- Special Issue -

ederal budgets pronounce a President’s priorities.  Since September 11, the war on terrorism and homeland security have become the major preoccupations of the Bush administration, and the proposed fiscal year 2003 budget clearly reflects that precedence.  The Department of Defense would receive an enormous $48 billion increase.  Many of the spending decisions for other government agencies and programs are determined by what role they play in defense against terrorism, including bioterrorism.  The Administration is willing to tolerate deficits and overall spending boosts at magnitudes they were decrying a year ago.    

This issue contains a summary and analysis of the proposed Fiscal Year 2003 budgets for over 50 agencies and programs that support social and behavioral science research.  There is a nominal charge for the issue.  For more information, contact COSSA@cossa.org

            As with previous administrations, the Bush folks have attempted to gain some control over the federal bureaucracy.  Touted as “budgeting for results,” the request joins the long tradition of proposals tying agency budgets to performance, employing such tools as zero-based budgeting, management by objective, and the national performance review.  Congress has generally looked askance at these efforts, treating them with the same disdain as similar attempts to eliminate earmarks, which the Bush administration is also taking on in this year’s budget proposal.

         The President proposes to spend $2.128 trillion in FY 2003.  Of that, $767 billion is for discretionary budget authority.  The rest goes to mandatory spending programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and other programs that do not require annual appropriations.  The discretionary programs include most of those discussed in this budget issue. 

            As with any presidential budget submission, this only starts the process.  In the next eight months before the start of FY 2003 on October 1, 2002, the Administration’s priorities will be heard, challenged, debated, and negotiated; eventually something will emerge.  How and when this will all be settled – remember that this is an election year with both houses of Congress up for grabs – is still unclear.  In addition, as we learned all too well last year, external events often have a way of upsetting the best-laid plans.

Research and Development Budgets

            The Administration has proposed $111.8 billion for research and development (R&D) in its FY 2003 budget.  This is an eight percent increase over the FY 2002 figure, and as the Administration points out, this is the first time the proposed R&D budget has eclipsed $100 billion.  Last year Congress raised the request by nearly eight billion to $103.2 billion.  The priority for President Bush in this part of the budget, however, is first and foremost – antiterrorism.  R&D funding for homeland security and combating terrorism would rise from nearly $1 billion in FY 2002 to an estimated $3 billion in FY 2003.  Others priorities include networking and information technology, nanotechnology, and climate change research.  In addition to these concerns, the Administration will keep its promise to complete the five-year doubling of the NIH budget.

            Defense R&D increases 8.8 percent to $58.6 billion.  Most of this is on the development side.  Basic research at Defense (DOD) would see only a 2.4 percent raise.  A major part of the antiterrorism R&D also goes through the Defense Department, but other agencies would benefit too.  The National Institutes of Health (NIH) would receive $1.75 billion for acceleration of research leading to the development of rapid identification and monitoring technologies, diagnostic tests, and new vaccines and therapeutics, including an improved anthrax vaccine.  The Defense Department would also receive $420 million for similar research, as well as funding for studying and modeling the technology and tactics of bioterrorists.  The Administration also proposes that the Environmental Protection Agency develop improved techniques and procedures for coping with biological and chemical incidents.  Other research efforts in this area include:  reliable identification of specific individuals using biometric techniques; better methods for detecting explosives, particularly in luggage and at airports; setting standards for equipment to respond to homeland attacks and measurements for determining when an area can be reoccupied after an attack; and fundamental research, including $27 million for the National Science Foundation to sequence the genes of pathogens.

            Civilian R&D would increase from $49.4 billion to $53.2 billion, a boost of 7.8 percent.  The defense-civilian ratio, 50/50 at the end of the Clinton administration, has now shifted toward defense by a mark of 52/48.  Almost all of the civilian R&D increase is slated to complete the NIH doubling.  The other major civilian R&D category that would receive a boost is education research, jumping almost $50 million or 14 percent.  The “No Child Left Behind” legislation contains numerous references to the need for “evidence-based” programs and “scientific research.”

            The Administration would increase basic research from $23.5 billion to $25.5 billion; applied research from $24 billion to $26.3 billion; and development from $51 billion to $55.5 billion; and decrease facilities and equipment from $4.6 billion to $4.4 billion.

            Like others before it, the Administration attacks earmarking in federal R&D budgets.  Using spending identified by the Chronicle of Higher Education, the budget document notes that the practice of earmarking funds directly to colleges and universities for specific research projects has expanded from $296 million in 1996 to $1.67 billion in 2001.  This is still only 9.4 percent of federal academic funding, but represents an increase of 60 percent in the past six years.  In a number of cases, the Administration has reduced research budgets for agencies by eliminating previously earmarked projects.  This has occurred at DOD, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Education.  As in the past, members of Congress, particularly those on the appropriations committee, will most likely pay little attention to these administration attempts to curtail earmarking.  They will continue to use their prerogative to control the “power of the purse” as they see fit.

National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health

            Despite calls for balancing the research portfolio, the two major agencies that support fundamental research have again been treated differently.  As mentioned, the Administration remains committed to completing the five-year doubling of NIH.  For NSF, things are better than last year, but the large increases thought possible, including a potential NIH-like doubling, are still a mirage.

Last year, when it proposed a 1.3 percent increase for NSF’s budget, the Administration sent out reassuring messages.  The FY 2002 increase was limited because of campaign promises that resulted in other priorities taking precedence.  Senators Christopher Bond (R-MO) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and House members James Walsh (R-NY) and Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) made clear their unhappiness with the small increase and boosted NSF’s final FY 2002 appropriation by over eight percent.  Bond and Mikulski continued to talk about doubling funding for the Foundation.

            Now that next year is here, though, it appears that other Administration priorities have again taken precedence.  The budget proposes an FY 2003 figure for NSF of $5.036 billion, an increase of $240 million or 5 percent.  Of the $240 million, almost one-third comes from a proposal to transfer three programs from other agencies to NSF.  Congressional staffers indicate a low probability that these programs will move.  

After a disappointing FY 2002, in which it received a smaller increase than any of the other research directorates, the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) directorate does quite well in the FY 2003 proposed budget.  NSF has designated SBE a “priority area.”  Foundation director Rita Colwell is strongly committed to enhancing these sciences in the near future.  The increase of $26.2 million, or 16 percent, includes $10 million in “seed” funding for the priority.  One focus of these funds will be to support research on decisionmaking under uncertainty, as part of the Administration’s climate change research program.  Another major part of the increase will go to the Science, Resources, Statistics division to incorporate the decennial census results into the samples it uses to conduct surveys of the science and engineering workforce.

The proposed increase for NIH is $3.9 billion or 16.7 percent above FY 2002.  This would bring its total budget to $27.335 billion, over one-half the spending for civilian research and development.  As noted, the request completes the five-year doubling.  Planning and discussions for life after doubling are taking place, but no one is willing to predict small increases for NIH anytime in the near future. 

Prevention remains one of the four priority areas for NIH:  motivating people to engage in healthy behaviors or change their unhealthy ones is a focus for new research.  Efforts to address disparities in health between minorities and other segments of the population also remain high on NIH’s agenda.  The Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) continues to play a significant role on this topic and many others.  The publication of reports providing an agenda for social/behavioral research on health will also guide OBSSR’s efforts.

As noted earlier, NIH will play a significant role in research on bioterrorism.  Much of this funding will go to the National Institute on Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).  This Institute, which will also prosper because of increased attention to developing an AIDS vaccine, has a proposed increase of over 57 percent.  The increase for most of the other Institutes is in the eight to nine percent range.

NIH continues with an Acting Director for the second year as the Administration carries on its search for a replacement for Harold Varmus.  A mass exodus of Institute directors has also plagued NIH in recent months.  At publication time, only the National Cancer Institute has received a non-acting replacement.  One interesting development has been the naming of OBSSR Director Raynard Kington to serve concurrently as Acting Director of the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).

Other Research Budgets

             In its attempt to eliminate earmarking and stress competitive grants programs, the Administration is proposing to double the Department of Agriculture’s National Research Initiative Competitive Grants program (NRI).  The administration is also compensating for Congress’ refusal to allow spending on two other competitive programs, the Fund for Rural America and the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS).  Once again, an administration’s proposed budget reduces funding for the Special Grants program, knowing full well Congress will restore most of these earmarks.  This conflict of priorities may create problems for the NRI doubling proposal.

             The Department of Education and its Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) has a significant increase.  OERI is up for reauthorization this year and once again there is discussion about totally revamping its structure and activities.  New Assistant Secretary Russ Whitehurst, a research psychologist, hopes to further professionalize OERI’s staff and endeavors.  The Administration is quite interested in reading comprehension, preschool curricula, and evidence-based research for improving teaching and curricula in pre-K through 12^th grade.  The “No Child Left Behind” legislation enacted last year provided ample opportunities for increased and improved educational research activities.

             In the aftermath of September 11, Congress also recognized the need to improve programs for international education and foreign language studies, providing a sizeable 26 percent boost in FY 2002 spending.  Although the Administration’s requested increase for FY 2003 is significantly smaller, the impetus for higher spending in this area remains.  By contrast, spending for the Department’s two major graduate fellowships programs, Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need and the Javits Program, remains stagnant for the third year in a row.  The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) is another agency where the Administration is battling earmarking.

             At the health agencies outside of NIH, both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) face decreases.  The CDC cut occurs mostly because over $2 billion was spent in FY 2002 on purchasing vaccines and other pharmaceuticals to combat bioterrorist threats.  In FY 2003 CDC would receive significant funding for other bioterrorism activities.  Most of the regular CDC programs remain level or suffer small decreases.  At AHRQ the decrease, if sustained by Congress, will severely limit any new research or training grants.  The proposed budget for policy research at the office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation remains the same as last year, although evaluation set-aside funds help to fund this office.

             The National Institute of Justice receives a large increase under the President’s proposed budget.  Much of it results from shifting a counter-terrorism office to the Institute.  Some of the increase will boost funding for a drug monitoring program and a hate crimes research initiative.  HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research sees a slight increase, after the Administration once again attempts to abolish the Partnership in Advanced Technology in Housing program, a move Congress rejected last year. 

             Despite recognizing the need for increased knowledge of foreign countries, the Administration has not proposed any significant increase for the educational and cultural exchange programs at the State Department.  The National Endowment for the Humanities is also essentially level-funded.

             The statistical agencies in general do quite well, with significant increases for the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Census Bureau to improve the timeliness and coverage of the nation’s economic statistics, a long-time effort.  The Census Bureau also gets the go-ahead to proceed with the American Community Survey. 

       The Administration’s emphasis on the war on terrorism manifested so strongly in this proposed budget will dominate this year’s consideration of spending and taxing.  Most of the rest of the agencies will become part of the peripheral discussions.  Yet, those discussions can still make the difference in whether funding will be available for a particular research project; members of Congress will continue to focus on all aspects of the budget, because that is what appropriators are about.  As always, social and behavioral scientists are uniquely positioned to influence the debates with their research and knowledge. 

                                                                                             Howard J. Silver

 

                                                                                             March 2002