March 14, 2014
In This Issue
On March 4, the president released his annual proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2015. The budget proposal functions as a wish list of what the administration will seek to prioritize in federal policy in the coming year. However, Congress, holding the “power of the purse,” generally has the final say on how these priorities are funded.
Overall, the president’s budget would dedicate $135.4 billion for federal R&D, a 1.2 percent increase over 2014. According to the Office of Science and Technology Policy, this falls short of the 1.7 increase in inflation expected from 2014-2015. The lackluster funding is an attempt by the administration to accommodate the budget caps set forth in the recent budget deal by Senate and House Budget Committee Chairs Patty Murray (D-WA) and Paul Ryan (R-WI).
The multi-agency Global Change Research Program would be funded at $2.501 billion in FY 2015, a 0.5 percent increase from $2.489 billion in FY 2014. Agencies that participate in the program include the National Science Foundation (NSF), the US Department of Energy (DOE), the US Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education federal investments would increase by 3.7 percent, to $2.9 billion, compared to FY 2014. During a budget briefing earlier this month, Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren was asked how the administration’s STEM program consolidation proposal, and how the version in this year’s budget request differed from last year’s. The original proposal, which sought to consolidate STEM programs under the Department of Education, the National Science Foundation and the Smithsonian Institution, met with bipartisan skepticism among education advocates and lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Holdren contended that the FY2015 consolidation proposal is more modest because it no longer transfers funds across agencies and the consolidations occur within federal agencies.
The administration does seek to shore up some of these shortfalls in research investment through additional research funding for federal agencies included in its proposed $56 billion Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative. The fact that the extra $56 billion breaches the $1.014 spending ceiling agreed to in the Murray-Ryan budget deal makes it unlikely to gain traction on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, however, have expressed that they will likely stick to the budget ceilings outlined in the Murray-Ryan budget deal.
The Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative includes $1 billion for a new Climate Resilience Fund, which will focus on helping states and localities with adaptation plans to deal with floods, droughts wildfires and other extreme weather events or natural disasters that could be exacerbated by climate change. Like the funding for the Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative, funding for the Climate Resilience Fund would be dispersed across several agencies that work to address the impacts of climate change.
Research advocates disappointed with the administration’s proposed budget numbers for specific agencies may cite the added research funding for agencies included in the $56 billion initiative as they call for increases above the White House’s numbers. “I am disappointed to see flat or even decreased funding in a number of key areas of the federal government’s R&D budget,” said House, Science, Space and Technology Committee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) in a committee press statement, citing the $100 million proposed cut to NASA’s current $17.6 billion FY 2014 budget.
“To provide for additional investments, the president included a proposal to Congress titled, Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative. I support the goal of increasing our investments in R&D and STEM education and I hope to work with the president and my colleagues to further clean energy technologies and grid modernization, as well as advanced manufacturing initiatives and research on the impacts of climate change,” Johnson continued.
NSF would receive $7.25 billion, a 1.2 percent increase over FY 2014. NSF research and related activities would be funded at $5.72, a $2 million decrease from FY 2014. The $7.25 billion request number marks the lowest request for NSF in the president’s budget since FY 2010 when the White House requested $7.045 for the agency.
The Directorate of Biological Sciences would receive $708.5 million in FY 2015, a $12.75 million (1.8 percent) cut compared to FY 2014. The Directorate for Social and Behavioral Sciences would receive $272.2 million, a $15.35 million (six percent) increase over FY 2014. The Directorate for Geosciences would receive $1.3 billion, a $1.36 million (0.1 percent) increase over FY 2014.
The Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability program would receive $139 million in FY 2015, a $14.1 percent cut. The National Ecological Observatory Network would receive $96 million, a $2.8 million increase over FY 2014. The US Arctic Research Commission would receive $1.41 million, an $110,000 (eight percent) increase over FY 2014. Research at the Interface of the Biological, Mathematical and Physical Sciences (BioMAPS) would receive $14.31 million, level with FY 2014.
DOE would receive $27.9 billion in FY 2015, a $2.6 percent increase over FY 2014.
Total DOE funding for FY 2015 would include:
DOE Office of Science: $5.1 billion, a 44.8 (0.9 percent) increase.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: $2.3 billion, a $408 million (21.4 percent) increase.
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy: $325,000, a $45,000 (16 percent) increase.
Biological and Environmental Research: $628 million, an $18.3 million (6 percent) increase.
Weatherization Assistance Program: $227.6 million, a $53.7 (30.9 percent) million increase.
NOAA would receive a budget of $5.5 billion in FY 2015, an increase of $174 million over FY 2014.
Total NOAA funding for FY 2015 would include:
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service: $2.2 billion a $164.8 million increase.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS): $ $887.2 million, a $65.7 million decrease due in part to a $75.0 million decrease for one-time fisheries disaster funding.
National Ocean Service (NOS): $496.2 million, a $20.6 million increase.
National Weather Service: $1.06 billion, a $3.9 million decrease.
The Office of Oceanic & Atmospheric Research (OAR): $462.2 million, a $35.4 million increase.
USDA would receive $23 billion in discretionary spending for FY 2015, roughly $1 billion below FY 2014. The budget proposes to shift 30 percent of wildfire suppression funding to an off-budget emergency account to prevent the US Forest Service from borrowing funds from other agency accounts to address wildfire outbreaks, which have annually increased in cost over the past decade.
Total USDA funding for FY 2015 would include:
Agricultural Research Service: $1.136 billion, an $18 million decrease.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture: $1.341 billion, a $59 million increase.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: $837 million, an $8 million decrease.
US Forest Service: $4.771 billion, a $725 million decrease.
Natural Resources Conservation Service: $815 million, a $14 million decrease.
USGS would receive $1.1 billion in FY 2015, a $41.3 million increase over FY 2014.
Total USGS funding for FY 2015 would include:
Ecosystems: $162 million, a $9.2 million increase.
WaterSMART: $14.5 million, a $6.4 million increase.
Climate and Land Use Change: $149 million, a $17.1 million increase.
Core Science Systems: $109.4 million, a $593,000 increase.
Energy, Minerals and Environmental Health: $99 million, a $7.56 million increase.
Natural Hazards: $128.3 million, a $147 decrease.
The president’s proposed budget would provide the US Department of Interior with $11.9 billion in Fiscal Year 2015, a 2.4 percent increase over enacted FY 2014 funding for the agency. Agency research and development would be funded at $889 billion, a seven percent increase over FY 2014.
The president’s budget would annually fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million beginning in FY 2015. Interior youth programs directed towards employment and volunteerism would receive $50.6 million in FY 2015, a 37 percent increase over FY 2014. The budget includes $66.5 million for WaterSMART programs, an almost 17 percent increase to fund agency water conservation initiatives.
Additional funding for bureaus and programs under Interior’s jurisdiction include:
America’s Great Outdoors: $5.1 billion, a $127.1 million increase.
Bureau of Indian Affairs: $2.6 billion, a $33.6 million increase.
Bureau of Land Management: $1.1 billion, a $5 million decrease.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management: $169.8 million, a $2.9 million increase.
Bureau of Reclamation: $1.1 billion, a $116.8 million decrease.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement: $204.6 million, a $2 million increase.
US Fish and Wildlife Service: $1.5 billion, a $48.8 million increase.
US Geological Survey: $1.1 billion, a $41.3 million increase.
National Park Service: $2.6 billion, a $55.1 million increase.
Additional details on the Dept. of Interior FY 2015 budget proposal are available here:
Across the board, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would see a number of environmental restoration efforts cut in the president’s budget. The president’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 budget proposal would provide EPA with $7.89 billion, a decrease of $309.9 million (or a 3.7 percent cut) from FY 2014. This marks the fifth straight year the administration has proposed funding cuts for the agency.
EPA’s Clean Air and Global Change program would receive $260 million for federal efforts to enforce greenhouse gas and other air quality regulations, down from $272 million in FY 2014. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative would receive $275 million, a $25 million cut from FY 2014. The Gulf of Mexico program would receive $3.8 million, a 15 percent cut.
The budget would fund the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund at a combined total of $1.775 billion, a $581 million cut from FY 2014. The remaining funding would target wastewater and drinking water investment towards small or underserved communities. Brownfields projects would receive $85 million in FY 2015, a $5 million cut from FY 2014.
The budget does include a few bright spots. Science and technology programs at EPA would be funded at $763.8 million, a $4.6 million increase over FY 2014. Climate and air quality programs at the agency would receive $474, a $19 million increase. In the wake of the recent spill in West Virginia, the Chemical Safety Board would receive $12 million in FY 2015, a $1 million increase. The Chesapeake Bay program would increase by $3 million to $73 million in the FY 2015 budget proposal.
Additional information on the FY 2015 EPA budget is available here.
On March 12, the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittees on Energy and Environment convened for a hearing on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems. The hearing reignited the partisan divide over the agency’s authority to enforce regulations to reduce carbon emissions.
“My colleagues and I received testimony from a variety of professionals in the energy field on the EPA’s [New Source Performance Standards] proposal, which revealed an immature mandate request for utility companies, based on flimsy scientific data, and oversight without legitimate, existing infrastructure for our energy production,” asserted Environment Subcommittee Chairman David Schweikert (R-AZ). “Until these technologies are proven to be commercially available for our utilities companies without risks of harm to the storage location of carbon dioxide, our cities’ power suppliers will be left with very little options for compliance and freedom to grow their businesses.”
Subcommittee Democrats asserted that the rules, which only apply to new power plants, will help counter the effects of climate change and that the regulations will help promote technological development in the private sector and protect public health. “The proposed EPA rule will create a market incentive for the continued development and promotion of carbon capture and storage, or CCS, technologies,” asserted Environment Subcommittee Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR). “The advancement of CCS technologies is essential if new coal power plants are to operate in the low carbon future we must achieve.”
Testifying on behalf of the administration was Acting Administrator for EPA Office of Air and Radiation Janet McCabe. In her opening statement, she asserted that EPA’s proposed standards are “based on an evaluation of the technology that is available to limit carbon pollution emissions at new power plants” and that “EPA determined that the best system of emission reduction for new coal units is a new efficient unit implementing partial carbon capture and storage.”
View the full hearing here.
On Mar. 13, the House, Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Technology marked-up and approved H.R. 4186, the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology (FIRST) Act. The bill would reauthorizes spending levels and set priorities for the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The FIRST Act is one of several bills that would reauthorize the 2007 AMERICA COMPETES Act, last reauthorized in 2010. Unlike past reauthorizations, the current House bill was drafted predominantly with input from the majority party, raising the partisan ire of Democrats who concurred with many of the concerns expressed by the scientific research community.
Under the bill, NSF funding would increase 1.5 percent between Fiscal Year 2014 and 2015, below the expected 1.7 percent rate of inflation during that period. Committee Democrats have introduced an alternative measure to the FIRST Act (H.R. 4159) that would increase funding for NSF and other federal science entities by five percent.
The FIRST Act has raised concern among the scientific community for the low levels its sets for NSF and other federal science priorities. The week of the mark-up, 75 scientific societies and institutions, including the Ecological Society of America, co-signed a letter drafted through the Coalition for National Science Funding voicing their concern with the measure.
“H.R. 4186 provides low authorization levels for the National Science Foundation, forcing trade-offs that undercut important advances in science, and decimates the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate by authorizing funding at significantly low and unwarranted levels,” notes the letter. “The basic science discoveries in the social and behavioral sciences are critical to addressing national needs and are worthy of tax-payer support.”
Full committee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) also expressed concern with the targeted cuts to the social sciences. “This bill would essentially lock the agencies into their current funding levels for an additional year and sets no path for increases in the future as our economy continues to recover,” said Johnson. “I am also adamantly opposed to the sharp budget cuts for the social sciences and the geosciences. There is no legitimate scientific reason for these cuts. These are politically motivated cuts to appease a conservative ideology that doesn’t believe in certain kinds of science, and I cannot support them.”
Research and Technology Subcommittee Ranking Member Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) warned of research stagnation. “Given the investments made by other nations, we cannot afford to be satisfied with the level of funding for the sciences in this country,” said Lipinski. “To rest on our laurels or to allow funding levels to stagnate too long will allow other nations to catch and surpass the US as the preeminent nation for scientific research.”
The subcommittee did adopt several amendments from Democrats. An amendment from Ranking Member Lipinski increased social science funding by $50 million and several amendments from Rep. Christian Kilmer (D-WA) to promote participation from women and minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields.
View the CNSF letter here.
View the full mark-up here.
Introduced in House
H.R. 4159, the America COMPETES Reauthorization of 2014 – Introduced by House Science Space and Technology Committee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), the bill would reauthorize federal scientific research agencies and initiatives first authorized through the America COMPETES Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-69). The original bill, aimed at increasing US federal investment in scientific research and improving the nation’s global competitiveness, was last reauthorized in 2010.
H.R. 4159 authorizes five percent year over year increases in funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The bill also seeks to increase participation among women and minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education and in STEM-related fields of work. The bill would reauthorize these programs through FY 2018.
Additional information on the bill is available here.
Approved by House Committee/Subcommittee
On March 13, the House Agriculture Committee approved the following bill:
H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013 – Introduced by Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH), the bill would prohibit the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from requiring pesticide users needing a permit under the Clean Water Act to spray pesticides over navigable waters. Pesticide users contend permit requirements are covered through the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. The bill was unanimously approved by voice vote.
On March 13, the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Technology approved the following bill:
H.R. 4186, the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology (FIRST) Act – Introduced by House, Science, Space and Technology Research and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Larry Buschon (R-IN), the bill would reauthorizes spending levels and set priorities for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) through FY 2016. The bill increases NSF funding by 1.5 percent and NIST by one percent.
Several Democratic amendments were adopted, including language to boost funding for social sciences and improve participation in STEM programs among underrepresented groups. The committee approved the bill by voice vote.
H.R. 2197, the York River Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2014 – Introduced by Rep. Chellie Pingree (R-NY), the bill would designate parts of the York River and its tributaries for study to potentially be added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The bill passed the House March 4 by voice vote.
H.R. 2259, the Northfolk Watershed Protection Act of 2014 – Introduced by Rep. Steve Daines (R-MT), the bill prohibits mining claims and oil and gas development in Montana’s North Fork Watershed. The bill passed the House March 4 by voice vote.
H.R. 2126, the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act – Introduced by Rep. David McKinley (R-WV), the bill would establish a voluntary Tenant Star program to encourage energy efficiency in leased buildings. The bill includes provisions and standards to establish various energy efficiency standards for federal and commercial buildings. The bill passed the House March 5 by a vote of 375-36.
H.R. 2641, the Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development Act – Introduced by Tom Marino (R-PA), the bill would mandate a four and a half year deadline to complete the National Environmental Policy Act review process, including an 18-month maximum for the environmental assessment and a 36 month maximum for an environmental impact statement. It would also place a 180 day limit on for challenging an agency’s environmental review. The bill passed Mar. 6 by a vote of 229-179 with 12 Democrats joining all Republicans in supporting the measure.
The White House Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 2641 is available here.
H.R. 3826, the Electricity Security and Affordability Act – Introduced by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), the bill would prohibit EPA from implementing greenhouse gas emission standards for new fossil fuel-fired power plants unless separate such emission standards were also established for coal and natural gas plants. It would also prohibit EPA from requiring pollution standards on new coal plants unless such requirements have already been broadly adopted and are being achieved independently by at least six US power plants for 12 continuous months. The bill passed the House March 6 by a vote of 229-183 with 10 Democrats joining all but three Republicans in supporting the measure.
The White House Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 3826 is available here.
H.R. 311, the Farmers Undertake Environmental Land Stewardship Act – Introduced by Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR), the bill would certain exempt farmers from EPA’s Spill, Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Rule requiring farmers to have a spill prevention plan certified by a professional engineer. The bill would allow farmers who store less than 20,000 gallons to self-certify their own spill prevention plans. The bill passed the House March 11 by voice vote.
H.R. 3189, the Water Rights Protection Act – Introduced by Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO), the bill would prohibit the Departments of Agriculture and Interior from conditioning water use in the permitting process for land use permits. The bill passed the House March 13 by a vote of 238-174 with 12 Democrats joining all Republicans in supporting the measure.
The White House Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 3189 is available here.
Signed into law
S. 23, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Conservation and Recreation Act – Introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), the law designates about 30,000 acres within Michigan’s Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore as federally protected wilderness. The president signed the bill into law March 13.
Sources: American Association for the Advancement of Science, ClimateWire, Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, Energy and Environment Daily, E&E News PM, Environmental Protection Agency, Greenwire, the Hill, House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Committee, the Hill, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, the White House