Commerce/Justice/Science Appropriations Update

The House and Senate Subcommittees on Commerce, Justice, Science and related agencies recently passed their respective appropriations bills, but they have yet to receive floor votes.  Even if the bills are passed by each chamber, they are so far apart that conferencing them seem unlikely at this time.

Request in Billions of Dollars

 

President’s Request

Senate

House

NSF

7.60

7.42

7.00

R&RA

6.20

6.01

5.68

MREFC

0.21

0.21

0.18

EHR

0.88

0.88

0.82

NIST Core

0.75

0.76

0.66

NIST STRS

0.69

0.70

0.61

NIST CRF

0.06

0.06

0.05

NASA Science

5.02

5.15

4.78

OSTP

5.66

5.66

5.45

The sharp contrast in appropriated amounts begins with the House and Senate budget committees. House appropriators are working under a total discretionary spending cap of $966B, with $414B for non-defense discretionary.  The Senate appropriators are working under a total discretionary spending cap of $1,058B, $91B more than the House.  Moreover, the $91B is entirely located in non-defense discretionary where Senate appropriators are working with $506B. 

For the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Senate appropriates a similar amount to President Obama’s budget request, though it is lower in Research & Related Activities (R&RA).  The Senate would provide $7.42B to NSF, $6.01B for (R&RA), $210M for Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC), and $880M for Education and Human Resources (EHR).  The Senate appropriations are a significant increase over the sequestered funding NSF received this year.  Additionally, the Senate appropriations bill includes language praising NSF for its “merit-reviewed, competitive process,” noting that companies such as Google got their start with an NSF grant. 

The House opted to stick more closely with the FY13 sequestered funding that NSF received.  Overall, the House bill would provide $7.00B to NSF, $5.68B for R&RA, $182M for MREFC, and $825M for EHR.  Of note is the fact that the House appropriations bill admonishes NSF and instructs NSF to “improve its ability to articulate the value and scientific merit of its research grants and explain the peer review process that results in research funding decisions.”  Such a statement from House appropriators speaks to a growing concern among House Republicans that the NSF is not appropriately stewarding taxpayer dollars, and that Congress may need to step in with greater oversight.  One example of increased oversight: House Science Committee Chair, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), recently sent a letter to NSF Acting Director Cora Marrett requesting confidential information on five grants NSF chose to fund. 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) appropriations did not contain language as ideologically divided as NSF, but still there are significant differences in funding.  The House bill would appropriate $609M for Scientific and Technical Research Services (STRS) and $55M for Construction of Research Facilities (CRF).  The Senate bill would appropriate $703M for STRS and $60M for CRF.

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) would receive similarly scaled funding from the House and Senate bills.  The House bill would appropriate $5.45B for OSTP and the Senate would appropriate $5.66B.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Office of Science is, again, similarly scaled in funding between the House and Senate.  The House bill would appropriate $4.78B for NASA Science and the Senate would appropriate $5.15B. 

What is worrisome is that science has long been a bastion for bipartisan effort.  A decade ago, Republicans and Democrats joined together to pass America COMPETES in a bipartisan effort.  These days, however, the bipartisan landscape is shifting toward partisanship. And the ideological divides mean that not only is another Continuing Resolution likely, but also that mission agencies must focus on winning political battles rather than overcoming scientific hurdles. 

 

Why Social Science Research Matters

Roll Call Commentary

By Michael S. Lubell
July 24, 2013

Social, behavioral and economic science research has become the punching bag for many conservatives. In February, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., told an American Enterprise Institute audience, “Funds currently spent by the government on social science . . . would be better spent helping find cures to diseases.”

Cantor’s declaration echoed a call from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to defund the National Science Foundation’s SBE research programs. The senator finally won his two-year battle in March, when his colleagues adopted an amendment to the 2013 continuing resolution prohibiting the NSF from supporting political science research projects not certified as “promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States.”

Following on the heels of Coburn’s success, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, targeted five SBE grants for congressional scrutiny, with an implicit warning that the NSF directorate was out of favor with many of his colleagues.

The drive to eliminate SBE funding, which is likely to resurface when the NSF appropriations bill hits the House floor this month, is puzzling because lawmakers rely on the products of such research every time they run for office. They spend heavily on public polling that is based on social-science research. They use jobs data and gross domestic product forecasts that are based on economic research. And they base their messaging on the products of behavioral research.

In short, they are heavily invested in the very research they are slamming. And from that perspective, their attacks reflect badly on the high offices they hold.

With polls showing voters’ trust in government at a historic low, it is politically seductive to ferret out programs whose worth the public may not understand or whose outcomes may not fit neatly into party ideology. Targeting them for a quick journey to oblivion might allow incumbents to score points in the next election, but such attacks make for terrible public policy.

And that brings me to the troubling nature of the attacks. First a caveat: Decades ago, I chose physics over economics because I was uncomfortable with a soft science that was better able to analyze the past than predict the future.

I still harbor that prejudice. But years of work in both physics and politics wore away my sharp-edged bias, as I came to appreciate the vital nexus between scientific research and science policy. Eliminating SBE research would undermine that linkage.

Here’s why: Today, the federal government spends more than $65 billion a year on scientific research that industry can’t or won’t perform. Such support in years past spawned the Internet and e-commerce, the laser-enabled technologies that account for more than a third of the GDP, the guts of the iPad, reliable and efficient cars, our modern military machine and the medical diagnostic and treatment procedures we have come to take for granted.

Science can lay claim to the discoveries that underpin those applications, but policy informed by SBE research — from regulatory practices to taxation and trade — helped provide a level playing field on which American industry could thrive and from which the American consumer could reliably benefit.

Understanding complex systems, the essence of SBE research, is extraordinarily difficult but also enormously significant. Predicting how our military adversaries are likely to behave is as important as developing the next generation of weaponry. Forecasting how people living in tornado alleys are likely to respond to storm warnings is as important as improving the science of forecasting the weather. And projecting how the public is likely to use the health care system is as important as creating lifesaving drugs and treatments.

Despite such obvious benefits, critics of SBE programs have asserted that they provide few societal returns and are rife with examples of frivolous research. But there might be a more insidious reason for such opposition: a conviction that SBE research outcomes will not conform to conservative ideology.

Such reflexive behavior would not be unique: There are examples of office holders in both parties who cherry pick scientific results to validate their policies. Some Democrats who believe global warming is a serious threat have asserted that Superstorm Sandy was evidence of climate change, even though there is no credible scientific proof for such a claim. Some Republicans who believe the earth is only 9,000 years old have stridently rejected the entire body of astrophysics that quite conclusively shows the earth’s age to be about 4.5 billion years.

Science can and should inform policymaking, but it must never be the “tool” of policymakers. Elected officials who don’t make such a distinction don’t understand the essential nature of science. And their ignorance can harm us all.

Michael S. Lubell is a professor of physics at the City College of the City University of New York and director of public affairs of the American Physical Society.

Share with your contacts: bit.ly/13aVaOv

Helium Bills Inch Forward, Passage Not Assured

Efforts by Congress to improve the supply of helium to users, including the scientific community, is inching toward a conclusion after more than a year of intensive efforts by APS and other end users.  Without new legislation, the authority of the Bureau of Land Management to continue to sell helium ends when its debt is repaid on Oct.  7.  To prevent the consequential market disruptions and highly damaging effects on R&D, two congressional committees of jurisdiction — the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee — have drafted legislation that must be passed and signed into law before the October deadline.

The House of Representatives recently passed the Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act (H.R. 527), which would establish an auction mechanism to permit the sell-off of the federal helium reserve, except for 3 billion cubic feet to be held back for federal use. The bill was approved by the House on April 26.  The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved its version of the bill, The Helium Stewardship Act of 2013 (S. 783), on June 18. The bills differ on a number of key points, including the pace at which the helium would be auctioned off.  The Senate bill slows the auction process down to allow for a longer transition to a market-based system.

Two critical steps remain until the bill reaches President Obama’s desk.

First, the Senate must consider S. 783 on the floor and vote on it either during the very few legislative days remaining before the August recess or when Congress reconvenes in September when it is likely to be consumed with avoiding a government shutdown at the end of the fiscal year and addressing the debt ceiling. Despite op-eds and news articles that have warned of the looming problem, many members Congress do not appreciate the urgency of the helium legislation. Should that sentiment persist through the Oct. 7 deadline, there is a risk that more than 50 percent of the nation’s helium supply will be unavailable after that date.

The second crucial step is a House-Senate conference to resolve any differences.  The pace at which the auction of the helium occurs could become a stumbling block.

APS continues to participate in a small coalition of helium end users in the high-tech industry that has been working with Senate and House staff to ensure user concerns are adequately addressed in the proposed legislation.  APS has also been working to strengthen provisions related to the “In-Kind” program that benefits the research community.

APS-Related Helium Resources

Turner/Chan OpEd

Chan Letter

Helium Bill Needed to Boost Economic and Scientific Strength

APS Member Moses Chan, professor of physics at Penn State University, writes in today’s CQ/Roll Call that a helium bill is needed to boost the nation’s economic and scientific strength.

Read the piece.

Department of Energy FY14 Appropriations

The Senate and House appropriations subcommittees on Energy & Water recently held markups for Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14) appropriations.  Due to a significant difference between the Senate and House versions ideological divides must be bridged before the two versions of the bill can be conferenced.  Moreover, the support for the Department of Energy (DoE) that both the House and Senate have traditionally had may be entirely overshadowed by larger political budget battles.  In short, while it is encouraging to see actual numbers coming out of committees, it is entirely possible that FY14 will be another year under a continuing resolution instead of actual appropriations bills being passed.  To the science community, this could mean another year of furloughs and reduced operational time at national labs.

Even if there are no appropriations bills signed into law this year and only another continuing resolution, there still will be significant political pressure on DoE.  This political pressure from lawmakers can quickly erode any support for increased funding to an agency.  Recently, the Senate and House subcommittees on Energy & Water have questioned DoE’s direction in recent years, especially in the area of prioritizing projects.  Such concern is now making its way into appropriation bills.  The Senate bill establishes an independent commission to analyze whether the DoE’s national labs are appropriately configured to meet the nation’s 21st century energy needs.

Request in Billions of Dollars
  Senate House President’s Request
DoE SC

5.152

4.653

5.152

Advanced Scientific Computing Research

0.493

0.432

0.465

Basic Energy Sciences

1.805

1.583

1.862

Biological and Environmental Research

0.625

0.494

0.625

Fusion Energy Sciences

0.458

0.506

0.458

High Energy Physics

0.806

0.772

0.776

Nuclear Physics

0.570

0.552

0.570

EERE

2.280

0.982

2.775

ARPA-E

0.379

0.050

0.379

NNSA

11.758

11.266

11.652

Overall, the Senate bill would provide $5.15B for the Office of Science (SC) FY14, an increase of $287M over FY13 enacted levels, and an increase of about $580M over the FY13 actual spending, which includes the sequester.  The House bill would provide $4.653B for SC in FY14, a decrease of about $223M below FY13 enacted levels and an increase of about $300M over the FY13 actual spending level. The table on the right details the proposed spending for the sub-accounts within DoE SC.

The House and Senate both use the FY14 appropriations to highlight their priorities.  For instance, in the Fusion Energy Sciences account, the Senate provides no funding for Alcator C-Mod and commends the DoE for prioritizing funding.  Conversely, the House provides funding and directs Alcator C-Mod to continue operations.

The Senate also makes note to specifically provide $183M for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) but none of the proposed funding will be made available until DoE delivers a full report on the baseline cost, schedule, and scope estimate of ITER.  The House would provide $217M for ITER funding without such restrictions, however it directs DoE to provide the funding profile within 180 days.  Both the Senate and House have been asking DoE for a full report on ITER since the project began.

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (APRA-E), Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in the Senate would all see increases over the FY13 enacted levels and, again, significant increases over the FY13 sequestered level.  ARPA-E is slated for $379M, an increase of $114M over FY13 enacted levels and about $120M over FY13 actual spending.  EERE is slated for $2.28B, an increase of $470M over FY13 enacted levels and about $570M over FY13 actual spending.  NNSA is proposed to be funded at $11.76B, an increase of $261M over FY13 enacted levels and about $930M over FY13 actual spending.

Just the opposite is the case in the House.  APRA-E, EERE, and NNSA would all see decreases over the FY13 enacted levels and only the NNSA would receive an increase over the FY13 sequestered level.  ARPA-E is slated for $50M, a decrease of $225M under FY13 enacted levels and about $208M under FY13 actual spending.  EERE is slated for $982M, a decrease of $900M under FY13 enacted levels and about $890M under FY13 actual spending.  NNSA is proposed to be funded at $11.26B, a decrease of $24M under FY13 enacted levels and an increase of about $44 over FY13 actual spending.

U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson: NSF sets gold standard for scientific research funding

EBJ Official Photo

 

For more than 60 years, NSF has set the gold standard in scientific research funding throughout the world.

Read more about NSF in an op-ed by U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson and other interesting stories in the latest edition of Capitol Hill Quarterly.

America’s looming helium crisis

Michael S. Turner, APS president, and Moses Chan, physics professor at Penn State University, write about America’s looming helium disaster in today’s Politico.
Read the piece.

The President’s STEM Realignment Request

President Obama’s budget request for fiscal year 2014 (FY14) included a massive restructuring of the nation’s science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education programs. Of the existing 226 or more programs, almost half are slated for consolidation or cancellation.

To give some background, the realignment transitions the nation’s STEM-Ed effort from a vertical integration to a horizontal integration. In other words, rather than having many narrowly focused programs for children, age 4 through graduate school, realignment would transition to a few widely focused programs reaching students of a specific age range.

The Department of Education would steward K-12 programs; NSF would shepherd undergraduate and graduate programs, and the Smithsonian Institute would be responsible for informal education programs.

The dramatic shift also includes a number of new programs slated for creation along with an overall budgetary increase for STEM-Ed of 6.7 percent. New programs such as the STEM Master Teacher Corps, STEM Innovation Networks, and the NSF CAUSE program are expected to move the administration’s STEM agenda forward (for more details, check out the President’s budget request here). Most of the new programs being considered will require appropriations from Congress to meet funding requirements.

While these new programs are exciting, concern remains regarding programs being slated for closure or consolidation. The 112 programs, many of which have demonstrated positive outcomes and have been well reviewed, are so small that Congress does not deal with them directly. Thus, the administration can direct agencies to close and consolidate most of the 112 programs with no congressional input.

The fact that congressional support is needed for the creation of new programs means that many STEM-ed programs could be closed with no new ones created to take their place. Alternatively, the proposed programs could be severely underfunded if Congress so chooses, undercutting their potential.

So far, congressional support for the proposed STEM realignment has not been overwhelming. During a recent House committee hearing, Rep. Eddie Bernice-Johnson (D-TX) said of the proposed realignment, “…I have serious concerns with the budget proposal itself. To be blunt, it seems to me it was not very well thought out.” Such sentiments were echoed from both sides of the aisle.

So what is the path forward at this point? APS has been strongly supportive of some of the newly proposed programs such as the STEM Innovation Networks at the Department of Education. Indeed, the Taskforce for Teacher Education and Preparation recently released a report in which the central recommendation was to form a network of regional centers for discipline specific professional development. The STEM Innovation Networks could be transformative in how we educate teachers in America to ensure student success.

On the other hand, APS has strongly supported many of the NASA E/PO programs slated for closure and recognizes the positive results from such programs may potentially be lost. Photographs from the Hubble Space Telescope have inspired a generation of young Americans and cultivated a thirst for knowledge that may otherwise have lain dormant.

What is perhaps more concerning is echoed in Rep. Bernice-Johnson’s comments. What are the specifics of the transition plan? How exactly is the expertise of the mission agencies going to be transferred? Given that mission agencies are uniquely positioned to recognize growing fields and future STEM workforce needs, how will the Department of Education and the Smithsonian Institute work with the mission agencies to relay such data? Until these questions are answered, the path forward is murky and based on loose assumptions.

We look forward to the administration’s release of details regarding the planned realignment and will keep you informed. In the meantime, feel free to offer your thoughts regarding the realignment.

DETAILS

President’s STEM Priorities

  • 100,000 excellent STEM teachers ($80M, DoEd)
  • STEM Master Teacher Corps ($35M, DoEd)
  • STEM Innovation Networks ($150M, DoEd)
  • Encourage partnerships between colleges, high schools, employers and the community ($300M, DoEd/NSF)
  • 1 million more STEM graduates in 10 years ($123M, NSF)
  • ARPA-Ed ($65M, DoEd)

Terminated Programs – 78 programs

  • DOD: 6 of the 16 STEM programs, ~$50M
  • NASA: 38 of the 61 STEM programs, ~$47M
  • NIH: 9 of 24 STEM programs, ~$27M
  • EPA: 2 of 7 STEM programs, ~$16M
  • NOAA: 6 of 15 STEM programs, ~$13M
  • USDA: 6 of 16 STEM programs, ~$10M
  • DOE: 8 of 18 STEM programs, ~$11M
  • DHS: 1 of 3 STEM programs, ~$1M
  • NRC: 1 of 3 STEM programs, <$1M

New Programs – 13

  • USDA-1
  • DoEd-2
  • DOE-1
  • NASA-2 (MUREP, STEM Accountability)
  • NSF-3 (STEM-C, CAUSE, NRT)
  • Smithsonian-1 (Informal Education and Outreach)

High Quality Research Act Remains Under Attack

The High Quality Research Act is under assault again.
This time, Nathaniel P. Morris, a medical student at Harvard University, wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe assailing the draft piece of legislation that “would force NSF to follow narrow congressional guidelines for grant approval.”
Morris’s op-ed follows a letter that was signed by former NSF executives who wrote that the law would hurt NSF’s merit-based criteria, which remain the envy of the world.

Read more.

APS Disappointed in NRC Rejection of Petition Urging Barriers to Proliferation

APS regrets that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rejected the Society’s petition requesting a change in the agency’s licensing rules to review proliferation risks associated with new nuclear fuel technologies.

About 2,400 people wrote to the NRC in favor of the APS petition, including the nation’s leading experts in the field of nuclear weapons, nuclear power and nuclear proliferation, as well as members of Congress.

Read APS press release.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 38 other followers

%d bloggers like this: