Clinton's 1995 environmental budget BY A L A N
NEWMAN
L L w • t h i s is a very, very tough budget." That is J L how Alice Rivlin, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, described the Clinton administration's proposed fiscal year (FY) 1995 budget. The plan cuts programs, freezes overall discretionary funding, and redirects monies. The good news is that overall research and development (R&D) funding, and environmental programs in particular, appears to have emerged with budget increases and even new programs. According to Rivlin, the administration has shaped this budget with two themes in mind: longterm investments in the economy and "making government work better." These themes were echoed by Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) head John Gibbons: "The Clinton administration wants to harness science and technology as the means of a national recovery." As a result, many of the biggest increases in the budget were awarded to technology development and technology transfer programs. Overall, civilian R&D rises by 4 % or SI. 15 billion to a total of more than $31 billion (see Table 1). However, with discretionary funding frozen—and nearly all R&D comes from the discretionary pot—increases must come from reductions or cancellations of other programs (for instance, termination of the Superconducting Supercollider freed up $500 million). Congress could radically alter R&D funding by passing a balanced budget amendment or rewriting the budget. The big picture. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) emerges as the embodiment of the Clinton focus on technology transfer, receiving a whopping 78% boost in funding. Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) are slated to add 450 projects, to total more than 3200. Investments in R&D in environmental technologies, solar and renewable energy, energy conservation, new energy research facilities, intelligent vehicles/highway systems, and even high-speed railroads all would be greatly boosted. 176 A
However, basic research also fares well. The National Science Foundation, global climate change research, the national biological survey, and the human genome project all post real increases. Total R&D funding for university researchers and health research is slated to go up 4 % , although the overhead costs collected by universities and nonprofits through grants are frozen at 1994 levels for one year. (Institutional abuse of overhead monies—which are supposed to cover utilities, secretarial services, and other research support—have
T h e Clinton administration w a n t s to harness science and technology as the means of a national recovery." —John Gibbons, Office of Science and Technology Policy been alleged, and the administration will review the practice during the one-year freeze.) Despite the numbers, the federal government still lacks a clear picture of its environmental spending. "I could not tell you today what the budget is for environmental R&D," admitted Robert Watson, OSTP's associate administrator for the environment. Speaking to ESfrT in February, Watson said that the administration as part of its reorganization of science and technology policy is now compiling those numbers. Until those numbers are released, the clearest measure is to look at individual agencies. EPA. The League of Conservation Voters recently gave the Clinton administration's environmental performance a "C+." A key complaint was EPA's FY 1994 budget, which fell below Bush administration levels. That situation is remedied by Clinton's $7.2 billion proposed budget for EPA—the largest in the agency's history. "Our budget is up, our work force is up, and so are our hopes for the future," said EPA
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 28, No. 4, 1994
Administrator Carol Browner (see Table 2). However, this largesse is not spread evenly throughout the Agency. Most of the money goes into increases in the work force and the Agency's operating budget. EPA will cut its dependence on outside contractors, drawing the equivalent of 900 new full-time employees' salaries from this shift. Many of the well-funded programs are new initiatives launched by the administration, including the climate action plan, green technologies, pollution prevention, environmental justice, ecosystem protection, U.S.—Mexico border cleanup, and water infrastructure. On the other hand, major changes are in store for EPA's R&D budget. With the notable exception of multimedia research, all R&D funding drops or remains flat. Browner's commitment to ecosystem-wide coverage has eclipsed older delineations such as air, water, and pesticides. Within these old categories funding shifts significantly. For example, air research is severely cut overall, and funds are shifted from acid deposition monitoring to the Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), mitigation programs dealing with climate change and stratospheric ozone depletion are cut, and resources are moved from several air quality research programs to tropospheric ozone and particulate matter studies. A new science center to replace the Central Regional Laboratory in Annapolis, MD, and the Pesticide Laboratory in Beltsville, MD, is also budgeted. Department of Energy. For the second consecutive year, DOE's budget drops. In announcing the proposed budget, Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary said, "The goals in FY 1995 will be to create jobs, reduce emissions, move technology into the marketplace, and increase U.S. competitiveness and U.S. exports abroad." In general, renewable energy, environmental restoration, energy efficiency, natural gas programs, and fusion energy funding increased. Taking cuts again were programs in nuclear power, clean coal technology, and weapons development. Overall, the budget
TABLE 1
FY 1995 budget: The big picture
Category
Funding (in mill ons of dollars) FY 1994, FY 1995, enacted proposed
Civilian basic research Civilian applied & development R&D support to universities NIST R&D CRADAs Environmental technologies (EPA, DOD) National Biological Survey U.S. global change program Intelligent vehicles/highway Alternatively fueled vehicles High-speed rail
12,578 17,770 11,719 490 2758 471 166 1446 214 44 4
12,880 18,621 12,156 874 3211 525 177 1794 289 69 33
Percent change 2 5 4 78 16 11 6 24 35 57 752
TABLE 2
FY 1995 environmental R&D, by agency Funding (in millions of dollars) FY 1994, enacted FY 1995
Category
6659 2689 2397 533 128 29 19.5 14 25 32 211 64
Percent change
7178 3051 2550 571 116 25 19 16 23 29 272 61
8 13 6 7 -11 -4 -1 1 -2 -3 60 -2
18,955 6054 346 236 439 6176 699 225
18,453 6052 398 177 429 6280 993 37
-3 0 14 -25 -27 2 42 -84
NSF overall Environmental biology Atmospheric sciences Earth sciences Ocean sciences
3018 75 134 81 189
3200 83 148 87 208
6 11 10 8 10
NASA R&D (without facilities) Mission to Planet Earth New technology investments
8493 1022 42
8597 1236 67
1 21 60
EPA overall Operating programs Water infrastructure R&D total Air research Water quality research Drinking water research Pesticides Toxic substances Hazardous wastes Multimedia Superfund DOE overall R&D total Solar and renewable energy Nuclear energy R&D Fossil fuel energy R&D Environmental restoration & waste management Energy efficiency Clean coal technology
for science and technology plummets 14%, primarily because of the cancellation of the SSC, whereas energy resources increases 5%. Total R&D funding for DOE stays relatively unchanged. Once again, administration initiatives on clean cars and fuels, greenhouse gases and pollution reduction, and new technology
development define the budget. It is likely that DOE funding will drop again next year, as the department evaluates the future of its national laboratories and continues to try to convert its swords into plowshares. National Science Foundation. Global change, ocean sciences, atmospheric sciences, and environmental biology programs all
receive real boosts in funding. NSF has been under congressional pressure to increase funding for programs aimed at national needs versus studies that are "curiosity-driven." This distinction has shaken the basic research community, but some say it can be dealt with by better explaining the value of basic research. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. As the glamour of h u m a n space missions fades, NASA's new bright stars include the broad-based Mission to Planet Earth program and the technology transfer program. However, a key NASA supporter, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), has warned that the agency could be a prime target for fiscal conservatives in Congress and those upset over social program cuts. Federal R&D review. This year could be a watershed for science and technology policy. A stem-tostern review of R&D is under way through the newly formed National Science and Technology Council. Environmental funding has already been cited as a major topic. "We've acknowledged some of the criticisms of the way we do environmental R&D," says Watson. "I do take to heart that we don't have coordination on science and policy. We don't have an assessment mechanism that adequately rises above the parochial views of single agencies." That doesn't mean that the administration is ready to endorse a major structural overhaul such as a National Institute for the Environment. However, a committee to lobby for the Institute in Congress has formed, supported by scientists, environmentalists, business leaders, and politicians. Hanging over everyone's head is FY 1996, which promises to be even rougher than this year's budget. "We are going to have to do a very good job in a very tight budget to explain why environmental R&D should be a very high priority when discretionary funding is basically frozen," said Watson. Gibbons warns, "Tough fiscal discipline is clearly the name of the game for the rest of the century. Pray that we don't have a rising cost of living, because that will eat us alive." Alan Newman ES&T.
is associate editor of
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 28, No. 4, 1994
177 A
