Impact of the 1997 House Budget Resolution on Research and Development

Staff Analysis

The Republican Budget Resolution continues the assault on civilian research and development initiated in the first session of the 104th Congress. As compared to the President's request, H. Con. Res. 178 cuts over $3 billion in FY 97 and nearly $18 billion over the six-year period from civilian science agencies. A summary of some of the anticipated impacts follows:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

If implemented, the Fiscal Year 1997 Republican Budget Resolution would have a deeply negative impact on the nation's civil space program. Not only does it cut the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) budget by almost three quarters of a billion dollars more than the Administration over the six-year period, but it makes those cuts in a manner that would fundamentally destroy the balanced program that has been a hallmark of the space program since its inception almost four decades ago.

Specifically, the Budget Resolution would slash the funding for the Mission to Planet Earth - a major national environmental research and monitoring initiative - by a third (i.e., by almost $2.8 billion over six years), effectively canceling the project as currently conceived. In addition, the Budget Resolution would cut NASA's aeronautics budget by almost $900 million over the same period. A cut of that magnitude will jeopardize important research initiatives in aircraft safety; improvement of the nation's air traffic management system; development of quieter, more fuel-efficient aircraft; and many other important areas. The aeronautics funding cut is particularly troubling in view of the fact that the aviation sector has traditionally made a huge positive contribution to the U.S. trade balance and has been the source of hundreds of thousands of high-tech jobs for American workers. In sum, implementation of the Budget Resolution would do damage to NASA and to the nation's R&D capabilities.

National Science Foundation

Although the Republicans have proclaimed that they assign the highest priority to basic research in the federal R&D budget, NSF, the agency with the broadest charter for support of basic research and science education, would decline in actual buying power. Although there is proposed a 3% growth for NSF's research accounts, the resolution provides for no growth in its education directorate and other critical operations. In addition, the increase proposed for the research account is about $40 million below the President's request, which would provide 4.7% growth. This translates into nearly 500 fewer research projects being funded in fiscal year 1997.

The Budget Committee's report language continues the indirect assault begun last year on the social and behavioral sciences at NSF. The report endorses the elimination of one scientific directorate and states that "no reductions are assumed to NSF basic research on the physical sciences". This position is taken despite the widespread support for the social and behavioral sciences from the scientific community. The President of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Bruce Alberts, has stated that research in these areas have made significant contributions to the store of knowledge and to the ability to meet critical societal challenges and that NSF supported projects in these disciplines have contributed significant advances in research. In contrast, the President's budget request for NSF places no restrictions on areas of inquiry in the basic research programs, relying instead on the agency's merit review processes through which scientists select the most promising research directions to advance fundamental knowledge.

Department of Energy

The budget resolution would cut energy efficiency and coal, oil and natural gas R&D by 50% from FY 96 levels in the first year and would terminate them altogether in four years. It would make a 48% cut in solar and renewable R&D programs in FY 97 and larger unspecified cuts in the outyears. [Although not considered energy R&D, the budget resolution would also cut Energy Information Administration programs, which are crucial to predict and understand the behavior of energy markets, by 42% from the FY 96 level.]

Now that the Nation's attention is once again focused on the vulnerability of America's energy supplies, it is ironic that the resolution eliminates those very programs that offer some potential for avoiding or ameliorating future situations like this year's sudden and sharp increases in oil and gasoline prices. These programs help Americans develop new energy resources, use energy in increasingly efficient ways, and otherwise keep our cost of using energy as low as possible. Beyond these energy security and economic benefits, these programs provide environmental benefits by reducing our use of energy resources and by developing economically attractive and cleaner ways to produce and use existing and new energy resources.

Environmental Protection Agency

The guidance provided in this Budget Resolution and its accompanying report paint a clear picture of Republican hostility towards environmental protection issues and the illogical basis for some key Republican policy positions. The budget resolution assumes that elimination of funds for EPA's science programs will result in greater availability and use of sound science by the Agency in its attempts to protect public health and the environment. Appendix 2 of the Budget Committee report makes clear the Republican position that all regulations are simply a drain on the budget and on our economy. Clearly, this is no endorsement for the utilization of agency regulatory authority to achieve environmental protection goals.

In theory, one logical alternative might be the use of non-regulatory initiatives, in cooperation with business, to achieve public health and environmental goals. However, here too the Budget Resolution concludes that such programs are unacceptable. Three of EPA's Office of Research and Development non-regulatory programs -- the Environmental Technologies Initiative, climate change research, and indoor air research -- are singled out for elimination.

Environmental technologies create jobs, generate trade surpluses, and result in economic activities with fewer negative effects on the environment. These are the things that Republicans have asserted can be achieved without regulation. Apparently they also think this can be achieved without funding or participation by the agencies charged with protecting the environment.

The evidence that our climate may be impacted by human activities has been increasing, not decreasing, over time. Rather than approach this situation from an informed position, the Republicans choose to ignore the problem by shutting down the flow of information. History has taught us that ignorance does not come cheap. The small amount of money saved by eliminating global climate change research will not balance the budget and puts us at risk of huge expenditures in the future.

The cancellation of indoor air research at EPA is justified by assuming that this is a responsibility of OSHA. There are two major flaws in this assumption. First, this assumes that there are no health problems associated with air quality in residences. This is not supported by the facts. Second, barely 30 pages later in the report the Budget Committee calls for the termination of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, OSHA's research arm.

Drastic cuts in environmental research funding and termination of voluntary, non-regulatory initiatives done in cooperation with industry are unlikely to achieve a cleaner environment and adequate human health protection at lower cost. Although the Majority's rhetoric declares solid support for environmental protection, the policies and funding priorities contained in this resolution make it clear they are unwilling to back up their rhetoric with real resources.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Although the proposed reductions in FY 97 are largely absorbed by an elimination of Congressionally earmarked programs and the Administration's own plans to phase out the NOAA fleet and corps, reductions in later years can only be accommodated by a substantial cutback in NOAA's core missions relating to weather services, environmental and resource management, and research and development. The Budget Resolution would cut over $2.7 billion, or 20%, from NOAA's core mission over the six year period. Under these circumstances, NOAA would need to:

• delay the ongoing installation of new technologies and field restructuring to support Weather Service Modernization;
• cut in half future weather satellite coverage, resulting in a blackout should a working satellite fail;
• withdraw from its participation in supporting DOD in critical meteorological services, including the converged polar meteorological satellite program, and in providing nautical charts and data for safe naval operations;
• scale back fisheries management nationwide, leading to increased overfishing and allocation conflicts;
• scale back coastal programs that protect productive and diverse habitats for fish and wildlife, promote cleaner coastal waters for recreation and seafood production, and foster healthy coastal ecosystems;
• eliminate nautical charting activities and navigational services that provide for safe and efficient seagoing commerce;
• reduce research activities relating to improving operations for predicting severe weather, including hurricanes and tornadoes; and
• reduce research activities relating to atmospheric and oceanic monitoring that supports long-term climate forecasts.

These proposed reductions and the resulting impacts on NOAA's programs will sacrifice American lives, property and the national security by crippling weather service modernization and operations, preventing the recovery of fisheries and protected species, severely curtailing vital research, and jeopardizing safe and efficient seagoing commerce.

Department of Commerce Technology Programs

This resolution again calls for the cancellation of the technology partnership programs within the Department of Commerce. The elimination of the Advanced Technology Program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships program, and the National Information Infrastructure Grant Program would result in a cut of $330 million in R&D from the FY 96 level and $526 million from the FY 97 request level.

Elimination of the Advanced Technology Program would result in the cancellation of new program competitions expected to yield over 100 new awards. To date, ATP has yielded over $1 billion in private sector matching funds. In addition, the Government would be forced to renege on outyear commitments to over 500 innovative companies. ATP is a rigorously competitive, cost-shared program that fosters technology development, promotes industrial alliances, and creates jobs.

Elimination of the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships program would force the closure of 75 MEP centers across the country that provide valuable technical assistance to our Nation's 381,000 smaller manufacturers. Surveys of client data from MEP indicate an 8:1 return on the Federal investment.

Elimination of National Information Infrastructure Grants would result in no funding for roughly 165 projects designed to ensure access to advanced innovative telecommunications and information applications across the country.

Conclusions

This Budget Resolution has been characterized as a more moderate budget plan, one that avoids the extremism that was so apparent a year ago. Yet the reality is that this budget resolution is every bit as extreme -- the claims of moderation have been greatly exaggerated.

This Budget Resolution continues a disturbing pattern of sacrificing long-term investments in research and development for short-term political gains associated with a major tax cut and other misguided public policies. Over the past year, Republican and Democratic views towards the value of Federal expenditures on research and development and their role in overall economic policy have come sharply into focus. As a part of their balanced budget plan, Democrats have maintained R&D as a critical investment and stimulus to economic productivity.

Last year, the Budget Resolution contained a proposed reduction of over 33% in civilian R&D over the seven year period of the budget resolution. Rigid ideological guidelines concerning the Federal role in funding basic research vs. applied research were imbedded in the budget resolution and were represented as binding on Authorization and Appropriations committees.

To fill in the void left by the proposed Federal disinvestment in R&D, some have publicly fantasized about the willingness of the private sector to take over a greater role in funding responsibility. The reality is that the programs which this Budget Resolution seeks to eliminate are not the product-oriented, short-term investments that have characterized industrial R&D.

This year's budget resolution also eliminates two major cabinet level functions that have been critical to our economy over the past decade. The Departments of Energy and Commerce have been instrumental in bridging the gap between policy and research in order to focus on high priority national goals. Energy security, technology development, and building a sustainable future are challenges that will dominate the global balance of power over the next several decades. Success in meeting these challenges is a necessary precondition for creating good, high-paying jobs for working Americans. Without a Federal focus on these issues, we will fail to keep pace.

In summary, H. Con. Res. 178 will undermine economic growth, job creation, education, protection of the environment and the basic underpinnings of our national R&D infrastructure. Certainly scientists and engineers at universities, national labs, and Federal agencies will be victimized by this budget. But, more importantly, every American will pay the price for this retreat from our national commitment to science and technology. The true victims of this budget resolution are future generations of Americans who count on the investments we make today in the ideas, the products, the processes to build the world of tomorrow. This budget resolution breaks faith with the future.