|
February 13, 2006
Bush Administration FY07 Budget—Highlights and Lowlights
President George W. Bush recently released his comprehensive budget request for fiscal year 2007 (FY07). The FY07 request takes advantage of the budget deficit to cut a number of important environmental programs including several initiatives that would actually save taxpayers money. While there are a few positive developments, overall the budget fails to provide America with the means to build a cleaner, more secure future.
While the administration’s budget for solar energy resources, biomass research, hybrid technology and cleaner school buses address some of the nation’s energy and transportation requirements, the budget fails to provide the long-term solutions America needs. The Bush administration's budget also contains a number of anti-environmental requests. A backdoor attempt to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and funding cuts for agricultural programs and endangered species are just a few examples.
Also included in the budget request is funding to begin a costly and dangerous program to reprocess nuclear fuel from power reactors. This program would make it easier for terrorists to acquire the material needed to build a nuclear weapon. President Bush has also announced funding increases for federal research and development and math/science education under the American Competitiveness Initiative. UCS is concerned about the lack of emphasis the president has placed on the importance of independent science and we are currently analyzing the effect this will have on the health of U.S. science programs. Without a healthy respect for the scientific process and scientific integrity, the benefits of increased funding will be significantly limited.
The president's proposed budget now goes to the House and Senate where legislation will be passed to authorize the funding of various programs. UCS and our activists will work to oppose cuts to many of these programs and will support policies for a cleaner, healthier environment and a safer world.
Contents:
Clean Energy and Climate
Global Security
Clean Vehicles
Food and Environment
Global Environment
Clean Energy and Climate
Renewable Energy
Although the proposed budget boosts funding for solar power by 77 percent to $148 million and doubles biomass research programs to $150 million, research and development funding for geothermal and hydropower has been eliminated. The FY07 budget request for research and development for wind—the fastest growing energy source in the country—is $44 million. This is a $930,000 (2 percent) cut from last year’s request.
The 2007 budget also proposes cutting almost two-thirds of the $23 million designated for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs in the 2002 Farm Bill (HR 2646, Sec.9006). This cut would be harmful to farmers, ranchers, and small rural businesses. These people rely upon grant and loan programs to support energy efficiency improvements and the purchase of renewable energy systems including wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy sources. At a time when America's rural communities are facing economic challenges, funding renewable energy and energy efficiency projects would help establish an additional income source for landowners, create jobs, and lower energy costs for rural consumers. The Bush administration also attempted to slash this program in the 2005 and 2006 budget proposals. In both cases, UCS worked with coalition partners to successfully restore full funding during the congressional appropriations process. We will push for full funding of the program again this year.
Energy Efficiency
The cheapest, cleanest, fastest way to reduce our reliance on foreign and polluting energy sources is to increase energy efficiency. The administration’s FY07 budget, however, proposes an appalling decrease of $78 million (13 percent) in funding for federal energy efficiency programs. These programs not only reduce pollution, but also save consumers and businesses money. The proposed budget decreases funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program by $85 million (27 percent). Any cut to this program, which enables low and limited income residents to weatherize their homes, is unwise in this time of high energy prices. The weatherization program pays for itself by reducing winter heating bills by an average of 31 percent, or $274 per year. This money could be used to purchase food, medicine and other essentials. According to the National Community Action Foundation, 28,650 low-income families would be denied weatherization services in 2007 as a result of the proposed cut.
The budget proposal would also provide the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) two million dollars less than last year’s version (a 12 percent decrease). This program reduces energy use in federal buildings through energy efficiency. The cut to this program is puzzling because it helped cut federal building energy waste by 24 percent from 1985-2001—a reduction that now saves federal taxpayers roughly one billion dollars each year in reduced energy costs. At a time of rising budget deficits, the administration should not decrease support for a program that helps save taxpayers money.
Climate Change
In addition, the Bush administration has reduced support for several important climate change research programs. The proposed budget provides $1.7 billion for the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which coordinates federal research on climate change across 13 federal agencies. This represents a decrease of $200 million compared with last year’s budget request. The administration’s FY06 budget proposed a 40 percent ($118 million) reduction in funding for NASA's Earth Systematic Missions to study climate change. Although this year’s proposal includes a $47 million increase over last year’s proposed budget, it would restore only part of that money. UCS will work to fully restore funding for these programs.
Global Security
Missile Defense
Despite recent governmental reports critical of the U.S. ground-based anti-missile system and the inability of the Bush administration to activate it, the Pentagon has called for a dramatic increase in the missile defense budget. In the new defense budget, the request for missile defense is $10.4 billion—an increase of $1.7 billion from the current budget. With this request, missile defense will remain the highest funded weapons program in the annual Pentagon budget. UCS will work with congressional champions to reduce funding and improve testing for this ineffective, counterproductive program.
Nuclear Weapons
After Congress took steps to zero out the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) budget for the second year in a row, it appears the administration has gotten our message. There is no funding requested in the FY07 budget for the nuclear "bunker buster." This is a genuine victory: we have truly killed this unnecessary and misconceived nuclear weapons system, at least for the time being. UCS will continue to monitor the budget process in order to assure that RNEP receives no funding.
However, the administration has requested $27.7 million for a Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, up slightly from $24.8 million last year. This increasingly significant program will explore new, theoretically simpler designs for existing nuclear weapons and will require careful scrutiny. We are concerned that the RRW program could increase the chances of a return to nuclear testing and require an enormous, expensive commitment to a renewed capacity to build these redesigned weapons. UCS will work with members of Congress and scientists with knowledge about nuclear weapons to keep this program under tight controls.
Preventing Nuclear Terrorism
With great fanfare, the Bush administration launched a major new initiative on nuclear power focused on "reprocessing" the used (or "spent") fuel from nuclear power reactors. Reprocessing separates plutonium from other nuclear waste contained in spent nuclear fuel. The separated plutonium can be used to make nuclear weapons. Nearly three decades ago, the United States decided on non-proliferation grounds not to reprocess spent fuel from U.S. power reactors. However, under its new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the Bush administration is seeking $250 million in the current budget and will call for billions of dollars in the years to come to revive this abandoned idea. UCS will make it a priority to oppose any and all funds for reprocessing in the new budget.
In other areas, the administration modestly increased funding requests for efforts to decrease supplies and increase controls over nuclear-weapons usable materials in Russia and around the globe. We will focus our efforts on decreasing the amount of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) in Russia so that it cannot be used directly to make nuclear weapons.
Clean Vehicles
“Oil addiction” and budgetary realities
While we applaud President Bush's call to reduce U.S. oil dependence, the proposed budget will do virtually nothing to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. There are no incentives in the proposed budget for improving the fuel economy of today's cars and trucks. This is the best way to reduce oil dependence over the next 20 years. The relatively small increase in research dollars for hybrid technology ($6.7 million according to the White House) is positive, but is paltry in comparison with the size of the problem—the United States sends more than that overseas to pay for oil every 15 minutes.
Conventional & Advanced Passenger Vehicle Technologies
U.S. taxpayers have already made significant investments in improving conventional and hybrid vehicle technology. However, since the government has not pushed the industry, either through regulation or tax incentives, to create a more efficient fleet, the technology is increasingly being used by manufacturers to boost the power and performance of vehicles and not to reduce oil usage. This budget continues to make that mistake as there are budget cuts for conventional fuel-saving technologies and no incentives for their integration into automakers' fleets.
The small increase for hybrid technology research comes at the expense of other oil-saving technologies in the Vehicle Technologies program. This program is cut by $17 million to $166 million, a 9 percent cut. The increases for hydrogen research (up 26 percent or $41 million to $196 million) and biomass and biofuels research (up 65 percent or $65 million to $120 million) are also good steps. However, they are long-term research projects and there is no guarantee that the technology will be used to reduce emissions and oil use. The government needs to provide an effective suite of better incentives and stronger standards to ensure that research dollars will result in real progress.
Diesel Emissions Reduction
The enactment of both the National Clean School Bus Grant Program and the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) last year led to a significant increase in the administration’s budget request for diesel cleanup ($49.5 million). These funds will be dedicated to retrofitting and replacing school buses (funded last year at seven million dollars) as well as retrofitting construction equipment, locomotives, and other diesel equipment. Unfortunately, the administration cut $35 million from a fund for state and local air quality agencies, whose programs are essential to meeting clean air standards. In order for the goals of both DERA and the Clean School Bus Grant Program to be met, state and local air quality agencies need to be fully funded.
Food and Environment
Cuts to Conservation and Sustainable Agriculture Programs
The Bush administration's proposed budget cuts almost $400 million from much-needed U.S. Department of Agriculture conservation programs, which aid farmers and ranchers in implementing measures to improve the quality of air, water, soil, and habitat. For example, the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, which preserves agricultural lands under pressure of development, is victim to a 48 percent cut compared with its authorized level. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program is slashed by 35 percent while the Environmental Quality Incentives Program is cut by 21 percent. The administration’s 2007 budget provides the innovative Conservation Security Program, which provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers employing conservation practices on their whole farm, with less than half the funding authorized by Congress in the 2002 farm bill. The FY07 proposed budget does, however, fully fund one conservation program—the Wetlands Reserve Program. The $403 million dedicated to this program in the FY07 budget allows 250,000 acres of wetlands to be set aside from agricultural production.
The proposed budget also cuts funding nearly in half for Value-Added Producer Grants. This program aids agricultural producers who add value to their products through further processing. The budget proposal also shortchanges by 21 percent the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, a nationwide research and education grants program that advances farming systems that are profitable, environmentally sound, and good for communities.
Limits on Commodity Payments
The Administration does deserve praise for proposing limits on agricultural commodity payments. Many critics of US agricultural policy focus on commodity payments because:
- Roughly three-quarters of commodity payments go to the top 10 percent of recipients, with the richest farmers receiving around $470,000 each.
- Two thirds of American agricultural producers do not qualify for commodity payments because they do not grow “commodity” crops such as corn, soy, rice, and cotton. Fruits and vegetables are not commodity crops.
- Commodity farmers who grow more receive more money. Because of this, critics argue that commodity payments encourage recipients to consume more and more land in fencerow to fencerow monoculture. Commodity payments are not tied to protection of natural resources, energy conservation, or other such public benefits.
The president’s budget creates a cap on commodity payments, asking that no farmer receive more than $250,000 for producing these crops. Many leaders in the environmental community and the sustainable agriculture community support this proposal to limit commodity payments. Congress, on the other hand, is expected to strongly reject this proposal.
Global Environment
Endangered Species
The proposed budget decreases overall funding for endangered species programs by $6.7 million. Though the budget calls for slight increases for listing and consultation, funding for endangered species recovery is $7.6 million below 2006 levels. The budget also cuts funding for national wildlife refuges, even as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is desperately in need of more funds to repair more than $200 million in damage to refuges from last year's Gulf Coast hurricanes.
Invasive Species
UCS is keeping an eye on invasive species-related expenditures with a specific focus on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). This program monitors the importation of exotic diseases and pests. It also assists in the eradication of introduced invasive species. Specific detail on how these programs will be affected by the Bush administration's budget is not available at this time.
Arctic Wildlife Refuge
For the second consecutive year, the Bush administration’s proposed budget includes revenues from leasing the coastal plains of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil drilling. This approach is an attempt to block a full debate on the merits of drilling for oil in the pristine refuge. In accordance with Senate rules, the budget bills cannot be filibustered. Thus, it can pass with a simple majority, instead of the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster. If a budget resolution including proposed revenues from the refuge is passed, then language that will remove ANWR’s protection from drilling will be included in an overall budget reconciliation bill. Thanks to pressure from UCS, our activists, and other environmental organizations, a similar effort failed in 2005 after the House leadership removed the drilling provision from its reconciliation budget bill. |
