House Staff Analysis Finds Uneven Support For Federal Research & Development Programs in President’s Budget

The House Science Committee Democratic staff today released its analysis of
the President’s FY2002 budget request for R&D programs, which highlights
substantial departures from the Clinton Administration’s overall policies
for R&D. Four major themes emerge from the analysis:

• The trend toward parity between defense and non-defense R&D,
  nearly achieved in FY 2001, has ended;
• The existing imbalance between biomedical R&D and R&D in the
  physical sciences has become much more pronounced;
• The budget request stops in its tracks a growing consensus that
  the NSF budget should grow by at least at the same rate as the NIH budget;
  and
• Cooperative Federal-industry R&D programs fare poorly in the
  budget submission.

“These budget cuts are an outrage,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, the Ranking
Democratic Member of the Energy Subcommittee, in commenting on the budget’s
treatment of renewable energy programs. “President Bush said in his State
of the Union that he was committed to renewable energy. By slashing
renewable energy programs by more than a third, however, the only commitment
the President’s budget shows is to providing a tax break for billionaires at
all costs.”

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, the Ranking Democratic Member of the Research
Subcommittee, said, “We cannot allow inadequate funding to cripple NSF’s
efforts in education and research. Today we continue to have manpower
shortages in many high technology fields. The ideal way to alleviate the
shortages is by ensuring that children of all races and both genders receive
the basic grounding in science and mathematics that will prepare them to
pursue careers as scientists, engineers and technologists. Industry will
under-invest in basic research because individual companies cannot capture
the full benefits of advances in fundamental knowledge that come from
funding basic research.”

The request reverses a steady 15-year march toward parity between defense
and non-defense programs over successive administrations. Only substantial
increases in the NIH budget request keeps the defense and non-defense
requests even comparable.

The imbalance in R&D funding between biomedical and physical sciences has
been noted by a variety of university groups, industry organizations, Newt
Gingrich, D. Allan Bromley (Science Advisor in the elder Bush
administration) and former NIH director Harold Varmus. They are concerned
that economic growth, as well as biomedical medical research itself, will
suffer if better balance is not maintained in the R&D portfolio.

The National Science Foundation budget, started on a five-year doubling
track in the 2001 appropriations process, is derailed by the
Administration’s request. H.R. 1472, which would double NSF’s budget over
five years, has been introduced by 16 members of the House.

The Council on Competitiveness, the Progressive Policy Institute, and others
have found that one of the great and unique strengths of the U.S. economy is
the ability of its academic, governmental, and industrial sectors to form
collaborative partnerships in cutting-edge R&D.

The analysis is attached.

###

Attachment

THE PRESIDENT’S FY2002 BUDGET

FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

ANALYSIS BY THE MINORITY STAFF OF THE SCIENCE COMMITTEE

APRIL 10, 2001

I. INTRODUCTION

Notes on this Analysis

Unless indicated otherwise, all amounts refer to budget authority.
This analysis focuses primarily on research and development funding for
Federal departments and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Science
Committee, including:

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
• National Science Foundation (NSF)
• Department of Energy (DOE)
• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
• Department of Transportation (DOT)

Other R&D-performing agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), the Department of Interior (DOE), and the Department of Agriculture,
are also covered in brief.

The Overall FY 2002 Budget

The President’s overall budget submission calls for $1,961 billion
in outlays and $2,192 in receipts for a projected FY2002 unified surplus of
$231 billion. Of the $660.7 billion requested for discretionary budget
authority, $95.253 billion is for research and development (R&D). The
comparable outlay figures are $691.7 billion and $87.2 billion. Thus, R&D
outlays as a percentage of discretionary outlays will be 12.6 percent, a
figure that has remained relatively constant since the early 1970’s. (See
table at end of document for Agency-by-Agency breakdowns)

Four Major Themes in the FY 2002 R&D Budget

The budget proposes to invest $95.253 billion for R&D, including
facilities, in FY2002, an increase of $5.2 billion or six percent above
FY2001. Civilian R&D would increase by three percent, defense R&D by eight
percent. The budget proposes a six percent increase in basic R&D and a four
percent increase in civilian applied R&D.

Four themes are apparent from the R&D request.

First, the request reverses the trend toward parity between defense
and non-defense R&D that was nearly achieved in FY 2001. In FY 1987 defense
R&D was funded at nearly double the rate of civilian R&D. The end of the
Cold War led to a steady narrowing of the gap every year from FY 1987
through FY 2001, when defense R&D ($45.6 billion) barely exceeded civilian
R&D ($45.3 billion). It was in fact a policy goal of the Clinton White
House to achieve, at a minimum, parity for civilian R&D funding. The FY
2002 budget submission is the first budget in 15 years to reverse the trend.
Outlays for defense R&D are projected to be $42.0 billion while non-defense
R&D is estimated at $36.3 billion. Only the large increase in the request
for NIH keeps the budget request for defense R&D ($48.7 billion) and
non-defense R&D ($46.5 billion) even roughly comparable. Given the
non-threatening state of the former Soviet Union and the importance of
civilian R&D to economic competitiveness, the tilt back toward the Cold War
defense/non-defense R&D ratio seems misplaced. More than anything, it may
be a reflection of the fact that the President has yet to fill the post of
Presidential Science Advisor.

Second, the unbalance between biomedical R&D and R&D in the physical
sciences is further exacerbated in the budget submission. If there has been
a unifying message over the past three years from those concerned with
federal R&D funding, it has been the warning that biomedical research itself
will suffer if its funding level overwhelms the funding of the physical
sciences. This message has been preached by university groups, industry
organizations like the National Association of Manufacturers, Newt Gingrich,
D. Allan Bromley (George Bush’s science advisor from 1989-93), and even
Harold Varmus, the former Director of NIH. But the message has gone
unheeded in this White House. The President’s FY 2002 budget provides a
$2.751 billion increase for NIH. All other civilian R&D programs receive a
$1.2 billion reduction. NIH would dole out 59 percent of all civilian
funding for basic research in FY 2002, an increase of 4 percent in the last
two years alone and an increase of over 20 percent in the last 20 years.

Last week, the Senate approved the amendment by Senator Christopher
Bond (R-MO) to the FY 2002 Budget Resolution to increase FY 2002 funding for
NSF, NASA and DOE by $1.44 billion. The Bond amendment is a serious signal
that Congress intends to redress the growing imbalance in Federal R&D
funding. Congressional action will be critical, since the Administration’s
cuts in non-biomedical R&D, in conjunction with its failure to appoint top
civilian science officials throughout the government, suggests a lack of
interest in funding the research necessary to drive future technological
advances and ultimately our economy.

Third, the budget submission stops in its tracks a growing consensus
that the NSF budget should grow at least at the same rate as the NIH budget.
NSF was put on a five-year doubling path in the FY 2001 appropriations
process, and a continued commitment to that doubling is embodied in the Bond
amendment, policy statements by the Senate Appropriations Committee, and
H.R. 1472, introduced in the House on April 4 by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson
and 15 other Members of the House Science Committee. Despite this growing
consensus, the budget proposes to cut NSF’s R&D activities by $55 million in
FY 2002, completely derailing the five-year doubling path that was started
in FY 2001.

Fourth, cooperative Federal-industry R&D programs fare poorly in the
budget submission. Two theories of R&D cooperation have competed in recent
years. One theory, promoted by the Council on Competitiveness, the
Progressive Policy Institute, and others, holds that one of the great and
unique strengths of the U.S. economy is the ability of its academic,
governmental, and industrial sectors to form collaborative partnerships in
cutting-edge R&D. The other view propounded by the Cato Institute and the
post-1994 Republican revolutionaries in the House of Representatives, holds
that joint Federal-industry R&D efforts are wasteful examples of corporate
welfare. This budget submission tilts strongly back toward the latter view.
Several program cuts exemplify this new tilt, including suspension and
probable termination of the Advanced Technology Program, slashing of
cooperative energy efficiency programs at the Department of Energy, and
targeting of the Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle program.

II. AGENCY BUDGETS UNDER SCIENCE COMMITTEE JURISDICTION

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The NASA budget proposal, which would provide $14.512 billion in FY
2002, is status quo at best. This request represents a 1.8 percent increase
over the FY 2001 appropriation of $14.254 billion. Funding for the
out-years would grow at a modest rate, with funding for FY 2006 projected to
be $16.073 billion (a total increase of about 10.8 percent over the
five-year period). The multi-year NASA budget run-out would barely keep
pace with inflation and in all likelihood would lose ground to the higher
rate of inflation typically prevalent in the aerospace sector. Of the
$14.512 billion, 50.3 percent would be allocated to Human Space Flight. The
Administration’s NASA budget request proposes no major new initiatives in FY
2002.

Overall, NASA would receive a percentage increase that is less than
half the average increase proposed for the Federal government’s
discretionary accounts. The message for specific accounts is equally
disappointing. For example, in order to fit within an arbitrary budget
envelope, the International Space Station (ISS) program is being directed to
delete or indefinitely defer the very content that is needed to make it a
useful research facility; namely, the Crew Return Vehicle, the Habitation
Module, and forty percent of the Station’s research budget facility are
slated to be curtailed or eliminated. In addition, a set of solar arrays
and the life sciences centrifuge may be negatively impacted or eliminated.

The ISS would receive $2.087 billion in FY 2002, a decrease of $25.5
million, reflecting the near completion of the development program. Over
the five-year period FY 2002-2006, the Administration would devote roughly
the same amount of resources as was provided in the previous
Administration’s FY 2001 run-out budget. Funding for the Crew Return
Vehicle would no longer be tabulated in the Aerospace Technology account but
instead returned to the Human Space Flight account. The Space Shuttle
program would receive a 5.3 percent increase in FY 2002, but then be cut by
two percent in FY 2003.

The Space Science account would be increased by 6.2 percent.
However, the Pluto-Kuiper mission and the Solar Probe missions would be
cancelled. In the area of Biological and Physical Research, the budget
would be cut by almost five percent relative to the FY 2001 level. The
Earth Science program would be cut by almost 12 percent. Aerospace
Technology (which includes the Space Launch Initiative) would be increased
by 7.3 percent (about $161 million). Since the second generation Reusable
Launch Vehicle (RLV) program will receive a $200 million increase in FY
2002, it is clear that some existing programs will be cut. Due to the
merged nature of the Aerospace Technology accounts, it is difficult at this
point to ascertain what level of resources will be allocated to aeronautics
R&D, although the budget blueprint stated that some “lower priority”
aeronautics programs would be eliminated

National Science Foundation

The President’s FY 2002 budget proposal for NSF is $4.472 billion,
which is $56 million, or 1.3 percent, above the appropriations level
(Current Plan) for FY 2001.

The FY 2002 funding level for Research and Related Activities (R&RA)
is $3.327 billion, which is $16 million (- 0.5 percent) below the FY 2001
appropriations level. For the 30 disciplinary divisions within the six
research directorates, 23 received cuts or zero growth, four received growth
of less than two percent, and three received growth exceeding inflation:
Mathematical Sciences (+$20 million or 16.5 percent), Electrical &
Communications Systems (+$3 million or 5.8 percent), and Astronomical
Sciences (+$7.6 million or 5.1 percent). Funding is proposed to start six
to eight new Science and Technology Centers (+$27 million or 41 percent) and
to maintain growth for the Nanotechnology Initiative (+$24 million or 16
percent) and the Biocomplexity Initiative (+$3.2 million or five percent).
The Information Technology Initiative is held constant, and the Major
Research Instrumentation program is cut (-$25 million or 33 percent).

The FY 2002 funding level for the base Education and Human Resources
(EHR) programs is $872 million, which is $87 million (+11 percent) above the
FY 2001 appropriations level. The H-1B program receipts for FY 2002
(designated for undergraduate scholarships, $86 million, and K-12 science
education programs, $58 million) are expected to be $144 million, which is
$23 million (+19 percent) above FY 2001. The total for EHR is then $1.016
billion (+12 percent). The main budget change is the allocation of $200
million to fund the President’s Math and Science Partnerships between
institutions of higher education and K-12 school systems. To accommodate
this initiative requires reprogramming $113 million, mainly by reducing
Education System Reform by $65 million (-59 percent) and Elementary,
Secondary and Informal Education by $37 million (-18 percent). Graduate
Education is increased by $8 million to accommodate increases in graduate
student stipends. Programs targeted for underrepresented groups, education
research, and education program evaluation receive slight cuts, and
undergraduate education programs are reduced by $8 million (-6 percent).

The FY 2002 funding level for Major Research Equipment (MRE) is
$96.3 million, which is $25 million (-21 percent) below the FY 2001
appropriations level. Funding is provided neither to begin construction of
the millimeter array nor for follow-on for the HIAPER. The third Terascale
Computing Systems project ($55 million), the Large Hadron Collider ($16
million), and the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation ($28
million) are funded.

Department of Energy

Office of Science. The budget request includes $3.160 billion in FY
2002 for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, a decrease of $19
million from the FY 2001 appropriation. While most accounts show minor
increases, two are cut. Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
receives $443 million, a reduction of $50 million or 10 percent. The
majority of this cut is the $45 million reduction to the Medical
Applications and Measurement science line. The Fusion Energy Sciences line
is reduced to $238 million, which is $11 million or 4.4 percent below
current levels. The Department plans to submit a budget amendment to
increase the Fusion account by $10 million with offsets from High Energy
Physics, Advanced Scientific Computing Research, and Program Direction.

The DOE High-Energy Physics program includes $54 million for the
U.S. contribution to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and $11.4 million for
the Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) project. In addition, the
High-Energy Physics Facilities account is increased $20.0 million to $456.8
million. This increase is offset by a $20.9 million decrease to the
Construction line due to the completion or near completion of three
projects.

The request for Basic Energy Sciences includes $276.3 million for
construction of the Spallation Neutron Source, compared to $258.9 million in
FY 2001, and flat funding of $36.2 million for continued support of the
national nanotechnology program.

Nuclear Energy. Nuclear Energy R&D has been reduced 9.3 percent
from $246 million in FY 2001 to $223 million in FY 2002, including a 48
percent reduction in the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative to $18.1
million, a 40 percent reduction in the Nuclear Energy Technologies program
to $4.5 million, and a 9.8 percent reduction in the cost-shared Nuclear
Energy Plant Optimization program to $4.5 million.

Renewable Energy Resources. The FY 2002 budget request for
renewable energy resources is $237.5 million, a 36.4 percent decrease from
the FY 2001 appropriation of $373.2 million. Cuts of nearly 50 percent are
proposed in geothermal technology development, hydrogen research (both $13.9
million in FY2002 from $26.9 million in FY2001), and hydropower programs
($2.5 million in FY2002 down from $5.0 million in FY2001). These cuts, if
enacted, will put many of these programs in imminent peril by reducing them
below sustainable levels. This is particularly distressing at a time when
R&D work on renewable technologies needs to be supported more than ever to
help assist in any plan to overcome future energy shortfalls.

Solar energy is especially hit hard, funded at $42.9 million, a cut
of $49.7 million or 54 percent. In particular, the concentrating solar
power program is scheduled for a cut of nearly 86 percent from $13.7 million
in FY2001 to $1.9 million in FY2002. Electric energy systems and storage
programs are slated to be cut by one-third to a level of $33.9 million from
$51.7 million in FY2001, while the Renewable Support and Implementation line
is to be cut by over 75 percent from the current level of $21.5 million to
the request of $5.1 million. As for the sole bright spot, the budget
request for infrastructure upgrading at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory is up by 25 percent to $5 million.

The administration has indicated it intends to send to Congress an
amendment that will add nearly $40 million to renewable energy programs. It
is unclear how DOE would distribute these additional funds among the
programs. Even with this add-back, these program budgets will still face a
cut of more than 25 percent.

Conservation. The energy conservation R&D budget request for FY
2002 is $555.9 million, a 22.5 percent cut from the FY 2001 level of $430.6
million. R&D program requests in the building sector, the industry sector,
and the transportation sector are cut by 46.3, 41.0, and 6.3 percent,
respectively. Industry sector programs target the most energy intensive
industries where the potential for substantial reduction in energy
consumption remains high.

The budget request for all energy conservation programs is $794.9
million, a decrease of 2.5 percent from the comparable 2001 appropriation.
The budget reflects a 78.9 percent increase in weatherization grants for a
FY 2002 request of $273.0 million.

Fossil Energy Research and Development. The request for the Fossil
Energy R&D program is $449.0 million, a decrease of 17.1 percent from the
comparable FY 2001 appropriation of $541.5 million. However, the actual
effect of the decrease is disguised by the addition of a major new program,
the Clean Coal Power Initiative, for which $150.0 million has been
requested. If the Coal Initiative is disregarded, the decreases to the
other Fossil Energy R&D programs average nearly 45 percent. Fuels and power
systems programs were reduced more than 50 percent to $159.8 million from
the current level of $324.0 million. The budget, as proposed, raises major
questions about the administration’s commitment to bringing on new
technologies to enable production of domestic oil and gas in complex
horizons.

The distributed generation-fuel cell program is reduced nearly 15
percent to $45.1 million. The only increase in this program is for carbon
sequestration, which is up 10 percent to $20.7 million. Gas and petroleum
programs also took hits of more than 50 percent with requests of $21 million
and $30.5 million respectively, while the cooperative R&D program was
eliminated. Plant and capital equipment expenditures will be down nearly 50
percent to $2.0 million. Fossil energy environmental restoration is down
nearly five percent at a level of $9.5 million.

The administration describes this budget as a “work-in-progress.”
It is hoped that Vice President Cheney’s Energy Policy Task Force will
recognize the gross deficiencies in this budget request, and that their
findings will force the administration to generously supplement this budget
bringing their budget priorities more in line with their commitment to
increase energy supply.

Department of Commerce

NIST. The Technology Administration, which includes NIST, receives
a substantial decrease due to the suspension of the Advanced Technology
Program (ATP). The request includes flat funding of $8 million for the
Office of the Under Secretary for Technology to fund continuing policy
development, analyses and evaluation. FY 2002 funding for the ATP program
is reduced from $191 million to $13 million. The President proposes
suspending the granting of new awards in FY 2002 pending an evaluation of
the program. Resources available in FY 2002 will be used to pay for prior
year awards and administrative costs in the interim. The internal
laboratory program at NIST receives an 11 percent increase. However, this
was initially predicated upon the termination of the ATP program so this
increase may be adjusted downward. Within this increase a number of new
initiatives have been proposed, but are not detailed in the budget request.
The request includes $106 million for the Manufacturing Extension Program.
This is a $5 million decrease from FY2001, which will permit neither
expansion of the current system nor any new initiatives. The request freezes
funding for maintenance at the Boulder/Gaithersburg campuses, with no new
funding for the dire renovation needs of the Boulder campus. Finally, the
request provides no funding for the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS). Congress has mandated that NTIS be self-sufficient, but it is
becoming increasingly difficult for NTIS to operate without an
appropriation. The Administration has included no plans on how to resolve
this issue.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The overall budget
request for NOAA is $3.15 billion, an increase of $61 million or two
percent. The Oceans and Atmospheric Research (OAR) budget of $340.8 million
is a cut of $10.4 million from FY2001 levels. The bulk of this cut is the
result of the elimination of STORM (Univ. of Iowa), a 33 percent decrease
for marine environmental research, a 12 percent decrease in the National
Undersea Research Program, and the completion of construction of both the
Norman Consolidation Project and the University of New Hampshire facilities.
Despite these cuts, total funding for the Climate and Air Quality Account is
increased by 10 percent and Atmospheric Program funding is increased by 7.5
percent. The National Weather Service enjoys a five percent increase to a
level of $727.6 million. The National Environmental Satellite, Data, and
Information Service is increased by 15 percent from $640 million in FY2001
to $738 million in the request. Nonetheless, there are some significant cuts
within the account. Funding for Environmental Data Management Systems is
cut by 14 percent — including the elimination of the regional climate
centers.

Environmental Protection Agency

The Administration request for EPA’s Office of Research and
Development (ORD) is $679 million or 7.2 percent below the current estimate
for FY 2001 and $4 million below the FY2000 actual amount. In inflation
adjusted dollars, this provides ORD with less funding than it received in
FY1981, before the Reagan cuts of the early 1980’s. It is important to note
that the Administration is not calling for any significant additional
funding for research at the same time that it is decrying the lack of
credible science on which to base decisions on regulation of carbon dioxide
or arsenic. Indeed, the request reduces the amount of funding for climate
change research at a time when a bipartisan group of House Science Committee
members agrees that more research is needed.

Department of Transportation

The President’s FY 2002 budget request for the FAA RE&D activity is
$188 million, which is $1 million (+0.5 percent) above the FY 2001
appropriations level. Funding for the subcategories within RE&D essentially
track last year’s levels, except for Environment and Energy (includes
aircraft noise programs), which is doubled to $8 million.

Fire Administration

The President’s FY 2002 budget request for the U.S. Fire
Administration (USFA) is $50 million, which is $6 million (+13.6 percent)
above the FY 2001 appropriations level. In addition, $100 million, the same
as the FY 2001 appropriation, is proposed to fund a second set of awards
under the Fire Grants Program, which is administered by USFA. The budget
proposes $5 million for a new fire safety initiative to increase awareness
of fire hazards by high-risk populations. The Salaries and Expenses account
is increased by $1 million (11 percent), which will help offset a portion of
the burden of administering the Fire Grants program. The USFA is housed in
the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

III. AGENCY BUDGETS OUTSIDE THE SCIENCE COMMITTEE’S JURISDICTION

Department of Defense

While details of the Administration’s request for Defense R&D are
included in the budget, they are prefaced with a statement that the levels
may change due to the ongoing top-down review. Clarification may not be
available until late spring.

In aggregate terms, the Administration is requesting a total of
$48.7 billion for defense-related R&D, $45.2 billion in the Department of
Defense and approximately $3.5 billion to support the defense research
activities within the Department of Energy. This total represents an eight
percent increase over FY 2001. The bulk of the increase in defense R&D is
for a new $2.6 billion R&D Initiative Transfer Account thought to be for the
National Missile Defense (NMD) program. The remainder of defense R&D
programs received an increase of $967 million or two percent.

Health and Human Services

The budget request for R&D at the Department of HHS is up $2.5
billion or 12 percent, to $23.3 billion. Of this, the increase for NIH is
$2.75 billion, meaning the rest of HHS received a nominal cut of $243
million. Of special note is the $174 million cut to the Center for Disease
Control (CDC) which lowers the request to $3.9 billion. The request assumes
lower spending on chronic disease prevention and health promotion of $175
million.

Department of the Interior

Total budget authority for he Department of Interior budget request,
including trust funds, is $10 billion, three percent below current funding.
A majority of the reduction is due to cancellation of one-time emergency
expenditures, such as fire costs. However, the request includes $658.4
million for wildlife fire management, which the agency says is twice the
historical level.

Funding for the U.S. Geological Survey is $813.4 million, a decrease
of $69.4 million, or 7.9 percent. Two of the three major science lines in
USGS are decreased. Biological research is cut $11.3 million, to $149.3
million, with most of the decrease coming from terminating the National
Biological Information Infrastructure program and dropping maintenance for
biological information web sites. The Geologic Hazards, Resources and
Processes account is reduced by $14 million to $214 million, a 6.1 percent
cut. This reduction includes a $3.0 million cut to the Global Change
program. Only Science Support sees a boost going from the current level of
$74 million to $81 million, a 9.5 percent increase.

Department of Agriculture

Due to the Administration’s announced effort to end all
Congressional earmarks, the USDA R&D budget request was cut by $158 million
or 8.1 percent to a level of $1.8 billion.

IV. INTER-AGENCY INITIATIVES

Global Change

The FY2002 research budget for the U.S. Global Change Research
Program is $1.630 billion, a decrease of $75 million or four percent. This
account includes climate R&D funding from nine Federal agencies. It is
ironic that the Bush Administration is reversing the growth trend in this
account at a time when the President has signaled his concern with the
scientific basis for the theory of global warming.

Networking and Information Technology R&D

The Networking and Information technology R&D initiative of seven
different agencies is funded at $1.969 billion, an increase of $26 million
or one percent when offsetting collections by the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality are taken into account.

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)

NEHRP is a multi-agency effort funded by FEMA, USGS, NSF, and NIST.
The budget does not specifically address all of the activities funded within
NEHRP, but the participating agencies have highlighted a few earthquake
hazards reduction programs.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requests $19 million
for mitigation programs to eliminate or reduce the long-term risk to life
and property from natural and technological hazards, such as earthquakes and
hurricanes. This is 54 percent decrease from its current level of $46
million. Within USGS, the National Mapping Program is cut $6.7 from $130.4
million currently to $123.7 million in FY2002 and Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes is cut $11.5 million from $225.3 million currently
to $213.8 million in 2001. The George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation sponsored by the National Science Foundation has
requested $24.4 million in FY 2002 (down from the $28.1 million
appropriation in FY 2001) to upgrade, modernize, and expand network
facilities.

The following table is a portion of Table 7-2 (“Federal Research and
Development Spending”) in the Analytical Perspectives volume of the
President’s budget submission. It provides a comparison between FY 2001 and
FY 2001 of Federal agency R&D funding.

Source: Office of Management and Budget

*FY 2002 entries for DoD research represent a projection from the enacted
FY2001 levels plus inflation. The entry includes $2.6 billion for the R&D
initiative. FY2002 levels are subject to change as a result of the Defense
Strategy Review now underway.