AIP FYI #34: Congressional Response to FY09 S&T Request

The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News

Number 34: March 5, 2008

House Science Committee Responds to Administration’s FY 2009 S&T
Request

One of the first steps in the annual budget cycle is the preparation
of formal letters or reports from authorizing committees to the
Budget Committees of the House and Senate. These documents, known
as the “Views and Estimates,” are among the first formal documents
responding to an Administration’s budget request. The Budget
Committees use these documents to prepare an overall spending plan.

The House Science and Technology Committee’s 2009 “Views and
Estimates,” including additional Members’ statements, is 52-pages
long, and can be viewed at
http://science.house.gov/docs/views_estimates_2009.pdf The
Committee’s “Views and Estimates” were only signed by the Majority
Members (Democrats) of the committee; the Minority (Republicans)
filed their own version. Categorized selections from each follow,
with the views of Democratic Members followed by those of Republican
Members to allow a direct comparison of the respective language.

Unavoidably, this FYI is quite lengthy. Readers are urged to search
by the following headings: Overall, DOE Office of Science, DOE:
Nuclear Energy, DOE: ARPA-E, National Science Foundation, NASA and
National Institute of Standards and Technology.

OVERALL:

DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS:

“the Committee encourages the Budget Committee to use as guidelines
the funding levels included in two major authorizing bills signed
into law last year — the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) and the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140).”

“The FY2009 budget request proposes funding increases for physical
sciences research programs as part of the American Competitiveness
Initiative (ACI), many of which are consistent with increases
authorized in COMPETES. However, the Administration’s budget ignores
or neglects several core areas of COMPETES, including math and
science education activities at NSF, manufacturing and technology
stimulus programs at NIST, and important energy programs including
ARPA-E. The Committee asks the Budget Committee to reject these cuts
proposed by the Administration and include funding for these
important COMPETES programs.”

REPUBLICAN MEMBERS:

“We applaud the President for putting forward a budget that reduces
the deficit and keeps America on track to double the funding for
physical sciences and engineering at the National Science Foundation
(NSF), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
and the Office of Science at the Department of Energy (DOE).
Building on the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative
(ACI) and Republican-led efforts in the last Congress, this
Committee stepped up to the plate and enacted the America COMPETES
Act (COMPETES) (P.L. 110-69) last year, authorizing increased levels
of funding for these agencies. We were disappointed to see that the
Appropriators did not adequately fund these agencies in the FY08
Omnibus (P.L. 110-161). The funding they provided was not only 12
percent below the level that we authorized in COMPETES, it was 6
percent below the President’s FY08 budget request levels. This is
simply unacceptable, and a situation we do not want to see again.”

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF SCIENCE:

DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS:

“Basic research plays a critical role in enhancing our nation’s
competitiveness, and the Committee believes the FY2009 budget for
the DOE Office of Science of $4.7 billion is a step forward in
addressing our near- and long-term needs. The request represents an
increase of approximately $700 million or 18 percent over the
appropriated FY2008 level.”

“The Committee fully supports a restoration of funding for the U.S.
contribution to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
(ITER) fusion project and research towards a proposed International
Linear Collider (ILC). The Committee recognizes that the
international agreement approved by Congress for ITER went into
force in October 2007, and withdrawal of the U.S. from ITER in
violation of this agreement would result in a penalty of _500
million (approximately $750 million). In addition, the credibility
of the United States as a reliable partner in large international
research projects will be significantly undermined if corrective
actions are not taken.

“The Committee recognizes that while no formal international
agreement currently exists for the ILC, research towards this
project is closely coordinated among the U.S., Europe, and Asia. The
Committee also supports the High Energy Physics program moving
forward with the planned neutrino experiment at Fermilab and the
University of Minnesota until a final decision on the level of U.S.
participation in the ILC is made.

“The Committee supports the FY2009 request for the Basic Energy
Sciences program of $298 million above the FY2008 enacted level. The
Committee is pleased that the Basic Energy Sciences program is
following up on its recent applications-driven workshops with
specific research programs acting on their consolidated
recommendations, including programs in electrical energy storage,
carbon sequestration, and solar energy.

“In addition, the Committee supports the Administration’s request
for increases in the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR)
and the Biological and Environmental Research (BER) programs. The
proposed increase for the ASCR program increase is five percent over
the FY2008 enacted levels. This program supports a wide variety of
research activities throughout the Department as well as research
activities of other Federal agencies, in the extramural research
community, and in the private sector. The requested increase of 4
percent over FY2008 enacted levels for BER will enable the
Department to further fund the three Bioenergy Research Centers
designated in 2007, and in particular, to accelerate research on
cellulosic biomass energy conversion and other improvements in
bioenergy production. The Committee supports this increase.”

REPUBLICAN MEMBERS:

“We are pleased to see the Office of Science’s budget request at an
increase of $700 million over the appropriated FY08 level. We were
very disappointed that the Appropriators cut funding to many
important programs at the Office of Science in the FY08 Omnibus and
hope that the Budget Committee will set full funding levels for
these programs in FY09. Programs such as High Energy Physics and
projects such as the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor (ITER) cannot withstand another round of cut or zeroed out
budgets, respectively, without having a detrimental effect on high
energy physics and fusion research in the United States and on the
reputation of our country as a reliable international partner in
scientific research.”

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: NUCLEAR ENERGY:

DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS (only):

“The Administration request for Nuclear Energy (NE) is $629.7 for
research and development with nearly half of that request dedicated
to the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative which is focused on
implementing the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). For NE’s
Research and Development programs, this represents approximately
$191.7 million above the FY2008 enacted funding level ($438
million).

“The United States has been conducting research on the reprocessing
of spent nuclear fuel since 2002 under the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative (AFCI). In 2006, the Administration announced a change in
this program when it unveiled GNEP as its plan forward to develop
advanced, proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel cycle technologies
that would maximize the energy extracted from nuclear fuels and
minimize nuclear waste. The Committee notes that GNEP has drawn
criticism based on the substantial costs estimated for implementing
the program and the technical challenges associated with developing,
demonstrating and deploying advanced technologies for recycling
spent nuclear fuel that do not separate plutonium. Last fall, the
National Academies issued a report expressing similar concerns. The
FY2009 request is $301.5 million, substantially higher than the
FY2008 enacted funding for GNEP of $181 million. The Committee
remains concerned about financial and technical difficulties with
implementing GNEP as currently proposed by the Administration, but
finds general research activities on a closed nuclear fuel cycle to
be worthwhile.

“Although the FY2009 budget request eliminates funding for the
University Reactor Infrastructure and Education Assistance program,
it does include directions to Nuclear Energy, through its Energy
Research Initiative process, to designate at least 20 percent of the
R&D appropriated funds for purposes of supporting R&D activities at
university research institutions through competitive awards focused
on advancing nuclear energy technology. While the Committee is
supportive of this effort to help universities expand their R&D
capabilities and strengthen the nuclear science programs at
institutions of higher education, the Administration’s proposal is
not an adequate replacement for the University Reactor
Infrastructure and Education Assistance program.”

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: ARPA-E:

DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS:

“On August 9, 2007 the President signed into law the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) which authorized the establishment of an
Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E. Like other
provisions in the COMPETES Act, this followed on the direct
recommendation of the National Academies’ report Rising Above the
Gathering Storm which called for an ARPA-E to fill the gap in the
existing energy programs by performing high-risk, high-reward R&D in
collaboration with the university and private sector. ARPA-E is
intended to be unique not only in the type of research it conducts,
but also in how it conducts that research.

“The COMPETES Act calls for initial year funding of $300 million,
with such sums thereafter. The Gathering Storm report and other
legislative proposals in Congress called for subsequent years to be
funded at levels exceeding $1 billion. However, the Administration
has failed to request funding for this critical program. The
establishment of ARPA-E is a priority for the Committee, and we
strongly encourage funding for the initial year of this program at
$300 million, with expectations that full operations will eventually
exceed $1 billion.”

REPUBLICAN MEMBERS:

“A majority of us are in disagreement with the majority views on the
establishment of an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy
(ARPA-E). We do not feel that creating a new agency to do work that
is currently being done at the Department of Energy is a justified
use of the limited funds available to the department and we support
the department’s decision to not establish ARPA- E, but to engage in
ARPA -E-type projects within the current DOE structure.”

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION:

DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS:

“The President’s FY2009 budget request would provide $6.854 billion
for NSF, which is $822 million, or 13.6 percent above the FY2008
appropriations level and $472 million, or 6.4 percent below the
FY2009 authorization level. While providing robust growth for the
NSF research accounts, the President’s budget proposal provides only
a 4.6 percent increase for NSF’s K-12 STEM education programs, which
falls far short of providing the funding called for in COMPETES. In
particular, the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program would
receive $103 million less than the authorized amount and the Math
and Science Partnerships, which is the principal program for teacher
professional development of current STEM teachers, would receive $60
million less than authorized.

“The Committee recommends that the NSF Education and Human Resources
Directorate receive $995 million for FY2009, which is the authorized
level and is $205 million above the request. The additional funding
would be used to fully fund the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship
program, which will provide scholarships for STEM majors who take
tailored courses needed to become certified as teachers and agree to
teach for two years for each year of scholarship support, and to
fully fund the Math and Science Partnerships. In addition, the
increase will support COMPETES initiatives to increase the number of
undergraduate degrees in STEM fields and the number of graduate STEM
degrees in emerging, interdisciplinary fields that are important for
innovation and economic development. The Committee recommends that
this $205 million be added to the President’s request for NSF,
thereby providing NSF with total funding of $7.059 billion for
FY2009.”

REPUBLICAN MEMBERS:

“In keeping with the plan outlined in the ACI to double funding for
research at NSF over the next 10 years, the FY09 budget request for
NSF is $6.9 billion, an increase of 13.6 percent, or $822 million
over the FY08 Omnibus. We are pleased to see the increases spread
across all of the research fields NSF supports.

“Within the Education and Human Resources account, we agree with the
majority that the Robert Noyce Scholarship program, which we
expanded in COMPETES, and the Math and Science Partnership program
are not adequately funded in the FY09 request. However, we maintain
that many of the FY09 authorized amounts remain too high and
encourage the Budget Committee to consider setting increased funding
levels for these programs to meet the goals in COMPETES, but in a
fiscally responsible manner.

“While COMPETES accelerates the path of doubling funding for NSF
over a 7-year period, most of our Members remain committed to the
10-year doubling path established in the House-passed version of
COMPETES and supported by the President.”

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION:

DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS:

“NASA’s FY2009 budget request is $17.6 billion, approximately $400
million less than the amount stipulated for FY2009 in the FY2005
five-year budget plan that accompanied the President’s Vision for
Space Exploration (VSE). That shortfall replicates the practice in
each of the previous two years — in FY2007 the Administration’s
request was $1.02 billion less than pledged in the President’s VSE
five year budget plan; in FY2008, the request was $690 million less.
The Committee is very concerned about the cumulative effects of
these budgetary shortfalls, which, coupled with the Office of
Management and Budget’s under-budgeting for the costs of Space
Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS) in that same
five-year budget plan, have created strains and stresses that are
visible in all of the agency’s programs.

“The Committee notes with concern that in spite of the fact that the
NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155) directs NASA to launch
the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) ‘as close to 2010 as possible’,
the FY2009 budget request not only doesn’t provide any additional
funding to move the CEV operational date closer to 2010, it only
provides funding sufficient to deliver the CEV in 2015 – a year
later than the date directed by the President in his 2004 Vision for
Space Exploration. In addition, the FY2009 budget request would do
nothing to reverse cuts to much of the rest of the Exploration
Initiative, including cuts to exploration-related technology R&D and
ISS research funding. Moreover, all of NASA’s human space flight
programs face funding challenges in the out-years of the budget
request, including that no funding has been identified for post-2010
Shuttle transition and retirement costs; reserves in the ISS and
Constellation programs remain extremely low or negative; and funding
proposed for post-Shuttle ISS crew and cargo support is so reduced
that even NASA itself thinks it is likely to prove inadequate.”

“The Committee also is aware that NASA’s science programs are facing
significant stresses. Roughly $4 billion was removed from the
five-year budget plan for NASA’s science programs over the last
three years, resulting in significant disruptions. The FY2009 budget
request and its five-year run-out requests funds for a number of new
space and Earth science initiatives, the majority of which will cost
over $500 million, and several of which will have costs that exceed
several billion dollars. While the Committee is pleased that the
FY2009 budget request will initiate two of the missions recommended
in the National Academy of Sciences decadal strategy for Earth
science research and applications, and includes several new research
projects within the science account, the Committee is very concerned
that no new funding was included in NASA’s science account to pay
for these additional programs. Instead, funds are simply shifted
among the various parts of the science account — an approach that
runs a high risk of proving unsustainable.

“The Committee believes that NASA’s space and aeronautics programs
represent some of the nation’s most challenging and exciting R&D
initiatives. As such, they can inspire our young people, advance our
understanding of the universe as well as of our home planet Earth,
and they can generate technological advances that will benefit both
our quality of life and our economic competitiveness. That will only
be possible with a balanced NASA program of science, aeronautics,
and human space flight and exploration. If NASA is to be successful
in carrying out the tasks it has been given by the White House and
Congress, it is going to need resources commensurate with those
tasks. Thus, the Committee believes that NASA should receive
additional funding in FY2009 above the level contained in the
President’s FY2009 budget request.”

REPUBLICAN MEMBERS:

“The Committee has sought to enable NASA to succeed as a
multi-mission agency in carrying out the goals expressed in the
President’s vision for space exploration and the NASA Authorization
Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155). The Committee has remained supportive in
the ensuing years, but has grown increasingly concerned as NASA’s
requests have repeatedly been below spending profiles originally
proposed when the vision was introduced. As a result, we share many
of the views expressed by the majority.

“We are concerned that the current FY09 budget request of $17.6
billion fails to even keep pace with inflation and further
jeopardizes NASA’s ability to successfully accomplish its portfolio
of missions. We are especially concerned about the threat this
request poses to manned spaceflight capabilities. From FY05 thru FY
10, NASA estimates that the agency will be forced to absorb $2.7
billion in costs for returning the Space Shuttle to flight following
the Columbia accident, and an additional $2.4 billion of previously
unanticipated costs to retire the Space Shuttle: This has
contributed to delays in the development of a Shuttle replacement as
well as cuts in important exploration-related research to offset
these costs.

“According to the FY09 budget request, March 2015 is the earliest
date NASA has committed for delivery of the Crew Exploration Vehicle
and its Ares 1 launcher. This date has slipped as a result of past
under-funding. We are very concerned that once the Shuttle is
retired in 2010, the United States will find itself entirely reliant
on other nations for as long as five years, to access our
multi-billion dollar Space Station. Furthermore, NASA is now faced
with the task of asking Congress for further exceptions from the
Iran, North Korea and Syria Non-Proliferation Act, so it can
continue to purchase Russian cargo and Soyuz flights at a cost of
nearly $2 billion for hardware and services. We would rather see
these funds used to purchase similar capabilities from American
aerospace companies. Failure to enact an exception to this Act will
leave the United States without any capability to utilize the Space
Station. Furthermore, this impending, and widening, gap in the
transition from the Shuttle to the Constellation poses a significant
threat to the highly skilled aerospace workforce similar in
magnitude to the loss that accompanied the transition from the
Apollo program to the Space Shuttle. This is an unfortunate
situation.

“We applaud recent efforts by NASA to initiate a new series of
science missions. It is imperative that the cadence of missions be
improved to keep the science community fully engaged and to sustain
the pipeline of future scientists and engineers. We are especially
pleased to note NASA’s budget proposes to initiate missions
recommended by the recently completed decadal survey on Earth
Science and applications.”

“We agree with the majority on the importance of NASA’s space and
aeronautics programs. We also recognize the importance of global
leadership in space and aeronautics if we are to maintain our
national security, expand our economy, and advance our technological
base. NASA has been asked to do too much with too little. The
Committee believes that NASA will be unable to carry out the goals
laid out in the President’s vision and by Congress without
additional funding in FY09.”

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY:

DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS:

“The America COMPETES Act provided the first comprehensive
authorization of NIST’s programs in 15 years, putting NIST on a
10-year path to doubling by authorizing balanced increases for both
the intramural research laboratories and the extramural industrial
technology programs. However, the Administration’s FY2009 budget
proposes only $638 million for NIST, 28 percent lower than the
amount authorized in COMPETES. The request includes increases for
the intramural programs while eliminating or severely reducing
funding for the extramural programs. The Committee believes this is
a mistake, as the industrial technology programs have strong track
records and serve a critical function in supporting U.S.
competitiveness.

“The Committee believes that the proposal to eliminate Federal
support for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is
particularly problematic. Since 2000, the nation has lost 3.4
million manufacturing jobs, 272,000 of which were in 2007 alone.
MEP is the only Federal program that specifically targets small- and
medium-sized manufacturers to help them modernize their operations,
improve their competitiveness, and reduce or reverse job losses.
According to a survey commissioned by NIST, small and medium-sized
manufacturers who used MEP services in FY2006 created or retained
52,000 jobs, increased or retained sales of $6.8 billion, leveraged
$1.7 billion in new private-sector investment, and generated cost
savings of $1.1 billion. The Committee strongly supports this
program, and does not agree with the Administration’s stated
position that MEP can operate without Federal funding.

“The Committee also is disappointed to see no funds requested for
the Technology Innovation Program (TIP). TIP was created in COMPETES
to provide cost-shared support for innovative technology development
by small- and medium-sized companies and joint ventures, updating
and building upon the proven success of the Advanced Technology
Program (ATP). The Committee has heard testimony that there is a
systematic lack of private venture capital for high-risk,
high-reward, seed-stage technology development, creating an urgent
need for programs such as TIP to fill this gap. A failure to fund
these programs risks sacrificing opportunities for U.S. technical
advancement and long-term economic growth. The Committee believes
that TIP plays an important role in supporting U.S. innovation, and
that reducing or eliminating funding for it would significantly
reduce U.S. economic competitiveness.

“The budget request includes funding to complete the construction of
high-performance laboratory space at the NIST campus in Boulder, CO.
The Committee continues to support this project and believes it will
significantly enhance NIST’s missions.”

REPUBLICAN MEMBERS:

“We strongly support the President’s request of $535, million for
NIST’s Scientific, Technical, and Research Services (STRS) account,
which is $94 million or 21 percent more than the FY08 enacted level
of $441 million. This increase reflects the priorities laid out in
the President’s ACI and overwhelmingly supported by both Chambers of
Congress in COMPETES. However, we object to the President’s FY09
request to discontinue the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)
and Technology Innovation Program (TIP). NIST’s laboratory and
extramural activities directly support our nation’s international
competitiveness and economic well-being and should be funded in
accordance with the levels agreed to in COMPETES.”

Richard M. Jones

Media and Government Relations Division

The American Institute of Physics

fyi@aip.org

http://www.aip.org/gov

(301) 209-3095