Budget Agreement Could Doom Proposed Boost in Research

NEWS ANALYSIS WASHINGTON—Budget analysts refer to it as Account 302b. But scientists may want to use more colorful names once they realize it will almost certainly block the sizable R&D increases being proposed for 1989 by President Reagan. The budget process works well when spending is rising gradually each year,” observed John Hoimfeld, a staff member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee who later this year will complete a multi-volume report on science policy for the committee. “But it breaks down when the budget must be flattened out or reduced.” Last year it fell on the national Science Foundation, which saw an expected 17 percent increase shrink to less than 6 percent after officials had fought for months to persuade House and Senate panels that the extra funds were vital. The factors that gutted their efforts last year promise to do similar damage to this year’s request. To understand U.S. science funding, there are several points to keep in mind. The first is simple: There is no federal science budget. The second is a little more complicated: Congress paints the budget in broad strokes and only later fills in the details. The third is perhaps the most important: Lobbying for increased spending is useless unless there is a politically acceptable way to generate the funds or a representative or senator is willing to sacrifice other programs for your cause. Each spring Congress passes a resolution that declares its intentions for the federal budget. That document divides government activities into functions; science programs, for example, are spread across several categories. But the resolution is not signed by the president, and is not even binding on Congress. The real action begins later in the summer, when the portion of the federal budget that must be appropriated annually (about 60 percent of the $1 trillion budget Reagan submitted last week) is divded up among 13 subcommittees in each house. Those panels are supposed to report their bills to the floor of each house, and any differences are supposed to be resolved in a conference committee. But individual appropriations bills are becoming increasingly rare, and for the past two years Congress has lumped together all 13 spending bills. Many science organizations lobby for the highest possible figure in the budget resolution. In fact, a new coalition has been formed to push for higher levels for Function 250, a category that encompasses NSF, NASA and the Department of Energy’s non-military research programs. (NIH is part of Function 550, by contrast, and military R&D is embedded within Function 50.) But success at this level is not enough. “The budget resolution makes assumptions and the appropriations subcommittees make decisions,” remarked Tom van der Voort, a veteran staff member on the Senate subcommittee that handles the NSF and NASA budgets. Each subcommittee is told now much is available for all of its programs. The Function 250 number (about $11 billion last year) is carved up among the various panels that have jurisdiction over its activities—the subcommittee that controls NSF and NASA budgets gets one slice, for example, and the panel overseeing energy and water projects gets another. Because more for science means less for another sector, subcommittee members must defend science funding against other powerful constituencies. “It’s not enough to be popular,” said Michael Telson, an analyst on the House Budget Committee. “You have to be so popular that one or more members are willing to stand up and claim your program as their top priority.” There are other problems as well. A subcommittee chairman is told how much money his committee can obligate for the coming fiscal year, a number known as budget authority. But, how fast (a criterion known as outlay rates) is as important to him as how much. Some programs, such as construction projects and home mortgages, have very low outlay rates because the money is spent over many years. Research grants, by contrast, have much higher outlay rates because a greater proportion—about 50 percent in NSF’s case—goes for such short-term obligations as salaries, equipment and supplies. Why does it matter? After all, the money eventually gets spent. But to a Congress forced to reduce spending next year, a dollar deferred is a dollar saved. Last November, nudged by the stock market crash, Congress and the White House negotiated a widely publicized plan to reduce the federal deficit by $75 billion over two years. Lost in the shuffle was the basis for that reduction—a promise to hold fiscal 1989 spending to certain levels. That budget summit agreement provides for a 2 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending in 1989. That number, known as Account 302b, is $3.3 billion more in budget authority than the $163 billion to be spent this year. The defense budget received a similar 2 percent increase, a total of $7.5 billion more than this year’s figure of $292 billion. (The remainder of the federal budget is devoted to Social Security payments, which were placed outside the agreement, and entitlement programs.) What these numbers mean to the scientific community is revealed in the president’s proposed budget. NASA is hoping for an increase of about $2.4 billion, including $500 million more for the space station, additional funds for the shuttle, and a new program to set the future of the U.S. effort in space. Keeping his pledge to double its budget in five years, the president has requested nearly $300 million more for NSF. And more than $300 million is being sought for the Superconducting Supercollider that Reagan endorsed one year ago. Those three projects alone, although they cover only a fraction of what scientists want, would come close to gobbling up the amount of new money available in fiscal 1989 for all federal non-military discretionary programs. For those projects to be approved, in other words, the subcommittees that oversee those programs, chaired by Rep. Edward Boland (D-Mass.) and Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.), would need the entire federal allocation for additional spending. Moreover, they would be devoting the entire amount to only a portion of science, excluding medical research and dozens of other areas. Needless to say, neither is likely to occur. The major share of that subcommittee’s appropriation is devoted to housing programs, and another large chunk goes to medical care for veterans. Both programs have staunch advocates within the panel and in each house. Furthermore, the 12 other subcommittees will demand a share, however small, of whatever is available. That extra $3.3 billion will have to be stretched across every domestic program funded by the federal government. Account 302b promises to defeat any plea by scientists for a larger share of a stagnant federal budget, say many observers. The only answer, they say, is more revenue. “A lot of you feel that if you get your act together and push hard, you’ll succeed,” said van der Voort. “But you are fighting against a million other programs. My advice to you is to lobby for a tax increase. And bring money if you’re asking for something new.” Mervis is on the staff of The SCIENTIST.

Budget Agreement Could Doom Proposed Boost in Research

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of