Summary: President Clinton's investment strategy recognizes that U.S. economic growth and prosperity depend on technology and has proposed expansion of critical Federal R&D programs that facilitate industry's ability to compete in the global marketplace. Federal R&D has supplemented private investment in areas where returns are too distant or uncertain for private firms to bear. The President's strategy incorporates a balanced mix of basic research, applied research, and technology development (many of which are cooperative projects with industry). These three activities are interdependent and must all be pursued in simultaneously. By contrast, the Republican Congress is undermining this interdependence by significantly reducing these critical investments. The Republican Congress is targeting technology partnerships -- the very programs with the primary mission of working with industry to promote economic growth and U.S. competitiveness.
An agency-by-agency comparison of the President's budget and the expected Republican Congressional action is provided below. Note that the long-term outlook section under Republican action is estimated based on proposed authorization bills, budget resolutions, and appropriations action to date. All FY 1995 funding levels are net of rescissions.
|PRESIDENT'S 10-YEAR BUDGET||CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
|U.S. Department of Commerce||
FY 1996: The President's budget requests $1.0 B for the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (up 34% from $765 M in FY
Included inthis request is $492 M for the Advanced Technology Program
(ATP) (up 44% from FY1995). ATP provides an effective mechanism for
augmenting U.S. technological
strength through highly-leveraged, competitive, industry-led R&D. Also
included in the request for NIST is $147 M for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP) Program (up 60% from FY 1995) -- a nationwide, locally
network of manufacturing outreach centers to help smaller manufacturers adopt
modern manufacturing technologies. The President also requests $100 M
from FY 1995) to facilitate develop of a National Information
Long-Term Outlook: The President proposes $1.1 B for NIST by FY 2005, including a total of $743 M for the ATP and MEP. The President proposes $148 M for the NII grants program by 2005.
FY 1996: The House proposes $404 M for NIST and
proposed elimination of the ATP. The House has proposed dramatic
other Commerce civilian technology investments such as MEP funded at $81
M, down 14% from FY 1995 enacted and 45% from the request. Also cut is
the NII grants program which the House funds at $40 M, down 13% from FY
1995 enacted and 60% from the request.
Long-Term Outlook: The Congress proposes to eliminate ATP, MEP, and the NII grants program. Such reductions could threaten the United States' standing with respect to technology advancements, innovation, and economic competitiveness.
|U.S. Department of Energy||
FY 1996: The President proposes $100 M science
facilities utilization initiative to ensure more research time for scientists
working on the Nation's "cutting edge" research facilities. The
President proposes growth of +$179 M for DOE's conservation R&D and
renewable energy programs above the $795 M 1995 base. The growth is
targeted at the Climate Change Action Plan and Partnership for a New
of Vehicles . The President proposes growth of +$87 M above the $140 M 1995
base for PNGV to develop a prototype automobile, in partnership with
that is safer, less polluting, and with three times the current fuel
Long-Term Outlook: The President proposes continued funding of $100 M annually for the Science Facilities Initiative. Long-term funding proposals for the remainder of DOE's R&D investment areas has not yet been determined.
FY 1996: The House provides full funding for the Science
Facilities Utilizationinitiative and the Linear Accelerator
"B-Factory." Funding for Solarand Renewable Energy Programs is
reduced 37% below the President's request and 31% below the FY 1995
enacted level, hindering several initiatives in alternative energy and
the environment, including the Climate Change Action
Plan, which is cut by 53% below the President's request and 13% from FY 1995
enacted. The House has also made severe cuts in Cooperative R&D
cutting Defense Technology Transfer, and eliminating funding for non-defense
Technology Transfer. Funding for PNGV is reduced by 41% below the
request and 13% below FY 1995 enacted.
Long-Term Outlook: The Congress' proposal would force many of DOE's valuable facilities to close their doors. Congress proposes to cut DOE's conservation R&D and renewable energy programs by -$425 M (House) and -$100 M (Senate). The proposed reductions to DOE that would reduce the support to PNGV by roughly 50%.
|National Institutes of Health||
FY 1996: The President proposes to fund NIH
at $11.8 B, a $536 M increase over the FY 1995 level.
Long Term Outlook: The President proposes to increase funding for NIH by nearly $2 B between FY 1996 - 2002
FY 1996: The House mark would provide
$11,939 M for NIH, an increase of $687 M or 6% over the FY 1995 level and
increase over the FY 1996 President's budget.
Long Term Outlook: The Congressional Budget Resolution includes manor cuts to NIH.
|U.S. Department of Transportation||
FY 1996: The President proposes $1.1 B
for transportation research and technology, or 18% above the $943 M FY 1995
level. Included in this request is $356 M for the Intelligent Transportation
System (ITS), or 46% above FY 1995. A key ITS program -- the trailblazer
initiative -- would demonstrate both the core metropolitan mobility ITS
infrastructure, and the core commercial vehicle infrastructure at three
Also included in the request for DOT is $268 M for the FAA (4% above FY
Key aviation R&D projects are targeted at enhancing safety and
our Nation's air traffic control system.
Long-Term Outlook: The President proposes growth of +171 M above the $943 M 1995 level for R&D and technology. Key programs are targeted at increasing efficiency of the transportation system and will mark the infrastructure of the 21st century.
FY 1996: The House cuts the Intelligent Transportation System
(ITS) by 48% or $171 M. The House cuts FAA research, engineering and
development by $125 M or 47% below the President's request which would
termination of aviation safety projects. The Committee proposes
totaling $54 M from programs concerning high speed rail technology,
Coast Guard, and national highway traffic safety.
Long-Term Outlook: Congress, particularly for the FAA and the FHWA, would curtail efforts to increase safety and efficiency of our Nation's transportation system.
|U.S. Department of Agriculture||
FY 1996: The President's Budget proposed
$1.97 B to support USDA's science and economics agencies, a 2% reduction from
the FY 1995 level. The Budget proposes to retarget Federal funding away from
earmarked special projects to competitively awarded projects. Increases were
proposed for additional research on integrated pest management, on ways to
reduce the risk from foodborne illnesses, and for assistance to the
historically-black land-grant universities. In addition, the Budget
necessary scientific support the Forest Service needs to continue to
ecosystem management into its operations.
Long Term Outlook: The President's budget proposes gradual reductions for these programs to provide a total savings of $1.7 B over 10 years. These savings will be realized by eliminating projects addressing only local needs and by streamlining agency operations.
FY 1996: The House Committees' marks for
agricultural research, education and economics and forestry research
B, a reduction of $162 M (or 8%) from FY 1995 enacted and a reduction of
(or 6%) from the President's FY 1996 request. The National Research
competitive grants program was funded at $99 M, a $4 M reduction from FY 1995
and a $31 M, or 24%, reduction from the FY 1996 request. The House committee
mark does not include the requested increases for food safety research.
Long Term Outlook: The House proposed to cut the agricultural research and economics agencies by $1.3 B over five years. The House would also eliminate the Forest Service's ecosystem management research and cut forest resources and management research by 50%. The Senate proposed to cut the agricultural research and economics agencies by 10 % and save $1.2B over 7 years. The Senate would eliminate forest research not directly associated with the management of national forests.
|National Aeronautics and Space Administration||
FY 1996:The President's
budget proposed $14.3 B for NASA, a roughly 2% reduction from the FY 1995
This budget supports a broad range of Administration investment areas,
including Space Station, aeronautics research, Mission to Planet Earth, and
other technology programs. The budget proposed a major reinvention to
space program that carries out its R&D mission faster, better, and
This would be done by cutting in management and infrastructure inefficiencies
and duplication, not important programs to the nation. By FY 2000, this
amount to a funding level roughly 6% below the FY 1995 level .
Long-Term Outlook:The NASA reinvention will continue with the FY 2005 being roughly 8% below the FY 1995 level. The Administration investment areas would be protected and all other science programs would receive between half and full inflationary growth.
FY 1996: The House mark for NASA is $13.7 B, a $589
M or 4% cut below the President's plan. It is $793 M or 6% below the 1995
enacted level. The House cut NASA's Mission to Planet Earth's Earth
System by $338 M, a 25% reduction to this program. This will have a
impact on NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland and impact over 1,000
jobs. The House also significantly cuts NASA's contribution to several
Administration technology initiatives, including High Performance
Communications (50% cut), Clean Car (100% cut), and research improvements
traffic control (100% cut).
Long-Term Outlook: The Resolution conference had little detail and was done by Function. Thus, it makes it difficult to be very detailed about agency-specific actions. Function 250 (science, space, and technology) which includes NSF, NASA (except aeronautics which is in Function 400), and DOE's basic research. For the period 1996-2000, the Conference was roughly $4 B below the President's revised budget for Function 250. The Conference states that basic research is a priority in their budget. It appears that the significant House cuts have been partially restored with the Conference adding about $2 B above the 1996-2000 House level. The Conferees focused on NASA and NSF as candidates for this restored funding. It appears that DOE's general science programs may have not been augmented above the House level. There was no mention about NASA aeronautics in the Conference Function 400 section. For these reasons, the Conference may be of limited use to gauge the long-term intent of the Republicans.
|U.S. Department of Defense||
FY 1996:The President proposes $500 M for the
Technology Reinvestment Partnership (TRP) program. TRP invests in
with industry to accelerate the development of technologies or processes that
benefit national security, but that involve civilian technology or producers
(i.e., dual use).
Long Term Outlook: The President proposes $400 million annually for TRP.
1996: The House zeroes out both TRP ($-500 M) and SEMATECH funding
(-$90 M). The Senate reduces TRP to $238 million -- sufficient funding
for close out costs only .
Long Term Outlook: TRP is zeroed out in the 1996 House authorization bill. The Senate is silent.
|Environmental Protection Agency||
FY 1996:The President proposes $120M in
contract funding for he Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI)--above and
beyond amounts already dedicated to EPA's ongoing technology-related research
activities. ETI is a Federal-private partnership to promote research,
development and use of innovative, cost-effective environmental
prevent, control, and clean up pollution.
Long Term Outlook: The President proposes to maintain this level of commitment to ETI while balancing the budget over a 10-year period.
The House completely eliminated funding of ETI. In addition, the House
to cut EPA's overall funding by about 1/3 from the FY 1995 enacted level,
including large, unallocated cuts to salaries and administrative
These cuts will significantly affect EPA's research effort.
Long Term Outlook: The House proposes elimination of the ETI after FY 1995.
|National Science Foundation||
FY 1996:The President's budget proposed $3.4 B
for NSF, a roughly 4% increase from the FY 1995 level. This budget
broad range of Administration investment research and education areas.
2000 overall funding would be roughly 4% increase over the FY 1995 level,
although the research and education activities would increase about 9%.
to modernize academic research building modernization was sharply reduced
decision to fund researchers, not buildings).
Long Term Outlook: The NSF FY 2005 overall funding level will be roughly 5% above the FY 1995 level, with research and education about an 11% increase.
FY 1996: The House proposes to cut NSF's research account by $200 M
and to give
NSF's Director the discretion to allocate the reduction.
Long Term Outlook: See NASA section.
|U.S. Department of Interior||
Science programs in DOI the President
requested $893 M or about the same level as FY 1995 This includes funding for
the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Biological Service, and the U.S. Bureau
of Mines. These agencies conduct valuable basic science research in support of
natural resource management agencies at the national and state level.
Long-Term Outlook: The President proposes maintaining support for basic science research needed to keep Federal lands healthy and productive, and to avoid the unnecessary costs of litigation over threatened and endangered species about which there is insufficient scientific data, and to better understand and manage geologic and mineral resources. This will be accomplished by phasing down lower priority research projects and taking advantage of appropriate efficiencies between the science bureaus.
The House reduced funding
for DOI science agencies by a total of $119 M, 13% from the President's request.
This includes terminating the Bureau of Mines, and reducing biological
research by $33 M from the FY 1995 level. The reduction to NBS funding will
require closing five major research centers (WI, WA, CO, MI, and WV) and
severely reducing research in support of land management agencies. The House
also merged NBS into USGS. The Senate restored NBS to its FY 1995 level, $27 M
below the President's request.
Long-Term Outlook: Congress is proposing to underfund basic science in support of natural resources management will lead to less informed decision-making on Federally owned lands, greater economic costs from damage caused by exotic species such as zebra mussels, and less scientific support of endangered species decisions and issues.
|U.S. Department of Education||
The President requested $122 M for
education technology programs. The Administration-initiated technology
challenge program creates technology-rich learning environments through
partnerships between schools and the private sector. The Star schools and other
programs expand opportunities for many pre-school and k-12 students. The
President also requested $97 M for various learning productivity R&D
programs that would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of learning and
Long Term Outlook: Specific outyear policies for educational technology and learning productivity R&D are not available at this time.
House Committee mark provides $25 M for the K-12 Technology Learning Challenge
program and zero funding for three other educational technology programs. The
Committee mark is a reduction of $97 M from the President's request and $31 M
from the FY 1995 enacted level. The drastic cut in the Technology Learning
Challenge program would significantly limit efforts to create new private-public
partnerships that would develop the widespread the use of advanced technology to
raise student achievement. The House provides a total of $83 M for various
learning productivity R&D programs, down $14 M from the request.
Long Term Outlook: Congress proposes reducing significantly or eliminating funding for educational technology and learning productivity R&D activities.