U.S. Federal R&D Spending in the Age of President Trump Matt Hourihan May 2, 2018 AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program http://www.aaas.org/rd

What is going on here? Checks and balances in the U.S. budget process are real and meaningful U.S. Congress has considerable power in setting annual budgets, and a presidential budget typically only matters as much as Congress lets it “The President proposes, the Congress disposes” In the big picture, Congress has pushed back on spending cuts and has created the fiscal room to increase research spending – as it often does when it’s able

The Fiscal Context – a.k.a. the size of the sandbox

But Congress did not go along with these changes… Senate rules: need 60 votes to change the caps That gives minority Democrats a measure of power, and thus mandates deal-making (same story with individual spending bills) Defense hawks: wanted to see bigger increases for defense spending; accepted nondefense increases to get it Moderate Republicans: not in favor of harsh fiscal choices, or otherwise are “Senate realists” "This is once again an act of Senate denial," Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA), on talks to get Defense spending through alone Fiscal conservatives: revolted against budget deal, but didn’t have votes to stop it Ultimately…

FY 2018 Omnibus Notes Adopted just last March ~11% increase for research spending Largest in 15 years All-time high for research and total R&D Emergent priorities: Exascale computing; fusion research; user facilities Weather research Defense materials and manufacturing NIH initiatives including opioids NASA: planetary science and exploration Several energy programs saved/boosted Competitive agricultural research grants Natural hazards research and monitoring Climate research, manufacturing programs protected if not all boosted Gun violence research permitted More than $3 billion for opioids research, surveillance, response (CDC, NIH, SAMHSA, Justice, FDA, etc)

????

Congress and Research Program Funding – a. k. a Congress and Research Program Funding – a.k.a. how they fill the sandbox

Some Factors That Bear on Research Appropriations Congressional committees frequently fund research when they’ve got the fiscal room to do so “All politics is local” Jobs Outreach by constituents Personal legislator interests Values and party ideology Appropriate role of government versus appropriate role of industry Conflict over regulation/climate Balance and tradeoffs: need to achieve a bill that attracts sufficient votes

Energy & Water Subcommittee House Senate Chair Mike Simpson (ID) Lamar Alexander (TN) Ranking Member Marcy Kaptur (OH) Dianne Feinstein (CA) Tradeoffs: Balancing basic research, national labs, technology portfolio, nuclear defense, water infrastructure spending National Nuclear Security Administration (manages U.S. weapons stockpile) has been biggest priority of late Office of Science: as basic physical science arm, historically supported National labs help Physics, chemistry, materials science Advanced computing has become a major shared priority Technology programs: Congress tends to fund when able, but can also be on the chopping block when tough choices are necessary House ideology vs. Senate moderation Regional energy politics and economics Renewables, nuclear, fossil

Labor, HHS, Education Subcommittee House Senate Chair Tom Cole (OK) Roy Blunt (MO) Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (CT) Patty Murray (WA) Deep divisions over public health programs, education, labor But everybody loves NIH! We have now had multiple years of multibillion dollar increases Recent priorities: Alzheimer’s Cancer Opioids Precision medicine Brain mapping Universities, industry, patient advocates Other programs also have their supporters (BioShield, BARDA, CDC, etc)

Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee House Senate Chair John Culberson (TX) Jerry Moran (KS) Ranking Member Jose Serrano (NY) Jeanne Shaheen (NH) National Science Foundation: many value basic research, education Disciplinary allocations? NASA: recent priority Again: labs and research centers help Earth science will remain a point of controversy Balancing science, exploration, aeronautics National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): Very different missions and controversies, but they do have their supporters NOAA: Sea Grant; weather, ocean, climate research NIST: measurement science, manufacturing, cybersecurity, quantum science, etc

The Case of ARPA-E: A Cautionary Tale Context: the Impoundment Control Act (1974) requires executive branch to spend money allocated by Congress March 2017: Trump Administration proposes killing the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), a DARPA-model energy research and innovation agency April 2017: Politico reports that Trump Admin has frozen millions in ARPA-E funding, affecting several awards and prompting Congressional backlash May 2017: notifications for research awards resume, and eventually all funding is released December 2017: U.S. Government Accountability Office, an independent federal agency, finds that Dept. of Energy violated the Impoundment Control Act 2018: Congress continues to scrutinize Administration spending practices and “encourage” agencies to spend the money they’re given…

Where Are We Headed? Some modest spending growth is likely in FY19 Won’t be finalized until late fall given midterms? Or later? FY 2020 and 2021: cap negotiations one more time Who controls Congress next year? Will widening deficit impact the negotiations? Next U.S. presidential election in 2020 How likely is it that the discretionary budget – and thus, research spending – keeps growing? Bottom line: federal science spending does not appear to be on its way down, and the prospects of the Trump Administration severely curtailing research dollars do not appear strong… Classic conflicts over environmental research and industrial technology will likely continue, however

????

mhouriha@aaas.org 202-326-6607 http://www.aaas.org/RD For more info… mhouriha@aaas.org 202-326-6607 http://www.aaas.org/RD

(extras to follow)