update
President Bush's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget:
New Priorities Needed
 President George W. Bush recently released his comprehensive budget request for fiscal year 2005 (FY05). Unfortunately, the administration’s defense budget continues along a dangerous path reinforcing plans to deploy an untested missile defense system, develop new nuclear weapons capabilities, and neglect urgent efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation. And while the administration’s requests for renewable energy resources, clean vehicles tax credits, hydrogen energy research, and cleaner school buses address some of the nation’s energy and transportation needs, they fail to recognize the long-term size and scope required to ensure a cleaner, more secure energy future.
This update summarizes some security, energy, and vehicles issues in the proposed budget.
Missile Defense
Nuclear Weapons
Preventing Nuclear Terrorism
Energy Efficiency
Renewable Energy
Clean School Buses
Clean Vehicle Tax Incentives
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles and Infrastructure
Missile Defense
At $10.7 billion—a nearly 20 percent increase over last year—ballistic missile defense remains the single largest program in the overall defense budget of $420.7 billion. (This overall total does not include funding for the ongoing war in Iraq and is an increase of 7.9 percent over last year.) The FY05 budget indicates that the administration intends to expand and accelerate its plans to deploy a missile defense—including a potential third deployment site—even though it has yet to be tested under realistic conditions. Despite previous assertions that the Missile Defense Agency would put off space-based missile defense activities due to technical challenges, the FY05 budget includes development activities on a space-based interceptor test bed.
Nuclear Weapons
Last year after much debate, Congress attempted to curtail the administration’s most controversial nuclear weapons programs to develop new nuclear weapons capabilities and increase the readiness to resume nuclear weapons tests if so directed. Despite clear concerns expressed by Congress, this year’s nuclear weapons budget requests more funds in these areas. Additionally, even in the face of repeated demands from Congress, the administration has yet to clarify the size and structure of its nuclear “Stockpile Plan.” Thus, despite the much-touted strategic “reductions” under the 2002 Moscow Treaty (the treaty does not actually call for the elimination of a single warhead or delivery system in Russia or the United States), the U.S. nuclear stockpile remains unchanged.
Preventing Nuclear Terrorism
The Bush administration’s total budget request (involving three different agencies) for non-proliferation programs designed to prevent terrorists from acquiring the technology, materials, and essential knowledge related to nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction totals $1.95 billion—approximately equal to the increase in missile defense funds from FY04 to FY05. Of particular concern, the Energy Department has cut efforts to accelerate the purchase and blend-down of Russian highly enriched uranium (HEU). This program should be regarded as one of the most urgent priorities, as HEU is especially attractive to terrorist groups because it can be readily used to make a simple nuclear weapon.
Energy Efficiency
The proposed funding for all energy efficiency programs is $876 million—the same level as actual funding in FY04. UCS applauds the 18 percent increase in funding for the low-income weatherization program and the specified funding in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) successful Energy Star program. However, the budget also proposes cuts in funding for important energy efficiency programs such as equipment standards, state energy programs, and the federal energy management program. As our nation faces soaring natural gas prices and over-reliance on unstable and polluting energy sources, this is the time for across-the-board increases in efficiency funding that will save consumers money, create jobs, and cut pollution.
Renewable Energy
The proposed budget includes $375 million for the Department of Energy's (DOE) renewable energy programs. While this is about the same level as last year, it remains a woefully inadequate commitment to projects aimed at increasing the generation of electricity from clean renewable sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and bioenergy. The mature, polluting fossil fuel industry receives nearly twice as much DOE funding despite the fact that investing more in renewable energy would improve our energy security, save consumers money, boost rural economies, and cut global warming pollution. UCS calls for a doubling of the DOE renewable energy budget to help our country shift to a smarter, cleaner energy future. The budget also proposes cutting more than half of the $23 million in renewable energy and energy efficiency funding that Congress included in the 2002 Farm Bill (HR 2646, sec. 9006). The proposed cut would hurt farmers, ranchers, and small rural businesses by shrinking a grant and loan program that supports energy efficiency improvements and the purchase of renewable energy systems such as wind turbines, solar electric panels, and biomass production equipment. At a time when many people in rural communities face economic challenges, funding these projects would help establish an additional income source for landowners, create jobs, and lower energy costs for rural consumers. When the Bush administration made a similar attempt to slash this program last year, UCS worked with coalition partners to successfully restore the full $23 million during the congressional appropriations process. We will push for full funding of the program again this year.
Clean School Buses
One of the few good provisions in the administration's budget is $65 million in funding for the EPA to administer a national clean school bus program. UCS has been working with partners across the country to promote the passage of a $300 million multi-year grant program in Congress, where it is currently part of the stymied comprehensive energy bill. The administration's request would allow as many as 220 school districts across the country to replace or retrofit old, dirty school buses. While the president’s request is a modest first step toward tackling school bus pollution, we must continue to work with Congress and the president to secure a longer-term authorization of this program in order to convince states and school districts that the federal government will be a fiscal partner in this process over the long haul.
Clean Vehicle Tax Incentives
The administration calls for performance-based tax credits of up to $4,000 for certain hybrid vehicles and $8,000 for fuel cell vehicles. Unfortunately, the budget does not clarify how clean a vehicle has to be to be eligible for the credits, a key provision to ensure that vehicles that are “clean” in name only are not federally subsidized. UCS has been working to advance a comprehensive package of vehicle tax credits that ensure strong fuel economy and emissions performance of eligible vehicles. The package was included in the tax portion of the stalled energy bill. We are working to attach the package to other tax-related legislation in the coming weeks.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles and Infrastructure
Hundreds of millions of dollars are proposed for research and development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in the administration budget. What is missing is a coherent policy vision to ensure that the money, if approved by Congress, is spent wisely. Fuel cells and hydrogen hold significant long-term promise, but this promise will only be realized if the nation pursues renewable sources of hydrogen. The administration's budget is heading in the wrong direction in that it provides significant increases in federal dollars for hydrogen production from fossil fuels and nuclear power. The UCS Clean Vehicles and Clean Energy programs will continue to work with Congress to ensure that federal dollars go toward the development of the cleanest fuel cell technology, renewable sources of hydrogen, and other vehicle technology improvements that will realize significant oil savings in the near term—not just 25 years from now. |
