years, largely because of the increased availability of technology. The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration to ensure that research progress continues apace.
Department of Commerce—Technology Administration
The Budget Blueprint provides few indications about plans for the programs under the Technology Administration, which the Committee created in 1988 (P.L. 100–48).
First priority must be given to enhancing the Scientific and Technical Research and Services account of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). As NIST celebrates its 100yh anniversary, its laboratory programs, which help industry compete at home and abroad, are more important than ever.
The Committee also continues to support the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which helps smaller manufacturers modernize to remain competitive.
Finally, the Committee looks forward to working with the Administration as it reviews the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). The Committee hopes that ways can be found to structure ATP so it can continue to be a catalyst for innovation without being an ideological lightning rod. One possible approach would be to increase the role of the states in ATP.
Page 572 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration to determine the best method to enable NTIS to inform the public as a self-sustaining entity.
Department of Transportation—Surface Transportation Research and Development
The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration to ensure that adequate funding is provided for this account. In particular, the Committee is interested in steps that would increase the use of alternative fueled vehicles.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
Department of Energy (DOE)
The Committee has jurisdiction over DOE's civilian energy research, development, and demonstration programs and commercial application of energy technology activities.
The Committee is concerned that the Budget Blueprint contains a three percent cut in DOE's budget from FY 2001 levels. However, it is impossible to analyze the implications of this proposal without further details.
The Committee is particularly concerned about the future of the Office of Science, which funds user facilities and academic research. In recent years, many user facilities have had to cut back their hours because of funding limitations, idling investments that have cost taxpayers billions. In addition, the Committee believes that money must be budgeted now to address the aging of many DOE facilities and staff. The Committee continues to closely monitor the construction of the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory to ensure that it remains on schedule and budget.
Page 573 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
The Committee is pleased that the Budget Blueprint calls for increased spending on solar and renewable energy research. However, the Committee believes that this increased spending should occur regardless of the fate of the Administration's proposal to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Energy conservation and efficiency programs also must be part of a comprehensive energy policy.
The Committee is also pleased that the Budget Blueprint calls for reforms and investment in the Clean Coal program. The Committee awaits, with interest, the details of these proposals. The Committee believes the Nation requires a balanced energy supply research portfolio with healthy funding for coal, oil, nuclear and renewable energy sources, as well as energy efficiency and conservation.
The Committee shares the Administration's concerns about DOE contract management, and its plans to review DOE cost-sharing policies. The Committee is pleased with the Administration's praise for the program devoted to advanced automotive R&D.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The Budget Blueprint includes a two percent increase for NASA for FY 2002, but it is difficult to assess the adequacy of that request without further details.
Of greatest concern is the future of the International Space Station. The Committee continues to support development of the Space Station within the $25 billion development cap enacted into law last year (P.L. 106–391). The Committee applauds the Administration for reviewing the costs of the Space Station and for its commitment to solving the Space Station's funding problems within the Human Space Flight appropriations accounts. However, the Committee remains concerned that the proposed steps to contain the Space Station's cost growth may prove inadequate to addressing a $4 billion problem. The Committee is especially concerned that NASA does not seem to have any milestones or contingency plans to evaluate the success of its redesign proposals or to respond if the redesign saves less money than expected. Moreover, the redesign plans could create troubles of their own. For example, reducing or eliminating work on the propulsion module and Crew Return Vehicle may prolong U.S. dependence on Russia for critical Station functions. The Committee awaits additional detail from the Administration on its plans to address these issues and to preserve a viable research program on a redesigned Space Station.
Page 574 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
The Committee agrees with the Administration's commitment to safe operation of the Space Shuttle and its intention to move forward with Space Shuttle safety upgrades.
The Committee appreciates the Administration's commitment to space and earth science, particularly its decision to ensure that the Mars exploration program and the second generation of Earth Observing Satellites are adequately funded. The Committee, noting the cancellation of the Pluto-Kuiper Express, believes that NASA should develop an integrated science strategy for exploring the outer planets.
The Committee is concerned by the indication that aeronautics programs will be cut, continuing a baleful trend. The Committee urges the Administration to quickly appoint the Commission on the Future of the Aerospace Industry called for in the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2001 (P.L. 106–398).
The Committee endorses the principles laid out in the Budget Blueprint for the Space Launch Initiative.
The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration as it reviews ways to strengthen NASA's ''critical capabilities.''
The enacted authorization level for NASA for FY 2002 (P.L. 106–391) is $14,625,400.
Page 575 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration to develop an integrated R&D strategy for aeronautics. This will require an increased investment in research and development, both to ensure the health of the U.S. aeronautics industry—which, from its infancy, has drawn on federally supported R&D—and to resolve the growing problems in air traffic control. Our nation's competitors, especially European governments, are making such an investment. If action is not taken now, the Nation will face a future crisis. Already, the average age of U.S. aeronautical engineers is reaching the upper 40s and a lack of domestic wind tunnels is driving U.S. engineers to rent time in European research facilities.
The Committee calls on the Administration to allow modest growth in the Office of Commercial Space Transportation to meet the goals of the Commercial Space Transportation Competitiveness Act of 2000 (P.L. 106–405). That law authorizes $16,478,000 for the Office in FY 2002.
Department of Commerce—Office of Space Commercialization
The Committee urges continued funding of this office, which has played a useful role in promoting the commercialization of space, working with private industry, and making the best use of the Global Positioning System. P.L. 106–405 authorizes $608,000 for the Office in FY 2002.
MINORITY ADDITIONAL VIEWS
Page 576 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
FY 2002 VIEWS AND ESTIMATES
TO THE HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE
MARCH 16, 2001
Introduction
Like last year, it is difficult to take a position on the Majority's Views and Estimates for FY 2002 since the report fails to meet its legislative mandate of providing a five-year funding recommendation for agencies under our jurisdiction. Perhaps the majority's lack of detail reflects the lack of specificity in the President's budget document A Blueprint for New Beginnings. Despite its failings, however, many of us signed the Majority's Views and Estimates to show support for our new Chairman, and because the content of that report was both inoffensive and generally pointed in the right direction.
However, our deference to the Chairman should not be viewed as indifference to the fate of Federal research funding. What we know of the new Administration's budget concerns us. We are pleased to see a healthy increase for NIH in the request. Defense basic research may also fare well once the final budget is submitted. But the numbers available on NSF and NASA cause us deep concern. Neither of these premier science agencies receives a requested increase that even keeps pace with inflation. Lest some view our reaction to this request as overly partisan, we will rely on the reaction of another New York Republican to summarize our view: James Walsh, the House VA–HUD–IA Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman, dismissed the NSF request as falling surprisingly far short fiscally.
Page 577 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
Almost three years ago, the Majority released the oft-cited Science Policy Study. That document says that ''. . .to build upon the strength of the research enterprise we must make federal research funding stable and substantial.'' What that document didn't say is whether that steady and substantial funding should trend upwards or downwards in absolute terms over time. After all, a Federal research portfolio which slowly declines from $90 billion to $80 billion does show a steady and substantial funding profile. Unfortunately, the Majority's Views add no clarification to the vague language of that report. Such ambiguity and indecision, in the newly tightened budget climate, is dangerous.
We want to clearly state that we believe—along with such diverse sources as Allen Bromley, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Andy Grove of INTEL, and the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security—that Federal funding for research is a necessary precondition for continued economic success and security in our high technology economy. We also believe that funding for our science agencies—all of our agencies, not just a select set—must be increased.
National Science Foundation
In light of the essential role research plays in driving the economy and serving national security, it is disappointing that the Administration's requests for NSF and other civilian science agencies (with the exception of NIH) are at or below appropriations levels for the current fiscal year. For NSF, the budget request proposes a total increase of only $56 million (1.3 percent), and all of that and more goes to education programs rather than research. Adjusted for inflation, this request will result in a three to four percent decline in NSF's budget for competitive research grants.
Page 578 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
Within this declining budget, NSF is instructed to launch a $200 million initiative in science education, introduce a new program in mathematics research, and maintain existing research initiatives in information technology, bio-complexity and nanotechnology. The core, discipline-based research programs at NSF will be eroded both by inflation and by these new initiatives.
Of course, the Majority understands the importance of Federally supported research and no doubt agrees that NSF plays a vital role in support of basic research and education across all fields of science and engineering. Unfortunately, their budget guidance fails to follow through. We were surprised that the Majority did not recommend a robust funding level for NSF. At a bare minimum we believe they could advocate a funding increase for the Foundation that keeps pace with inflation for all the programs at the agency.
Vowing to work with the Administration to ensure that funding is in line with the agency's importance is an inadequate position in a document that will guide the Budget Committee in its mid-March markup of a Budget Resolution. We too will work with the Administration, but we believe it is necessary to increase the NSF budget for FY 2002 by at least 15 percent to enable the Foundation to carry out adequately its vital role in support of science and engineering education and research. We agree with Dr. D. Allen Bromley, former President Bush's science advisor from 1989–1993, who made the following statement regarding the Administration's FY 2002 funding request in a March 9 New York Times op-ed:
''The Bush budget includes cuts, after accounting for inflation, to the three primary sources of ideas and personnel in the high-tech economy: NSF is cut by 2.6 percent, NASA by 3.6 percent, and the Department of Energy by an alarming 7.1 percent. The proposed cuts to scientific research are a self-defeating policy. Congress must increase the federal investment in science. No science, no surplus. It's that simple.''
Page 579 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
With regard to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration there are several points that need to be made if the Budget Committee is to have a proper context for its deliberations. We would note that the proposed percentage increase in NASA's funding level is half the average increase proposed for the Federal Government's discretionary accounts. This increase, which is lower than inflation, when coupled with the dismal requests for other civilian R&D agencies, sends a negative message about the relative priority that the Administration attaches to Federal investments in cutting-edge research and development.
It is discouraging that the Administration is intent on cutting NASA's aeronautics programs, would eliminate two planned space science projects (the Pluto-Kuiper Express and Solar Probe missions), discontinue remote sensing and environmental applications projects, and ''reduce'' information technology programs. No convincing rationale for those cuts is provided other than the implicit one of attempting to meet an artificially low funding level for NASA as a whole. The Administration's budget request proposes making significant changes to the International Space Station program. We strongly believe that the Administration needs to ensure that any actions taken to mitigate the effects of cost growth do not wind up undermining the utility of the research facility in which we have invested so many taxpayer dollars. At a minimum, we would advise the Budget Committee to provide a budget increase to NASA that tracks the rate of technical inflation.
Other Agencies
Page 580 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
What we are hearing about the treatment of research accounts at the Department of Energy and Interior also concerns us. The budget lacks much detail on these areas, but rumors of cuts up to 20 percent seem to be dominating the specialized press for these agencies.
One specific example that has received wide treatment in the press can be found in the reports of a seven percent cut to the renewable and efficiency energy research programs at the Department of Energy. Such a step would be an unwise approach to reducing our dependence on foreign oil and diversifying our energy production portfolio. The Bush budget and the Majority Views claim an increase in this account, but it would not materialize until FY04 and then only under the far-from-certain scenario of oil extraction from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We would ask the Budget Committee to recommend that these programs continue to grow at a rate equivalent to that approved by the Republican Congress over the past several years.
Conclusion
Finally, many in the science and education community have begun to ask whether there is an ''imbalance'' in our research portfolio, with too much funding being concentrated in the biomedical sciences. The Administration, by flat funding NSF while moving NIH along the path towards its five-year doubling goal, exacerbates this problem. We don't pretend to know what the exact balance among science investments should be, but our intuitive sense is that there is already an imbalance, and making it worse is not a productive step.
The Majority's promise to work with the Administration to see ''if'' the portfolio is too heavily weighted toward the NIH is too weak. Frankly, this is a step back from last year's views, when the Majority condemned an over-investment in biomedical work to the exclusion of other fields. The FY 2001 Committee Views stated that ''contributions of computer science, physics, mathematics, engineering and other fields to biomedical research illustrate the need to secure funding for fundamental science as part of the Federal Government's overall research agenda.'' This language is more in keeping with our views.
Page 581 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
We stand ready to work with the Majority in the effort to educate the new Administration on the importance of Federal R&D to our economic vitality and national security. We stand ready to engage the Administration in an ongoing dialogue about the best way to invest in the future of our nation. However, we know that the Budget Committee cannot wait for that day when the Administration comes to understand the obvious—that R&D is the lifeblood of innovation and underlies economic growth. Therefore, we have tried to provide at least minimal guidance on how to responsibly treat civilian research accounts in the FY 2002 budget.
VIEWS AND ESTIMATES OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
BACKGROUND
Science and technology are the keystones of our economic prosperity and national security.
Economists attribute much of the Nation's improvement in productivity in recent years to the fruits of research and development (R&D)—and that productivity improvement fueled the longest period of economic expansion in our nation's history.
Advancements in science and technology were also critical to the Nation's ability to triumph in the Cold War. (Indeed, Cold War-era investments in science and technology, especially those made in the wake of the Soviet launch of Sputnik, laid much of the foundation for the broad, successful scientific and engineering enterprise the U.S. boasts today.) New ideas, understandings and technologies spawned by research and development are likely to be just as essential to winning the war against terrorism.
Page 582 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
Moreover, science and technology have the potential to cure numerous domestic and global social ills—disease, poverty, hunger, cultural isolation and environmental degradation, to name just a few.
But advances in science and technology do not come cheap or without focused effort; nor are they solely the responsibility of the private sector. Throughout our history, and especially in the years since World War II, the Federal Government has played a fundamental role in underwriting research and development, especially (but not exclusively) basic research at the Nation's universities. This investment, which has a long history of bipartisan support, has paid off with handsome benefits for all Americans.
While the percentage of national R&D sponsored by the Federal Government has declined in recent years, the federal role remains essential. Indeed, as competitive pressures have led many industrial enterprises to focus research on projects with shorter-term benefits, longer-term research depends more than ever on federal support.
None of these assertions is new or unfounded. They are, for example, discussed in the Committee's report Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National Science Policy, prepared by Congressman Vernon Ehlers, at the request of the Speaker, in the 105th Congress.
INTERAGENCY ISSUES FOR THE 107TH CONGRESS—Second Session
In the second session of the 107th Congress, the Science Committee will continue to focus on its three top priorities—mathematics and science education, energy policy and the environment—as well as coming up with new approaches to fighting the war against terrorism and undertaking an in-depth review of the space program. Most of the Committee's concerns and interests in these and other areas are captured in the agency-by-agency discussion in the next section. But three sets of central concerns that cut across agency lines need to be reviewed first.
Page 583 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
Presidential Initiatives
The Administration's budget highlights four ''multi-agency R&D priorities''—work on anti-terrorism, networking and information technology, nanotechnology, and climate change. (Analytical Perspectives, p. 164) The Committee strongly endorses these initiatives, and agrees that they deserve priority in funding.
The Administration is still developing its procedures for developing, managing, prioritizing, and categorizing anti-terrorism R&D. This is understandable given how quickly the United States has had to change its focus since September 11th. The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration in putting together a portfolio of anti-terrorism R&D that addresses a wide range of threats in both the long- and short-term. (The Committee's own initiatives in this area are discussed below.)
The Administration proposes a three percent increase for the interagency program on Networking and Information Technology (NITRD). The Committee believes this is the bare minimum the program needs. The Committee, by voice vote, late last year approved H.R. 3400, which would provide the NITRD agencies under our jurisdiction with $35 million more in Fiscal Year (FY) 03 than the Administration has requested. Under the bill, which is based on the recommendations of the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC), spending on the Committee's NITRD agencies would increase from $1.076 billion in FY02 to $1.157 billion in FY03 to $1.688 billion in FY07.
The Administration proposes increasing spending on nanotechnology by 17 percent. This promising, broadly applicable technology field merits the additional spending. The Committee may address nanotechnology R&D in legislation later in the year.
Page 584 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
The Administration proposes two new initiatives designed to address climate change, over and above the ongoing U.S. Global Change Research Program—$40 million for a Climate Change Research Initiative, designed to address questions most relevant to policy-makers; and $40 million for a National Climate Change Technology Initiative. While the details of the initiatives remain to be worked out, the Committee supports this new, focused effort. The Committee plans to reauthorize the U.S. Global Change Research Program this year.
Anti-terrorism R&D
Just like the Cold War, the war against terrorism will be won in the laboratory as much as on the battlefield. While some R&D must be devoted to finding short-term solutions to immediate concerns, the Nation must invest in long-term R&D to develop new approaches to both current and future threats. The Committee approved two bills last year designed to do just that, and is committed to see the programs created by them receive adequate funding.
The Committee, by voice vote, approved H.R. 3394, the Cyber Security Research and Development Act, in December, and the House passed the bill by a vote of 400–12 in February. The bill would establish new research initiatives at both the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) designed to come up with innovative approaches to computer security, and to draw more senior researchers and students into the field. For FY03, the bill authorizes $73 million for NSF and $32 million for NIST.
The Committee also approved, by voice vote, H.R. 3178, the Water Infrastructure Security and Research Development Act, which the House passed by voice vote. The bill authorizes $12 million in FY03 for R&D related to water security at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Page 585 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
Balance in the Federal Research Portfolio
While the Committee believes that the Administration has chosen the appropriate priorities for the federal R&D budget, it is nonetheless concerned that the biomedical sciences, in general, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in particular, are growing out of all proportion to any other element of the R&D budget. Indeed, just the increase proposed for the NIH in FY03 is larger than the entire proposed research budget for NSF. While the Committee supports the doubling of NIH, it is concerned that unless the needs of other agencies are addressed, many scientific opportunities will be missed and even health research itself will be retarded.
Similarly, while Defense Department development programs are critical to our national security, those programs alone cannot create a stable and secure American society or even ensure our protection from enemy attacks over the long-term. Yet while the Pentagon is slated to receive a 12 percent increase, basic and applied research in the Defense Department are flat, and numerous programs in other agencies that unarguably contribute to Homeland Security receive tepid increases.
The Committee will continue to review the balance within the federal research portfolio. The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration and our Congressional colleagues to develop ways to determine whether the current portfolio is too heavily weighted toward NIH, and, if it is, to figure out what a balanced portfolio would be.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AGENCIES
Page 586 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
National Science Foundation (NSF)
The National Science Foundation funds about 25 percent of the basic research conducted at U.S. universities, and a far higher percentage of the research in selected fields. NSF funds basic research across nearly all disciplines of science and engineering, making NSF-supported research integral to progress in priority areas such as health care and national security, among others. In addition, NSF funds programs to improve K–12 and undergraduate education, and its fellowships and research assistantships support many graduate and post-doctoral students.
The FY03 budget request for NSF is $5.04 billion, $239.91 million—or five percent—over the FY02 appropriation. However, $76 million of the increase does not represent new spending, but rather is existing funding associated with three programs the Administration proposes to transfer to NSF—the Sea Grant program, now at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); hydrology programs now at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); and certain environmental education programs, now at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The transfers are unlikely to occur, and, in any event, none of the transferred money would be available to strengthen existing NSF programs or create new ones. After subtracting the transfers, NSF is left with an actual proposed increase of about 3.4 percent—or about one percent above inflation. This is not a significant increase for an agency charged with ensuring the overall health of the Nation's university research enterprise—an agency that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has held up as a model of good management.
Page 587 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
The Committee believes that NSF needs an increase (exclusive of any transfers) of at least $420 million, or 8.8 percent, over FY02 levels. This request would increase funding for NSF's core science programs, enabling NSF to begin funding highly ranked grant proposals that are turned down solely for lack of funding; fully fund K–12 education programs that have been authorized by the House; and would fund large facility projects that have already been approved by the National Science Board.
Education and Human Resources
The Committee is pleased that the budget request for NSF's education programs reflects a continued commitment to the Mathematics and Science Partnership program, requested at $200 million. The Committee thus fully supports this request, which was authorized by H.R. 1858, the National Mathematics and Science Partnerships Act, which the House passed by voice vote last year.
The Committee is also pleased to see that two other programs authorized by H.R. 1858, the Noyce Scholarship Program and the Digital Library Program, are included in the budget request, albeit at lower levels than authorized. The Committee will continue to push for full funding of these efforts.
In addition, the Committee is encouraged to see funding for the Tech Talent Program (referred to as the Science Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Talent Expansion (STEP) Program), which would be authorized by H.R. 3130, the Tech Talent Act, which the Committee plans to approve this spring.
Page 588 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
The Committee fully supports the proposed increase in graduate fellowship stipends from $21,500 to $25,000 in the current budget request.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—United States Fire Administration (USFA)
The U.S. Fire Administration helps localities improve their ability to prevent, control and extinguish fires. The enacted FY03 authorization level (P.L. 106–503) for the Fire Administration's Fire Prevention and Control programs is $50.0 million; the FY03 budget request is $40.7 million. This represents a decrease of $9.6 million from the FY02 Current Estimate of $50.3 million.
In addition to the Fire Prevention and Control Act programs authorized in P.L. 106–503, the FY01 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106–398) authorized the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (administered by USFA) to provide direct assistance to local fire departments for training, purchase of equipment, and other purposes. The FY02 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 107–107) increased the authorization for this program to $900 million per year through FY04, and expanded its scope to include grants for equipment and training to help firefighters respond to a terrorist attack or an attack using weapons of mass destruction. In FY02, this program received $150 million through the Veteran's Administration, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriation (P.L. 107–73) and an additional $210 million through the Department of Defense (supplemental) Appropriations Act (P.L. 107–117), for a total of $360 million.
In the Administration's FY03 budget request, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program is incorporated into a FEMA-wide $3.5 billion National Preparedness Program. (The grant program is still expected to give out an estimated $164.8 million in awards in FY03, nonetheless, using unspent FY02 funds.) While the details of the National Preparedness Program are not yet in place, the Committee is concerned that these funds may be distributed in a manner that reduces the dollars that fire departments receive as states take a share of the funds for themselves or focus on other responders. The Committee strongly recommends that the Assistance to Firefighters awards continue to be awarded directly to local career and volunteer fire departments through the current competitive process.
Page 589 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)
NEHRP is an interagency program led by FEMA and including NSF, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The program is credited with reducing the loss of life and property from earthquakes through improving emergency response, knowledge of earthquake risks, and earthquake engineering. Most states face at least some risk from earthquakes.
The enacted authorization level (P.L. 106–503) for NEHRP for FY03 is $122.6 million for the base program, with additional authorizations for multi-year efforts to create and operate the Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System (ANSS, $44.0 million) and to build the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES, authorized at $4.5 million for FY03).
The FY03 budget request for NEHRP is $115.7 million, a decrease of $10.6 million, or 8.4 percent. This decrease reflects a planned reduction from FY02 levels of $10.8 million for NEES construction. All NEHRP agencies are flat funded in the President's request: NSF, $33.8 million; FEMA, $14.7 million; USGS, $47.6 million; and NIST, $2.5 million. The Committee is concerned that the request for the ANSS is only $3.9 million, a fraction of the authorized level.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY & STANDARDS
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Page 590 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
The proposed FY03 budget for the EPA's science and technology functions calls for a 6 percent increase over the FY02 appropriation, excluding funds provided in the Supplemental Appropriation. The Committee supports the EPA's request for funding to help communities meet the new arsenic drinking water standards and improve the science of cumulative risk assessment. It also supports the additional funding for research related to homeland security, such as the detection and remediation of biological and chemical contamination in buildings.
The Committee is concerned, however, that the proposed budget for EPA's core science and technology activities (excluding the funding for new homeland security research) will decline by four percent from FY02. More troubling still, the EPA's core funding for the Office of Research and Development, which carries out more than 80 percent of EPA's R&D activities is lower than it was in FY99. In real dollars, this represents a decline in funding over the last four years. In addition, the Committee recommends restoring funding for the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Fellowships, which have supported hundreds of graduate and undergraduate students in the environmental sciences.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The proposed budget would reduce NOAA funding by $142 million (or about four percent) below FY02 levels. The gross figure is somewhat misleading, though, as the Administration's budget fully funds the critical functions of the Agency and provides significant, needed increases for the National Weather Service.
(Most of the reduction reflects the proposed elimination of Congressional earmarks and the proposed transfer of the Sea Grant College Program to NSF. The Committee does not support the proposed transfer of the Sea Grant program, which needs some reform, but is integrally connected to NOAA's mission.)
Page 591 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
The Committee is pleased that the Administration would provide $18 million in new money for NOAA's portion of the President's Climate Change Research Initiative, and $171 million for overall climate research. The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration to shape and focus this new Initiative.
The Committee supports the Administration's request of $237 million for NOAA's new satellite program (NPOESS)—an increase of $79 million. This project, which is jointly funded by the Air Force, is vital to our future ability to forecast extreme weather. However, the Committee is concerned that despite the estimated $6.5 billion total cost of the project, NOAA has no plan to ensure that it will have the capability to process, assimilate and distribute all of the new data that NPOESS will generate. The Committee has asked the General Accounting Office to analyze the new project and report on current and future NOAA satellite data management needs.
Department of Commerce—Technology Administration
The bulk of the Technology Administration's funding goes to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Nation's oldest federal laboratory and still a leader in science and technology as reflected by the Nobel Prize awarded last year to one of its scientists. The Administration budget proposes to spend $389 million for the core NIST laboratory functions (the Scientific and Technical Research and Services account) in FY03—an increase of $68 million over FY02. The Committee is pleased with this generous request, but believes that in light of the focus on homeland security, additional funding could be provided for NIST's computer security efforts and for its investigation into the World Trade Center collapse, which could yield new ways to strengthen buildings to withstand terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
Page 592 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
The Committee is also pleased that the budget request provides funding to complete the construction of the Advanced Measurement Lab in Gaithersburg and to undertake much needed improvements at NIST's laboratory in Boulder, Colorado.
The Committee takes issue with the proposal to sharply reduce funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), which helps smaller manufacturers modernize to remain competitive.
In FY00 alone (the most recent year for which data is available), the program contributed $700 million in new or retained sales, $480 million in cost savings, and $900 million in new capital investments. The proposed budget would end federal support for almost all state MEP centers. This change would force most centers to shut their doors just as they could be contributing to economic recovery.
The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration on its proposed reforms to the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), which may at last help put the program on a path to stable funding.
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration to determine the best method of enabling NTIS to inform the public as a self-sustaining entity.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
Page 593 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
Department of Energy (DOE)
The Committee has jurisdiction over DOE's civilian energy research, development, and demonstration programs and commercial application of energy technology activities.
The Committee is concerned that the proposed budget would cut programs under the Committee's jurisdiction by 2.4 percent. The proposed funding levels fall well below those that would be authorized under H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001, which passed the House on August 2, 2001, by a vote of 240–184. To take just two examples, H.R. 4 would authorize $45 million for hydrogen R&D in FY03, but the request is $39.9 million. H.R. 4 would authorize $113.9 million for biofuels and biomass (excluding an additional $49 million for integrated bioenergy R&D), while the request is $86 million.
The Committee is particularly concerned about the future of the Office of Science, which funds user facilities and academic research. In recent years, funding limitations have forced many user facilities to restrict the number of hours they are available to researchers, causing investments that have cost taxpayers billions to sit idle. In addition, many DOE facilities are deteriorating and staff are nearing retirement, producing a looming problem that the Committee believes must be addressed with increased resources.
The Committee continues to closely monitor the construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, especially in light of a recent report by DOE's Inspector General indicating that capabilities and facilities have been pared back to keep the program under budget.
Page 594 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
The Committee awaits further details on several of DOE's initiatives, including the Clean Coal program and FreedomCAR. While the Committee supports the goals of these programs (and has authorized the 10-year Clean Coal program with strict environmental goals), it needs additional details on these programs to assess their ability to achieve their goals. Similarly, the Committee awaits further details on the way the Administration applied its new performance criteria to the fossil fuel accounts that it proposes to cut.
The Administration's request for the Fusion Energy Sciences Program is $257.3 million, far short of the $335 million approved by the House in H.R. 4. Fusion's potential to wean the Nation from fossil fuels is tremendous, but much research remains to be done before that potential can be realized. The Committee notes with approval that the Administration is reassessing the potential U.S. role in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), which may significantly advance the science by achieving sustained-burning plasma. The Committee believes that U.S. participation in such important international research endeavors deserves serious consideration.
Finally, the Committee supports the Administration's proposal to spend $40 million in DOE on a National Climate Change Technology Initiative. The Committee is concerned, however, that DOE has not highlighted this proposal in its budget presentations and seems unable to provide any detail on how or where it will be carried out. This important initiative needs to become a focus within DOE if it is to be successful.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
Page 595 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The Administration proposes to increase funding for NASA by 0.7 percent in FY03, from $14.9 billion in FY02 to $15 billion in FY03. The Committee supports the level of the Administration's request.
The item of greatest concern in the NASA budget is the future of the International Space Station (ISS). The Committee continues to support development of the Space Station within the $25 billion cost cap enacted during the 106th Congress (P.L. 106–391). The Committee applauds the Administration for reviewing the costs of the Space Station and for its commitment to solving the financial and program management problems as outlined by the ISS Management and Cost Evaluation (IMCE) Task Force.
However, many critical decisions regarding the ISS remain to be made. NASA has not yet implemented many of the management reforms the IMCE recommended, and NASA has not yet identified the criteria that will be used to evaluate the Space Station program. In addition, the Research Maximization and Prioritization (REMAP) Task Force NASA established to evaluate ISS research priorities will not announce its findings until August.
Despite the uncertainty, the budget assumes $560 million in unspecified savings over the next five years; without those savings the three-person ''Core Complete'' Space Station cannot be assembled within the $25 billion cost cap.
The Committee agrees with the Administration that safety must be the highest priority in the operation of the Space Shuttle. The Committee applauds the Administration for examining competitive sourcing and privatization of the Space Shuttle, and awaits the results of the Administration's reviews, which are expected to be complete by late September. The Committee is concerned about the proposal to cut the Shuttle safety and supportability upgrades program by about $500 million between FY03 and FY07 to absorb unexpected increases in Shuttle operations and maintenance costs. The proposed cut is especially ill-timed as NASA told Congress last year that at least some of the safety upgrades were essential. The Committee expects NASA to develop more rigorous and realistic estimates of what it will cost to operate, maintain, and upgrade the Shuttle fleet. Estimates must not be based on unrealistic assessments of when the Shuttle might be replaced with a second-generation launch vehicle. The Committee supports increased funds to modernize the launch infrastructure at Kennedy Space Center to support planned mission needs.
Page 596 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
The Committee appreciates the Administration's commitment to space and Earth science. The Committee, noting the cancellation of the Pluto-Kuiper mission and the deferment of the Europa mission, agrees that NASA should develop an integrated science strategy for exploring the outer planets. The Committee believes that investments in new technology, such as the Nuclear Systems Initiative, could significantly reduce spacecraft travel time and enable a more robust planetary exploration program.
The Committee supports the Administration's restructuring of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise budget to more clearly link the budget and management structure to strategic goals. However, the Committee is concerned that the aeronautics program, once a core NASA program, does not have sufficient funds to usefully address the problems facing our aeronautics and aviation system. Moreover, the Committee urges the Administration to work to strengthen collaboration between NASA and FAA on aeronautics research and technology development.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
The Committee looks forward to working with the Administration to develop an integrated R&D strategy for aeronautics. This will require increased investment in R&D, both to ensure the safety and security of the U.S. air traffic control system and to maintain the competitiveness of the U.S. aeronautics industry.
The Committee urges the Administration to increase coordination between the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation and the U.S. Air Force regarding streamlining safety regulations for launch site operations. U.S. commercial launch providers face significant challenges from international competition. The U.S. government must develop policies and procedures that promote and encourage this key industry.
Page 597 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
Department of Commerce—Office of Space Commercialization
The Committee urges continued funding of this office, which has played a useful role in promoting the commercialization of space, working with private industry, and making the best use of the Global Positioning System. P.L. 106–405 authorizes $626,000 for the Office in FY03.
SCIENCE COMMITTEE MINORITY ADDITIONAL VIEWS
FY 2003 VIEWS AND ESTIMATES
TO THE HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE
MARCH 12, 2002
The Administration's FY 2003 R&D Request
The Administration's FY03 R&D budget request can be summarized simply: weapons development increases 12 percent, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) increases 17 percent, and all other civilian and defense R&D is collectively frozen.
There is a business-as-usual quality to the civilian R&D portfolio. As has been the case stretching back well into the Clinton Administration, NIH is slated to receive nearly all of the civilian R&D increase. But the sense of continuity—perhaps inertia is a better word—extends beyond NIH's primacy. Even the multi-agency R&D priorities of this budget are holdovers from the later Clinton budgets: anti-terrorism, networking and information technology, nano-technology, and climate change.
Page 598 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
Last year's Minority Views noted four major themes in the budget submission:
The request reversed the trend toward parity, achieved in FY01, between defense and non-defense R&D.
The imbalance between biomedical R&D and R&D in the physical sciences was further exacerbated.
The budget submission stopped in its tracks the growing consensus that the NSF budget should grow at least at the same rate as the NIH budget.
Cooperative Federal-industry R&D programs fared poorly.
Each of these statements is as true for the FY03 submission as it was last year:
Defense R&D constitutes 52 percent of total R&D, the second consecutive budget to reverse a 15-year trend toward a greater civilian share.
For the first time, the HHS R&D request ($27.683 billion) exceeds the R&D request of all other Federal civilian R&D ($26.046 billion).
The five-year doubling path for NSF, started in FY01, is officially off the rails. The Foundation's increase for R&D is 1.5 percent, well below inflation.
Page 599 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
Several R&D collaborations involving academic, industry, and government remain targeted, including the Advanced Technology Program, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and aviation R&D.
It is clear to us that except for NIH, federal science funding is not a high priority for this Administration. It also appears that the trends noted above will persist, given Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger's February 15, 2001 statement that ''. . .the life sciences may still be under-funded relative to the physical sciences.''
Metrics
Over this placid environment for R&D, storm clouds lurk. Much of the civilian R&D portfolio, the budget warns, will be subject to impending programmatic or management reviews, or both. For example, funding for much of NASA's science and human space flight accounts will depend on future, undefined studies. The FY03 budget implies few commitments by the Administration to the continuation of the Space Station, Mission to Planet Earth, or the Outer Planetary Program. On a smaller scale, the Smithsonian may see some of its science portfolio transferred to NSF after further study.
Utilizing a grading system (red, yellow, and green lights) across five management measures, OMB spills much ink asserting that performance metrics were applied in making budget allocations. Paradoxically, the Department of Defense, with its 12 percent increase, receives five red lights for management. NIH stays on its doubling path even though HHS, its parent department, garnered five red lights. NASA manages a yellow light for financial management in a sea of red, even though inept financial management is cited as the reason for putting the agency's flagship program—the Space Station—on life support. Then there is NSF, whose score surpassed every Federal department. Its reward is that core R&D accounts would grow by a mere $53 million (1.5 percent), which is less than inflation. Despite assertions that management scores mattered, it appears to us that they had no effect whatsoever on a particular agency's budget. Metrics may become the cloak behind which politics can carry on as before with a new patina of impartiality.
Page 600 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
In a word, the theme for this year's R&D budget is incremental change, but with major programmatic changes pending that will be justified with as yet sketchy and opaque management criteria.
Majority Views
The Majority's Views and Estimates do question some proposed Administration cuts and correctly note areas where budgetary legerdemain masks sub-inflationary increases. However, it is difficult to take a firm position on the Majority's Views since they fail to meet the legislative mandate of five-year funding recommendations for all agencies under the Committee's jurisdiction. Despite its failings, however, many of us signed the Majority's Views to show support for the Chairman, and because the content of their report was both inoffensive and generally pointed in the right direction.
Our deference to the Chairman should not be viewed as indifference to the fate of Federal R&D funding. We believe the Majority should have gone farther. What particularly concerns us is that R&D requests for three premier scientific agencies—NSF, NASA, and DOE—fail to keep pace with inflation. It is appropriate to remember the wise words of the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security/21st Century, which completed a thorough assessment of the Nation's post-Cold War security challenges six months before the attacks of September 11, 2001. The report, which accurately predicted terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, emphasizes that the U.S. ''has seriously under-funded basic scientific research'' and recommends that federal R&D funding be doubled by 2010. This recommendation is more, not less, relevant in the wake of last year's terrorist attacks and underscores the inadequacy of the FY03 civilian R&D request.
Page 601 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
In this report, we have provided our views of R&D in the President's request. What follows is our guidance on specific aspects of agency budgets.
National Science Foundation
In light of the essential role which research plays in economic growth and national security, we are disappointed with the Administration's request for NSF. The $3.902 billion increase requested for NIH is by itself greater than the entire $3.783 billion Research and Related Activities account at NSF. According to OMB reporting requirements, the portion of NSF's budget devoted to research and research infrastructure would be increased by only $53 million—or 1.5 percent—under the President's request (after subtracting transferred programs). We believe that NSF should be put on a path to double its significant research and education work. H.R. 1472, introduced last year by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, calls for 15 percent increases to NSF's budget and this is what we would suggest to the Budget Committee. We recommend that the Function 250 account be adjusted to reflect an NSF research budget of $4.17 billion for FY03, with concomitant increases in the out-years.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The proposed increase for NASA is only 0.66 percent, continuing the pattern of disappointing NASA budget requests that fail to keep pace with inflation. This year's meager increase does not remotely match the tasks confronting the agency. The budget request repeatedly defers needed funding increases to the indefinite future while downplaying the impact of those deferrals. For example:
Page 602 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
Funding for aeronautics R&D is once again cut, this year to one-half of its FY98 level. One impact would be NASA's inability to meet its announced 10-decibel aircraft noise reduction target by 2007.
The Shuttle program suffers a loss of $500 million in safety upgrades, even though we will be dependent on the Shuttle for at least the fifteen years.
No funding beyond FY03 is provided for follow-on Earth science missions pending completion of an Administration review of global change research.
The crew capabilities and equipment needed to make the Space Station a useful research facility are eliminated.
The five-year budget request for NASA will require augmentation if NASA is to safely and successfully accomplish its missions. We would advise the Budget Committee to provide annual three percent budget increases to NASA for five years, so that it can avoid losing additional ground to inflation and begin to address its backlog of important obligations.
Department of Energy
The Federal budget picture has changed dramatically since the passage of comprehensive energy legislation (H.R. 4) in August of 2001. Therefore, we recommend that the Budget Committee adopt FY03 funding levels for functions 250 and 270 that would accommodate the funding level contained in H.R. 4 for FY02. Out-year numbers would also track the funding levels contained in H.R. 4, building on the FY02 levels as appropriate. In line with H.R. 4, we recommend that the Budget Committee increase Function 250 by $300 million with instructions that the Office of Science receive $3.6 billion in FY03. In Function 270, H.R. 4 provided $625 million for Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency at DOE, and $535 million for Renewable Energy—about $200 million above the FY03 request.
Page 603 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 9
Conclusion
Many in the science and education community are asking whether there is an ''imbalance'' in our research portfolio, with an over-concentration of funding in the biomedical sciences. By freezing NSF while kicking NIH down the path towards its five-year doubling goal, the Administration exacerbates this problem. We don't pretend to know what the exact balance among science investments should be, but our intuitive sense is that there is already an imbalance, and making it worse is not a productive step.
We stand ready to engage the Administration in an ongoing dialogue about the best way to invest in the future of our nation. We hope that the Budget Committee will not wait for the Administration to understand the lesson of the Hart-Rudman Commission—that R&D, the lifeblood of innovation, underlies both economic growth and national security.
97