IP: DOE, NASA, NSF $ Outlook

[Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 96 11:53:17 EDT
From: fyi () aip org (AIP listserver)


FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 134: September 13, 1996


The Budget Blues--Outlook on DOE, NASA and NSF R&D Funding (II)   


How should the federal government's research agencies respond to
projected significant reductions in nondefense R&D spending through
FY 2002?  This was the major question asked of NSF Director Neal
Lane, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin, and DOE Office of Energy
Research Director Martha Krebs at a House Science Committee hearing
in late July.  The day before, the committee received testimony
from Al Teich of AAAS and Congressional Budget Office Deputy
Director James Blum (see FYI #130.)


Several important notes: all figures cited below are
inflation-adjusted projections calculated by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science.  Many assumptions were
necessarily made in determining these projections, which are
outlined in Teich's testimony at the following AAAS web site:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/cstc/hsc-tstm.htm                  


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY:


Krebs testified that: "The outyear funding levels projected for the
programs I am responsible for in the President's budget plan beyond
FY 1997 will be a challenge for us to meet.  However, in both the
congressional and executive branch budget processes, appropriation
decisions for individual programs are made on an annual basis. 
During each year's process, there will be opportunities to tie
funding proposals to specific policies, priorities and goals." 


In response to a question, Krebs said it would be "very difficult"
to choose among various physics programs in determining future
funding priorities.  She spoke of DOE's efforts to sustain U.S.
funding for the Large Hadron Collider, and refocusing fusion from
an energy to a science program.   Krebs later added that she is
telling physicists "saving physics by itself" will not make for a
strong R&D enterprise.


AAAS calculated that under the administration's budget plan, "Total
DOE nondefense R&D" spending could decline 24.9% between FY 1995
and FY 2002.  "General Science (Physics)" funding could decline
20.7%, and "Energy Supply R&D" could drop by 27.8%.  Under the
Congressional Budget Resolution, AAAS projected, DOE nondefense R&D
spending could decline 44.0%; General Science (Physics) funding
could decline 12.6%, and Energy Supply R&D could decline 38.0%


NASA: 


Goldin testified that: "Instead of viewing the outyear budget
projections as hard and fast policy guidance, and worrying about
their consequences, I recommend we focus our attention on the
strong statement made by the President in his request for NASA in
FY 1997."  "We have no illusions about the likelihood that NASA's
budget for FY 1998 will be higher than our FY 1997 request of $13.8
billion.... our internal planning assumes a steady decline in our
future budgets as we approach the end of the decade."  "I see no
reason to sound the alarm now about future budget prospects for
NASA.  The past four years have taught me that the amounts actually
appropriated by the Congress will be based on NASA's ability to
make a case that our programs merit funding."


Later in the hearing, Goldin said that he would not cancel programs
prematurely because of possible funding cuts.  He also said that
the budget situation has served as a "wake-up call" that has been
"very helpful for the R&D community."


AAAS projected that "Total NASA R&D" spending could be 23.7% less
in FY 2002 as compared to FY 1995 under the administration's budget
plan.  The "SAT [Science, Aeronautics, and Technology] Space R&D"
budget could be 19.6% less.  The comparable declines under the
Congressional Budget Resolution, AAAS found, could be 22.5% and
18.9%.
 
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION:  


"Both the President's proposals and the Congressional Budget
Resolution have protected NSF's total budget and left us with a
relatively healthy bottom line," testified Neal Lane. "These
figures are real, but they are not set in stone," he added.  


AAAS calculated that "Total NSF R&D" spending could be 18.1% less
and "Research and Related Activities" spending could be 6.5% less
in FY 2002 as compared to FY 1995 under the administration's budget
plan.  Under the Congressional Budget Resolution, total NSF R&D
could decline 6.8%, while Research and Related Activities spending
could increase 4.6%.


Lane cautioned the Science Committee that "...before we devote too
much time to analyzing the precise details of decisions that lie
years away, I would remind the committee of an insightful phrase
often attributed to the great physicist, Niels Bohr: `prediction is
very difficult, especially about the future.'"


###############
Richard M. Jones
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
fyi () aip org
(301) 209-3095
##END##########