Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
Congressional research reportJan 12, 2010
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Federal Research and Development Funding:
FY2010
-name redacted-, Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
January 12, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R40710
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
Summary
In his FY2010 budget request, President Obama sought $147.620 billion for R&D, a $555 million
(0.4%) increase from the estimated FY2009 R&D funding level of $147.065 billion (not
including FY2009 R&D funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(P.L. 111-5). According to the Obama Administration, preliminary allocations of R&D funding
provided under P.L. 111-5 brought total FY2009 R&D funding to $165.400 billion. Unless
otherwise noted in this report, comparisons of FY2009 and FY2010 R&D funding do not
incorporate funding provided under P.L. 111-5. To the extent possible, the agency discussions in
this report include an analysis of House and Senate actions with respect to R&D funding. In some
cases, however, there is insufficient information to parse agency R&D funding from other
spending to determine precise agency funding levels; estimated funding levels are provided for
these agencies.
Congress continues to play a central role in defining the nation’s R&D priorities, especially with
respect to two overarching issues: the extent to which the Federal R&D investment can grow in
the context of increased pressure on discretionary spending and how available funding will be
prioritized and allocated. A low or negative growth rate in the overall R&D investment may
require movement of resources across disciplines, programs, or agencies to address priorities.
Six federal agencies received 95.1% of total federal R&D spending in the President’s FY2010
request: the Department of Defense (54.0%), Department of Health and Human Services (21.0%),
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (7.7%), Department of Energy (7.3%), National
Science Foundation (3.6%), and Department of Agriculture (1.5%). The President’s FY2010
request included $30.884 billion for basic research; $28.139 billion for applied research; $84.054
billion for development; and $4.543 billion for R&D facilities and equipment. The FY2010
request included funding for three multiagency R&D initiatives: National Nanotechnology
Initiative, $1.637 billion; Networking and Information Technology R&D program, $3.927 billion;
and Climate Change Science Program, $2.026 billion.
President Obama requested increases in the R&D budgets of the three agencies that were targeted
for doubling in the America COMPETES Act and by President Bush as part of his American
Competitiveness Initiative: the Department of Energy Office of Science (up 3.5%), the National
Science Foundation (up 8.6%), and the Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards
and Technology’s core research and facilities (up 1.2%).
Congress has completed action on all twelve regular FY2010 appropriations bills The final bill,
the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, was passed by Congress and signed into
law on December 19, 2009.
For the past four years, federal R&D funding and execution has been affected by mechanisms
used to complete the annual appropriations process—the year-long continuing resolution for
FY2007 (P.L. 110-5) and the combining of multiple regular appropriations bills into the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161), the Omnibus Appropriations
Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117).
Completion of appropriations after the beginning of each fiscal year may cause agencies to delay
or cancel some planned R&D and equipment acquisition.
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
Contents
Overview ....................................................................................................................................1
Federal R&D Funding Perspectives.............................................................................................2
Agency Perspective...............................................................................................................3
Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment Perspective .....................................................4
Combined Perspective...........................................................................................................5
Multi-Agency R&D Initiatives Perspective ...........................................................................7
FY2010 Federal R&D Appropriations Status.........................................................................8
Multiagency R&D Initiatives ......................................................................................................8
Department of Defense ...............................................................................................................9
Department of Homeland Security ............................................................................................ 15
National Institutes of Health...................................................................................................... 20
Department of Energy ............................................................................................................... 27
National Science Foundation..................................................................................................... 31
Department of Commerce ......................................................................................................... 36
National Institute of Standards and Technology ................................................................... 36
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.............................................................. 39
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ........................................................................ 41
Department of Agriculture......................................................................................................... 44
Department of the Interior ......................................................................................................... 48
Environmental Protection Agency ............................................................................................. 50
Department of Transportation.................................................................................................... 54
Figures
Figure 1. Doubling of Research Funding: Appropriations versus Selected Rates ..........................7
Tables
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2008-FY2010 ....................4
Table 2. Federal Research and Development Funding by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2008-FY2010.............................................................................................5
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities and Equipment,
FY2008-FY2010......................................................................................................................6
Table 4. Agencies Targeted for Research Doubling by President Obama, the America
COMPETES Act, and the American Competitiveness Initiative................................................8
Table 5. Department of Defense RDT&E .................................................................................. 12
Table 6. RDT&E Funding in FY2009 Overseas Contingency Operations Supplemental............. 14
Table 7. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs ................................... 18
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
Table 8. National Institutes of Health......................................................................................... 25
Table 9. Department of Energy R&D and Related Programs ...................................................... 29
Table 10. National Science Foundation...................................................................................... 35
Table 11. NIST.......................................................................................................................... 38
Table 12. NOAA R&D .............................................................................................................. 40
Table 13. NASA R&D............................................................................................................... 43
Table 14. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D......................................................................... 46
Table 15. Department of the Interior R&D................................................................................. 50
Table 16. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account ........................................................ 53
Table 17. Department of Transportation R&D ........................................................................... 55
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 56
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
Overview
The 111th Congress continues to take a strong interest in the health of the U.S. research and
development (R&D) enterprise and in providing sustained support for federal R&D activities.
The United States government supports a broad range of scientific and engineering research and
development. Its purposes include addressing specific concerns such as national defense, health,
safety, the environment, and energy security; advancing knowledge generally; developing the
scientific and engineering workforce; and strengthening U.S. innovation and competitiveness in
the global economy. Most of the R&D funded by the federal government is performed in support
of the unique missions of the funding agencies. The federal government has played an important
role in supporting R&D efforts that have led to scientific breakthroughs and new technologies,
from jet aircraft and the Internet to communications satellites and defenses against disease.
In May 2009, President Obama requested $147.620 billion for R&D in FY2010, a 0.4% increase
over the enacted FY2009 R&D funding level of $147.065 billion (est.) (not including FY2009
R&D funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5)).1
According to the Obama Administration, preliminary allocations of R&D funding provided under
P.L. 111-5 brings total FY2009 R&D funding to $165.400 billion.
The President’s proposed FY2010 R&D funding included an emphasis on increasing funding for
the physical sciences and engineering, an effort consistent with the intent of the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) and President Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI).
President Obama would have achieved this objective largely through increased funding for the
Department of Energy Office of Science and the National Science Foundation, and, to a lesser
extent, the Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology’s core
laboratory research.
More broadly, in a speech before members of the National Academy of Sciences, President
Obama put forth a goal of increasing the national investment in R&D to more than 3% of the U.S.
gross domestic product (GDP). President Obama did not provide details on how this goal might
be achieved (e.g., how much would be funded through increases in direct federal R&D funding or
through indirect mechanisms such as the research and experimentation tax credit 2), however
doing so likely would require a substantial increase in public and private investment. In 2007,
total U.S. R&D expenditures were $368.1 billion,3 or approximately 2.7% of GDP.4 Based on
2007 figures, reaching President Obama’s 3% goal would require a 12.5% real increase in
1
Funding levels included in this document are in current dollars unless otherwise noted. Inflation diminishes the
purchasing power of federal R&D funds, so an increase that does not equal or exceed the inflation rate may reduce real
purchasing power.
2
The research and experimentation tax credit is referred to frequently as the research and development tax credit or
R&D tax credit, through the credit does not apply to development expenditures.
3
National Science Foundation, National Patterns of R&D Resources:2007 Data Update, NSF 08-318, Arlington, VA,
2008, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/.
4
Based on 2007 U.S. GDP of $13,807.5 billion as reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic
Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts Table, Table 1.1.5.
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
national R&D funding. Increasing direct Federal R&D funding by 12.5% in FY2010 would have
required an increase of more than $18 billion above President Obama’s request.
In addition, advocates for increased federal R&D funding—including President Obama’s science
advisor, John Holdren—have raised concerns about the potential negative effects of a “boombust” approach to federal R&D funding, i.e., rapid growth in federal R&D funding followed by
much slower growth, flat funding, or even decline. 5 The biomedical research community
experienced a variety of challenges resulting from such a circumstance following the five-year
doubling of the NIH budget that was completed in FY2003. With the NIH doubling came a rapid
expansion of the nation’s biomedical research infrastructure (e.g., buildings, laboratories,
equipment), as well as rapid growth in university faculty hiring, students pursuing biomedical
degrees, and grant applications to NIH. After the doubling, however, the agency’s budget fell
each year in real terms from FY2004 to FY2009. Critics assert a variety of adverse effects of this
boom-bust cycle, including interruptions and cancelations of promising research, declining share
in the number of NIH grant proposals funded, decreased student interest in pursuing graduate
studies, and reduced employment prospects for the large number of biomedical researchers with
advanced degrees. According to then-NIH Director Elias Zerhouni, the adverse ramifications
have been particularly acute for early- and mid-career scientists seeking a first or second grant.6, 7
Analysis of federal R&D funding is complicated by several factors, including the Obama
Administration’s omission of Congressionally directed spending from the FY2010 budget request
and inconsistency among agencies in the reporting of R&D. Another complicating factor for
FY2009 and FY2010 is the inclusion of funding for R&D, facilities, and equipment, and related
activities in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5). ARRA
funds supplement funding provided to agencies in P.L. 110-329 and P.L. 111-8. Some ARRA
funding will be spent in FY2009 and the balance of these funds will be spent in subsequent years.
For purposes of this report, unless otherwise noted, comparisons of FY2009 and FY2010 R&D
funding do not incorporate funding provided under P.L. 111-5. As a result of these and other
factors, the R&D agency figures reported by the White House Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) (and shown in Table
1) may differ somewhat from the agency budget analyses that appear later in this report.
Federal R&D Funding Perspectives
Federal R&D funding can be analyzed from a variety of perspectives that provide unique insights.
5
Jennifer Couzin and Greg Miller, “NIH Budget: Boom and Bust,” Science, vol. 316, no. 5823 (April 2007), pp. 356361, at http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/full/316/5823/356.
6
Ibid.
7
For additional information on NIH R&D funding issues, see CRS Report RL33695, The National Institutes of Health
(NIH): Organization, Funding, and Congressional Issues, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
Agency Perspective
The authorization and appropriations process views federal R&D funding primarily from agency
and program perspectives. Table 1 provides data on R&D by agency for FY2008 (actual),
FY2009 (estimate), ARRA, and FY2010 (request) as reported by OMB. Under President Obama’s
FY2010 budget request, six federal agencies would have received 95.1% of total federal R&D
funding: the Department of Defense (DOD), 54.0%; the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) (primarily the National Institutes of Health (NIH)), 21.0%; the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 7.7%; the Department of Energy (DOE), 7.3%;
the National Science Foundation (NSF), 3.6%; and the Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1.5%.
This report provides an analysis of the R&D budget requests for these agencies, as well as for the
Departments of Commerce (DOC), Homeland Security, the Interior (DOI), and Transportation
(DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In total, these departments and agencies
accounted for more than 98% of current and requested federal R&D funding.
In his FY2010 budget request, President Obama stated his intention to double the federal
investment in three basic-research agencies over a decade from their FY2006 levels: DOE’s
Office of Science (up 3.9% above the estimated FY2009 level), NSF (up 9.4%), and DOC’s
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories and construction funds (up
1.2%).8 This effort essentially continued the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) initiated
by President Bush to double physical sciences and engineering research in these agencies over ten
years (FY2007-FY2016). In 2007, Congress authorized substantial R&D increases for these
agencies under the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69), setting a more aggressive seven-year
doubling course.9
The largest agency R&D increases in the President’s FY2010 request were for NASA, $1.038
billion; the Department of Health and Human Services, $521 million (due primarily to a $436
million increase in R&D funding for NIH); and the National Science Foundation, $455 million.
DOD R&D funding would have been reduced by $1.929 billion in FY2010, and USDA R&D
funding would be cut by $149 million.10
8
The President’s Plan for Science and Innovation: Doubling Funding for Key Basic Research Agencies in the FY2010
Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House, May 7, 2009, available at http://www.ostp.gov/
galleries/budget/doubling.pdf.
9
For additional information, see CRS Report RL34328, America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected
Issues, by (name redacted).
10
A Renewed Commitment to Science and Technology: Federal R&D, Technology, and STEM Education in the 2010
Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House, May 7, 2009, available at http://www.ostp.gov/
galleries/budget/FY2010RD.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2008-FY2010
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
FY2009
ARRA
FY2010
Request
Dollar
Change,
2009 to
2010
2,421
176
2,272
-149
-6.2
1,160
1,292
411
1,330
38
2.9
Defense
80,278
81,616
300
79,687
-1,929
-2.4
Energy
9,807
10,621
2,446
10,740
119
1.1
551
580
0
619
39
6.7
Health and Human
Services
29,265
30,415
11,103
30,936
521
1.7
Homeland Security
995
1,096
0
1,125
29
2.6
Interior
683
692
74
730
38
5.5
NASA
11,182
10,401
925
11,439
1,038
10.0
National Science
Foundation
4,580
4,857
2,900
5,312
455
9.4
Transportation
875
913
0
939
26
2.8
Veterans Affairs
960
1,020
0
1,160
140
13.7
Other
1,074
1,141
0
1,331
190
16.7
Totala
143,746
147,065
18,335
147,620
555
0.4
Department/Agency
FY2008
Actual
FY2009
Estimate
Agriculture
2,336
Commerce
Environmental Protection
Agency
Percent
Change,
2009 to
2010
Sources: Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2010, Table 5-1, Office of
Management and Budget, The White House, May 2009; A Renewed Commitment to Science and Technology: Federal
R&D, Technology, and STEM Education in the 2010 Budget, Table 1, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The
White House, May 7, 2009.
a.
Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment Perspective
Federal R&D funding can also be examined by the character of work (basic research, applied
research, and development) it supports, and funding provided for facilities and acquisition of
major R&D equipment (see Table 2). President Obama’s FY2010 request included $30.884
billion for basic research, up $1.003 billion (3.4%) from FY2009; $28.139 billion for applied
research, down $627 million (-2.2%); $84.054 billion for development, up $167 million (0.2%);
and $4.543 billion for facilities and equipment, up $12 million (0.3%).
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
Table 2. Federal Research and Development Funding by Character of Work,
Facilities, and Equipment, FY2008-FY2010
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
FY2008
Actual
FY2009
Estimate
FY2009
ARRA
FY2010
Request
Dollar
Change,
2009 to
2010
Percent
Change,
2009 to
2010
Basic research
28,613
29,881
11,365
30,884
1,003
3.4
Applied research
27,413
28,766
1,920
28,139
-627
-2.2
Development
83,254
83,887
1,408
84,054
167
0.2
Facilities & equipment
4,466
4,531
3,642
4,543
12
0.3
143,746
147,065
18,335
147,620
555
0.4
Totala
Source: A Renewed Commitment to Science and Technology: Federal R&D, Technology, and STEM Education in the
2010 Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House, May 7, 2009.
a.
Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
Combined Perspective
Combining these perspectives, federal R&D funding can be viewed in terms of each agency’s
contribution to basic research, applied research, development, and facilities and equipment (see
Table 3). The federal government is the nation’s largest supporter of basic research (funding an
estimated 59.0% of U.S. basic research in 2007),11 primarily because the private sector asserts it
cannot capture an adequate return on long-term fundamental research investments. In contrast,
industry funded only 15.9% of U.S. basic research in 2007. In FY2009, the Department of Health
and Human Services (primarily HHS’s National Institutes of Health (NIH)) accounts for more
than half of all federal funding for basic research.12
In contrast to basic research, industry is the primary funder of applied research in the United
States, accounting for an estimated 61.1% in 2007, while the federal government accounted for an
estimated 31.3%.13 Among federal agencies, HHS is the largest funder of applied research,
accounting for nearly half of all federally funded applied research in FY2009.14
11
National Patterns of R&D Resources: 2007 Data Update, NSF 08-318, National Science Foundation, 2008. Available
at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/
12
Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2010, Table 5-1, Office of
Management and Budget, The White House, May 2009.
13
National Patterns of R&D Resources: 2007 Data Update, NSF 08-318, National Science Foundation, 2008.
Available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/.
14
Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2010, Table 5-1, Office of
Management and Budget, The White House, May 2009.
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
Industry also provides the vast majority of funding for development, accounting for an estimated
83.2% in 2007, while the federal government provided an estimated 15.7%.15 DOD is the primary
federal agency funder of development, accounting for 87.6% of total federal development funding
in FY2009.16
Table 3.Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities and Equipment,
FY2008-FY2010
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
FY2008
Actual
FY2009
Estimatea
FY2010
Request
Basic Research
Health and Human Services
15,739
25,035
16,739
National Science Foundation
3,704
6,045
4,477
Energy
3,461
4,425
3,813
Health and Human Services
13,349
14,813
14,027
Defense
4,855
5,174
4,236
Energy
3,180
3,810
3,093
Defense
73,615
74,714
73,603
NASA
6,090
6,244
6,246
Energy
2,281
2,945
2,614
NASA
2,349
2,194
2,365
Energy
885
1,887
1,220
National Science Foundation
456
1,312
412
Applied Research
Development
Facilities and Equipment
Source: Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2010, Office of Management and
Budget, The White House, May 2009.
Note: Top funding agencies based on FY2010 request.
a.
Amounts for 2009 include funding from P.L. 111-5.
15
National Patterns of R&D Resources: 2007 Data Update, NSF 08-318, National Science Foundation, 2008.
Available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/.
16
Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2010, Table 5-1, Office of
Management and Budget, The White House, May 2009.
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
Multi-Agency R&D Initiatives Perspective
Federal R&D funding can also be viewed in terms of multi-agency efforts, such as the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (see “FY2010 Federal R&D Appropriations Status” section below),
and presidential initiatives, such as the Bush Administration’s American Competitiveness
Initiative (ACI).
President Obama stated that he would seek to double funding for basic research over ten years at
the agencies comprising the ACI—NSF, DOE’s Office of Science, and NIST. Congress
established authorization levels for FY2008-FY2010 in the America COMPETES Act that would
put funding for research at these agencies on track to double in approximately seven years.
However, FY2008 research funding provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L.
110-161) for these agencies fell below these doubling targets. Figure 1 illustrates how actual,
estimated and requested appropriations (for FY2006 through FY2010) compare to seven- and tenyear doubling rates.
For FY2010, President Obama has proposed $12.638 billion in funding for NSF, DOE’s Office of
Science, and NIST’s core research and facilities, an increase of $731 million (6.1%) above the
FY2009 funding level of $11.907 billion. For FY2009, Congress appropriated an estimated
$11.907 billion in funding for these agencies, an increase of $1.176 billion (11.0%) above the
FY2008 level of $10.731 billion. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L.
111-5) also provides funding for each of the three ACI agencies totaling approximately $5.182
billion (in addition to the enacted levels in P.L. 110-329) (see Table 4). Estimated FY2008
funding for ACI research totaled $10.731 billion, an increase of approximately $485 million
(4.7%) over the FY2007 ACI funding level.
Figure 1. Doubling of Research Funding: Appropriations versus Selected Rates
$16,000
(in millions of current dollars)
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
NSF/DOE Science/NIST core research
and facilities appropriations
$6,000
Ten-year doubling pace
$4,000
Seven-year doubling pace
$2,000
$FY2006
Actual
FY2008
Actual
FY2010
Request
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using data from the sources cited in Table 4;
appropriations data does not include funding providing by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
Note: The ten-year doubling pace assumes annual increases of 7.2% each year for ten years. The seven-year
double pace assumes annual increases of 10.4% each year for seven years. Through compounding, these rates
achieve the doubling of funding in the desired time period.
Table 4. Agencies Targeted for Research Doubling by President Obama, the America
COMPETES Act, and the American Competitiveness Initiative
(dollar amounts in millions)
FY2006
Actual
FY2007
Actual
FY2008
Actual
FY2009
Estimate
FY2009
ARRA
FY2010
Request
National Science Foundation
5,646
5,917
6,092
6,490
3,002
7,045
Department of Energy/Office of
Science
3,632
3,836
4,036
4,773
1,600
4,942
National Institute of Standards and
Technology/core researcha
395
434
441
472
220
535
National Institute of Standards and
Technology/facilities
174
59
160
172
360
117
9,846
10,246
10,731
11,907
5,182
12,638
Agency
Totalb
Sources: The President’s Plan for Science and Innovation: Doubling Funding for Key Basic Research Agencies in the 2010
Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House, May 7, 2009; National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Fiscal Year 2010 NIST Budget Submission to Congress, National Institute of Standards and Technology, May
2009; CRS Report 95-30, The National Institute of Standards and Technology: An Appropriations Overview, by (name
redacted) ; FY2008 Department of Energy Budget Request to Congress, Department of Energy, February 2008; FY2009
Department of Energy Budget Request to Congress, Department of Energy, February 2008; NIST Appropriations
Summary, FY2006-2008, National Institute of Standards and Technology; NSF Summary Tables, FY2008 Budget Request
to Congress, National Science Foundation, February 5, 2007.
a.
NIST core research activities are those performed under its Scientific and Technical Research and Services
account.
b.
Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
FY2010 Federal R&D Appropriations Status
As of December 19, 2009, all twelve of the regular FY2010 appropriations bills have been
enacted.
Multiagency R&D Initiatives
President Obama’s FY2010 budget request provided funding for three multiagency R&D
initiatives. Funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) was requested in the
amount of $1.637 billion for FY2010, $17 million (-1.0%) below the estimated FY2009 level of
$1.654 billion. 17 The overall decrease in the FY2010 NNI funding request was due to a $85
17
The estimated FY2009 NNI funding level of $1.65 billion does not include an estimated $140 million in
nanotechnology research and development funded under P.L. 111-5.
A Renewed Commitment to Science and Technology: Federal R&D, Technology, and STEM Education in the 2010
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
million decrease (-18.3%) in funding for DOD nanotechnology R&D compared to its estimated
FY2009 funding level. This decrease was offset somewhat by increases in other agencies,
including NSF (up $26 million, 6.5%); HHS, including the NIH and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (up $19 million, 6.1%); and DOE (up $15 million, 4.4%).18
President Obama requested $3.927 billion in FY2010 funding for the Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program, $44 million (1.1%)
above the estimated FY2009 level of $3.882 billion. 19 The requested NITRD increase was due
primarily to requested funding increases for NSF (up $107 million, 10.6%) and DOE (up $48
million, 10.9%), and offset, in part, by a proposed decrease in NITRD funding for DOD (down
$140 million, -10.9%).20
The Obama Administration proposed $2.026 billion for the Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP) in FY2010, $46 million (2.3%) above the estimated FY2009 level of $1.980 billion.21, 22
Two agencies would have received the bulk of the FY2010 CCSP funding increase: NSF (up $80
million, 36.4%) and DOI’s U.S. Geological Survey (up $18 million, 40.0%). The increase in these
and other agencies’ CCSP proposed FY2010 funding was to be offset, in part, by reductions in
proposed funding for DOC’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (down
$72 million, -19.5%) and NASA (down $15 million, -1.4%).23
Department of Defense24
Congress supports research and development in the Department of Defense (DOD) through its
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) appropriation. The appropriation
primarily supports the development of the nation’s future military hardware and software and the
technology base upon which those products rely.
(...continued)
Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House, May 7, 2009.
18
For additional information on the NNI, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative:
Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by (name redacted)
19
The estimated FY2009 NITRD funding level of $3.89 billion does not include an estimated $706 million in
networking and information technology research and development funded under P.L. 111-5.
20
A Renewed Commitment to Science and Technology: Federal R&D, Technology, and STEM Education in the 2010
Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House, May 7, 2009.
For additional information on NITRD, see CRS Report RL33586, The Federal Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development Program: Funding Issues and Activities, by (name redacted).
21
The estimated FY2009 CCSP funding level of $1.98 billion does not include an estimated $461 million in climate
change research and development funded under P.L. 111-5.
22
A Renewed Commitment to Science and Technology: Federal R&D, Technology, and STEM Education in the 2010
Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House, May 7, 2009.
23
For additional information on the CCSP, see CRS Report RL33817, Climate Change: Federal Program Funding and
Tax Incentives, by (name redacted).
24
This section was written by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
Nearly all of what DOD spends on RDT&E is appropriated in Title IV of the defense
appropriation bill (see Table 5). However, RDT&E funds are also appropriated in other parts of
the bill. For example, RDT&E funds are appropriated as part of the Defense Health Program and
the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program. The Defense Health Program supports
the delivery of health care to DOD personnel and their families. Program funds are requested
through the Operations and Maintenance appropriation. The program’s RDT&E funds support
Congressionally directed research in such areas as breast, prostate, and ovarian cancer and other
medical conditions. The Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program supports activities
to destroy the U.S. inventory of lethal chemical agents and munitions to avoid future risks and
costs associated with storage. Funds for this program have been requested through the Army
Procurement appropriation. The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF) also
contains additional RDT&E monies. However, the fund does not contain an RDT&E line item as
do the two programs mentioned above. The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office,
which now administers the fund, tracks (but does not report) the amount of funding allocated to
RDT&E. The JIEDDF funding is not included in the tables below. Typically, Congress has funded
each of these programs in Title VI (Other Department of Defense Programs) of the defense
appropriations bill.
RDT&E funds also have been requested and appropriated as part of DOD’s separate funding to
support efforts in what the Bush Administration had termed the Global War on Terror (GWOT),
and what the Obama Administration refers to as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
Typically, the RDT&E funds appropriated for GWOT/OCO activities go to specified Program
Elements (PEs) in Title IV. However, they are requested and accounted for separately. The Bush
Administration requested these funds in separate GWOT emergency supplemental requests. The
Obama Administration, while continuing to identify these funds uniquely as OCO requests, has
included these funds as part of the regular budget, not as an emergency supplemental. In addition,
GWOT/OCO-related requests/appropriations often include money for a number of transfer funds.
These include the Iraqi Freedom Fund (IFF), the Iraqi Security Forces Fund, the Afghanistan
Security Forces Fund, the Mine Resistant and Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund (MRAPVF), and,
beginning in FY2010, the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund. Congress typically makes
a single appropriation into each of these funds, and authorizes the Secretary to make transfers to
other accounts, including RDT&E, at his discretion.
For FY2010, the Obama Administration requested $78.634 billion for DOD’s baseline Title IV
RDT&E, roughly $2 billion (2%) less than Congress appropriated for baseline Title IV in
FY2009. The FY2010 requests for RDT&E in the Defense Health Program and the Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction program were $613 million and $401 million, respectively. In
addition, the Obama Administration requested $310 million in OCO-related RDT&E.
RDT&E funding can be broken out in a couple of ways. Each of the military departments request
and receive their own RDT&E funding. So, too, do various DOD agencies (e.g., the Missile
Defense Agency and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), collectively aggregated
within the Defensewide account. RDT&E funding also can be characterized by budget activity
(i.e., the type of RDT&E supported). Those budget activities designated as 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 (basic
research, applied research, and advanced development, respectively) constitute what is called
DOD’s Science and Technology Program (S&T) and represent the more research-oriented part of
the RDT&E program. Budget activities 6.4 and 6.5 focus on the development of specific weapon
systems or components (e.g., the Joint Strike Fighter or missile defense systems), for which an
operational need has been determined and an acquisition program established. Budget activity 6.7
Congressional Research Service
10
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
supports system improvements in existing operational systems. Budget activity 6.6 provides
management support, including support for test and evaluation facilities.
Congress is particularly interested in S&T funding since these funds support the development of
new technologies and the underlying science. Ensuring adequate support for S&T activities is
seen by some in the defense community as imperative to maintaining U.S. military superiority.
This was of particular concern at a time when defense budgets and RDT&E funding were falling
at the end of the Cold War. As part of its 2001 Quadrennial Review, DOD established a goal of
stabilizing its baseline S&T funding (i.e., Title IV) at 3% of DOD’s overall funding. Congress has
embraced this goal.
The FY2010 baseline S&T funding request in Title IV was $11.650 billion, about $1.837 billion
(13.6%) less than what Congress appropriated for baseline S&T in Title IV in FY2009 (not
counting S&T’s share of the $218 million general reduction in RDT&E for revised economic
assumptions). Furthermore, the S&T request for baseline Title IV was approximately 2.2% of the
overall baseline DOD budget request ($533.8 billion, not counting funds for the Global War on
Terror), short of the 3% goal.
Within the S&T program, basic research (6.1) receives special attention, particularly by the
nation’s universities. DOD is not a large supporter of basic research, when compared to the
National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation. However, over half of DOD’s
basic research budget is spent at universities and represents the major contribution of funds in
some areas of science and technology (such as electrical engineering and material science). The
FY2010 request for basic research ($1.798 billion) was roughly $44 million (2%) less than what
Congress appropriated for Title IV basic research in FY2008.
The House passed its version of the FY2010 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 3326) on July 30.
The House approved $80.2 billion for baseline Title IV RDT&E. This included $13.2 billion for
S&T, of which $1.9 billion was for basic research. In addition, the House approved $1.3 billion
for RDT&E in the Defense Health Program. This includes a technical revision approved on the
House floor that shifted $26 million from the operations account to the RDT&E account. The
House presumably approved the full $401 million request for RDT&E within the Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction program. The committee report (H.Rept. 111-230) had
recommended a cut of $50 million in the program’s RDT&E account. The House voted to add
$50 million back into the program, although the amendment did not specify that it was added to
the RDT&E account. The House approved $214 million in RDT&E for Overseas Contingency
Operations, reducing the Navy’s request substantially by declaring three of the line item requests
as being either non-emergency-related or as being insufficiently justified.
The Senate passed its version of the FY2010 defense appropriations bill on October 6. The Senate
approved $78.450 billion for baseline Title IV RDTE. This included $12.319 billion for S&T, of
which $1.785 billion was for basic research. In addition, the Senate approved $999 million for
RDT&E in the Defense Health Program and $401 million for RDT&E in the Chemical Agents
and Munitions Destruction program. The Senate also reduced the OCO RDT&E request,
providing $294 million, reducing the Navy and Defensewide requests, while increasing the Air
Force request (part of which was due to a transfer request by the Air Force).
Major differences between the House and Senate version, in terms of dollars, included how to
reallocate funds within the Army’s Future Combat System program (restructured earlier this year
by DOD), the Army’s Aerial Common Sensor program (which the House fully supported and the
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
Senate eliminated), the Navy’s Executive Helicopter Development program (for which the House
provided $400 million more than the budget request and the Senate reduced to $55 million), the
Air Force’s Next Generation Tanker Development program (where the House chose to provide
$440 million to the Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund while the Senate provided $410 million as
requested in the Air Force’s Title IV account), and the Joint Strike Fighter programs of the Navy
and Air Force (from which the Senate cut $293 million each). In regard to the OCO budget, the
House fully funded the Navy’s Manned Surveillance Systems OCO request, while the Senate
zeroed the request citing insufficient justification.
The final enacted FY2010 DOD appropriation bill (P.L. 111-118) provided $80.2 billion for Title
IV RDT&E (including the $336 million general reduction in Section 8097). Of this, roughly $14
billion went toward S&T funding, representing roughly 2.2% of the approximately $600 billion
baseline DOD appropriation. The bill also provided $1.3 billion for RDT&E in the Defense
Health Program and $401 million for RDT&E in the Chemical Agent and Munitions Destruction
Program. The bill provided $268 million for OCO-related RDT&E. The conferees basically split
the differences between the House and Senate on the Army’s Future Combat System funding and
Aerial Common Sensor program. The bill provided $130 million for the Executive Helicopter
Development program. Funding for the next generation tanker aircraft was split, with $15 million
being provided as Title IV RDT&E funds in the Air Force account, and $292 million going to the
Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund, from which the Secretary may transfer funds into RDT&E,
Procurement, or Operations and Maintenance as necessary, with proper notification of Congress.
The conferees agreed with the House on its recommendations for Joint Strike Fighter. The
conferees agreed with the Senate where it disagreed with the House on OCO RDT&E funding. In
addition, the conferees added $9 million in 6.3 funding in the OCO budget for a Marine
Immersive Training program (transferring it from the Navy’s Operations and Maintenance
account).
Table 5. Department of Defense RDT&E
(in millions of dollars)
FY2010 Request
Base
OCO
House FY2010
Base
OCO
Senate FY2010
Base
OCO
Enacted FY2010
Base
OCO
Army
10,438
58
11,152
58
10,653
58
11,474
58
Navy
19,271
107
20,197
38
19,149
84
20,003
59
Air Force
27,993
29
27,976
29
28,049
39
28,122
39
Defensewide
20,742
116
20,722
116
20,409
112
20,747
112
Dir. Test & Eval.
191
191
Adjustments,
improved economic
assumptions
191
191
-236
-336
Total Title IV - By
Accounta
78,634
6.1 Basic Research
1,798
1,931
1,785
1,882
6.2 Applied Research
4,247
4,927
4,605
5,061
6.3 Advanced Dev.
5,605
6,325
5,929
6,578
Congressional Research Service
310
80,238
241
78,214
294
80,201
268
9
12
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
FY2010 Request
Base
OCO
House FY2010
Base
OCO
Senate FY2010
Base
OCO
Enacted FY2010
Base
OCO
6.4 Advanced
Component Dev. and
Prototypes
14,306
17
14,609
0
14,630
0
14,771
0
6.5 Systems Dev. and
Demo
17,845
19
17,627
18
16,793
19
17,162
19
6.6 Management
Supportb
4,557
0
4,581
3
4,603
0
4,654
3
6.7 Op. Systems Dev.c
30,276
275
30,438
220
30,105
275
30,429
237
Adjustments,
improved economic
assumptions
-236
DARPA General
Reduction
Total Title IV - by
Budget Activitya
-336
-200
78,634
310
80,238
241
78,214
294
80,201
268
Title VI - Other
Defense Programs
Defense Health Program
613
1,275
999
1,280
Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction
401
401
401
401
Grand Total
79,648
310
81,914
241
79,850
294
81,882
268
Source: CRS, adapted from the Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2010, RDT&E Programs (R-1), May
2009. The Defense Health Program figures taken from the Defense Health Program FY2010 Budget Estimates,
Exhibit R-1, RDT&E Programs. Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program figures taken from
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction FY2010 Budget Estimates, May 2009. House figures adapted from
H.Rept. 111-230, accompanying H.R. 3326, Senate figures adapted from S.Rept. 111-74, accompanying H.R. 3326.
Enacted figures adapted from the Explanatory Statement of House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to
H.R. 3326 in the Congressional Record, Dec. 16, 2009 (beginning on p. H15042).
a.
Total Budget Authority for Account and Budget Activity may not agree due to rounding.
b.
Includes funds for Developmental and Operational Test and Evaluation.
c.
Includes funding for classified programs.
Although the Obama Administration included its FY2010 request for Overseas Contingency
Operations as part of the baseline DOD FY2010 budget, it made an FY2009 supplemental OCO
request as well. The House passed its version of the bill (H.R. 2346) on May 14, 2009. The
Senate passed its version, S. 1054, on May 21 (S.Rept. 111-20).The conference committee
reported its version on June 12, 2009. The Administration requested $810 million in Title IV
RDT&E funds, the House provided $722 million, the Senate recommended $886 million, and the
conference committee recommended $833 million. The funds would be used to accelerate the
development, testing, and demonstration of technologies and equipment needed in Iraq and
Afghanistan. In addition, the Administration requested $34 million in RDT&E funding within the
Defense Health Program for research in information technologies in support of the Wounded, Ill,
and Injured program. The House provided $201 million, $168 million of which is directed toward
additional research in traumatic brain injuries, psychological health, and orthopedics. The Senate
recommended the requested level of $34 million. The conference committee recommended $160
million. As the total figures indicate, there are some substantial differences between the House
Congressional Research Service
13
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
and Senate versions. For example, the House sought to zero the Manned Reconnaissance Systems
request of the Navy, the Senate sought to increase the request by $26 million. The Senate also
added $61 million to the Air Force request for LINK 16 Support and Sustainment, which was not
in the original request or the House version. Finally, the House voted to substantially increase
RDT&E funding in the Defense Health Program, while the Senate did not recommend any
additional funds beyond the request.
The conference committee appears to have split the differences between the House and Senate
versions, nominally taking House recommendations in the Navy and Defensewide accounts and
the Senate recommendations in the Army and Air Force Accounts. The conference also nominally
split the difference in its recommendation for RDT&E in the Defense Health Program. The House
passed the conference bill on June 16; the Senate passed it on June 18. President Obama signed
the act (P.L. 111-32) on June 24, 2009.
Table 6. RDT&E Funding in FY2009 Overseas Contingency Operations
Supplemental
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009 OCO Supplemental
Request
H.R. 2346
S. 1054
Enacted
(H.R. 2346)
Army
74
74
72
53
Navy
145
96
142
137
Air Force
108
93
174
160
Defensewide
483
459
498
483
810
722
886
833
OCO-Related Title IV
By Account
Dir. Test & Eval
Total Budget Auth.a
By Budget Activity
6.1 Basic Research
6.2 Applied Research
2
6.3 Advanced Development
2
6.4 Advanced Component Dev. and Prototypes
7
7
3
3
6.5 Sys. Dev. and Demo
86
80
152
127
6.6 Management Supportb
18
12
18
12
6.7 Op. Systems Dev
699
621
714
690
810
722
886
833
Defense Health Program
34
201
33
160
Grand Total
844
923
919
993
Sec. 8003 general reduction
Total Budget Auth.a
OCO-Related Other Defense Programs
Congressional Research Service
14
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
Sources: White House budget submission dated April 9, 2009, H.Rept. 111-105, H.Rept. 111-151, and S.Rept.
111-20.
a.
Account vs. Budget Activity Total Obligational Authority numbers may not agree due to rounding.
b.
Includes funds for Developmental and Operational Test and Evaluation.
On February 13, 2009, Congress also passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009. The final version of the bill, P.L. 111-5, appropriated $300 million for DOD Title IV
RDT&E. These funds remain available for obligation through September 20, 2010. According to
the May 15, 2009 update of Recovery.gov, DOD intended to begin awarding contracts in May and
complete the awards by February 2010.
Department of Homeland Security25
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested $1.354 billion for R&D and related
programs in FY2010, an 8% decrease from FY2009.26 The total included $968 million for the
Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T), $366 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO), and $20 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) in
the U.S. Coast Guard. The House bill (H.R. 2892 as passed by the House) would have provided
an increase of $50 million for DNDO, for a total of $1.403 billion. The Senate bill (H.R. 2892 as
passed by the Senate) would have provided an increase of $19 million for S&T, the requested
amount for DNDO, and an increase of $10 million for Coast Guard RDT&E, for a total of $1.384
billion. The final bill (P.L. 111-83) provided a total of $1.401 billion: $999 million for the S&T
Directorate, $375 million for DNDO, and $25 million for Coast Guard RDT&E. For details, see
Table 7.
The S&T Directorate is the primary DHS R&D organization. Headed by the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, it performs R&D in several laboratories of its own and funds R&D
performed by the national laboratories, industry, and universities. The Administration requested a
total of $968 million for the S&T Directorate for FY2010. This was 4% more than the FY2009
appropriation of $933 million. The request for the Command, Control, and Interoperability
Division included a proposed increase of $15 million for next-generation cyber security R&D,
largely offset by reductions in the division’s other activities. A proposed increase of $25 million
for the Explosives Division included $10 million to develop technologies for high-throughput
screening of air cargo and $15 million to develop technologies for detection of improvised
explosive devices in mass transit and at large events. A proposed reduction of $31 million for the
Infrastructure and Geophysical Division included the elimination of funding for local and
regional initiatives previously established or funded at congressional direction. The request for
Laboratory Facilities included $36 million for the planned National Bio and Agro Defense
Facility (NBAF), about the same as in FY2009. A proposed increase of $16 million for the
Transition program included $5 million for the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute,
formerly the Homeland Security Institute, which was funded as a separate item in FY2009.
25
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
26
If the FY2009 baseline is taken to exclude the DNDO Systems Acquisition account, which funds little or no R&D,
the department-wide request for R&D and related programs is a 3% increase.
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
The House bill would have provided $15 million to the S&T Directorate to fund developmental
testing of the BioWatch Generation 3 biological agent detection system. The Administration
requested these funds for the Office of Health Affairs, which the House bill would have left in
control of the BioWatch program other than Generation 3 development. The House bill would
also have provided $10 million in the Infrastructure and Geophysical Division for local and
regional initiatives. It would have eliminated the requested funding for NBAF construction and
prohibited the obligation of any funds for that purpose until the Secretary of Homeland Security
receives a non-DHS assessment of the risks of conducting R&D on foot-and-mouth disease on the
U.S. mainland.
The Senate bill would have provided $23 million more than the request in the Infrastructure and
Geophysical Division for local and regional initiatives. It would have provided the full requested
funding for NBAF construction but prohibited the obligation of funds for that purpose until 90
days after DHS completes a site-specific safety and security assessment and reports to the
appropriations committees on its foot-and-mouth disease research permit procedure and
emergency response plan. The Senate bill would also have rescinded $7.5 million appropriated in
prior years but not yet obligated. Report language directed S&T to provide quarterly briefings to
the Senate Appropriations Committee on the test and evaluation status of all level 1 DHS
acquisition programs (i.e., programs with total lifecycle costs of $1 billion or more).
The final bill provided a total of $1,006 million for the S&T Directorate, an increase of $38
million above the request. It provided $30 million more than the request for Infrastructure and
Geophysical in order to fund local and regional initiatives. It provided $32 million for NBAF
construction and included requirements for safety and security assessment and reporting that were
similar to those of the Senate bill with an additional provision for the National Academy of
Sciences to evaluate the assessment. It rescinded $6.9 million in unobligated appropriations from
prior years. The conferees expressed their expectation that S&T will be “intricately involved” in
the testing and evaluation of BioWatch Generation 3, but the bill did not remove Generation 3
activities from the Office of Health Affairs. The conference report directed the S&T Directorate to
brief the appropriations committees jointly with Customs and Border Protection before beginning
operational field testing of SBInet and to brief the appropriations committees each quarter on the
test and evaluation status of all level 1 acquisitions.27
Among the issues facing Congress are the S&T Directorate’s priorities and how they are set; its
relationships with other federal R&D organizations both inside and outside DHS; its budgeting
and financial management; the allocation of its R&D resources to national laboratories, industry,
and universities; and plans over the next few years to establish new university centers of
excellence and terminate or merge several existing ones.28
The start of NBAF construction in FY2011 will likely require significant increases in Laboratory
Facilities funding over the next several years. It may also result in increased congressional
27
SBInet is the technological and infrastructure component of the Secure Border Initiative. See CRS Report RL33659,
Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border, by (name redacted), Yule Kim, and (name redacte
d).
28
For more information, see CRS Report RL34356, The DHS Directorate of Science and Technology: Key Issues for
Congress, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
16
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
oversight. For construction of NBAF and decommissioning of the Plum Island Animal Disease
Center (PIADC), which NBAF will replace, DHS expects to need appropriations of $687 million
between FY2011 and FY2014. The estimated total cost of the NBAF project, excluding PIADC
decommissioning and site-specific infrastructure and utility upgrades, increased from $451
million in December 2006 to $615 million in May 2009. Decommissioning PIADC is expected to
cost $190 million. In the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110329, Div. D, Sec. 540) Congress authorized DHS to offset NBAF construction and PIADC
decommissioning costs by selling Plum Island. Site-specific costs of $110 million will be
contributed in-kind by Kansas State University and its partners.29
Congress has been interested for several years in the role the S&T Directorate plays in testing and
evaluation of large acquisition projects. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 authorizes the
Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Under Secretary for Science and Technology,
to “issue necessary regulations with respect to ... testing and evaluation activities of the
Department” (P.L. 107-296, Sec. 306). Current DHS policy is that the Director of the Test and
Evaluation and Standards Division (TSD) in the S&T Directorate is to establish the department’s
testing and evaluation policies and processes, and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
(OT&E) is to administer those policies and processes. The Director of OT&E is also to report
independently to the department-level Acquisition Review Board on the status and progress of
testing and evaluation for any acquisitions the board reviews. At present, the same person serves
as the Director of the TSD and the Director of OT&E. This dual role may blur the distinction
between the policy-setting function and the policy-administration function. Congress may also
wish to consider whether the ability of the Director of OT&E to report independently on
programs in other divisions and directorates is affected by the fact that TSD conducts programs of
its own. The FY2010 appropriations bills and the associated committee and conference reports
emphasized the involvement of the S&T Directorate in the testing and evaluation of BioWatch
Generation 3, SBInet, and other large acquisition programs. In particular, report language directed
the S&T Directorate, not the Director of OT&E, to provide briefings and status reports to the
appropriations committees.
Statutory authority for the Homeland Security Institute (HSI) expired in April 2009. Under its
general authority to establish federally funded R&D centers, the S&T Directorate has replaced
HSI with the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute. It has also established a new
Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute. Both institutes will be
funded mostly on a cost-reimbursement basis by other S&T programs and other DHS and nonDHS agencies. The FY2010 DHS congressional budget justification estimated that reimbursable
obligations by the two institutes would total $122 million in FY2009 and $143 million in
FY2010.
The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) is the primary DHS organization for combating
the threat of nuclear attack. It is responsible for all DHS nuclear detection research, development,
testing, evaluation, acquisition, and operational support. The Administration requested a total of
$366 million for DNDO for FY2010. This was a 29% reduction from the FY2009 appropriation
of $514 million. The requested funding for Management and Administration and Research,
29
For more information on NBAF, see CRS Report RL34160, The National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility: Issues for
Congress, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
17
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
Development, and Operations was approximately the same as in FY2009. No funds were
requested for Systems Acquisition, which received $153 million in FY2009. According to the
DHS congressional budget justification, new funds for Systems Acquisition are not needed in
FY2010 because unobligated funds are available from previous fiscal years and because
secretarial certification of Advanced Spectroscopic Portal (ASP) technology has been delayed. A
floor amendment to the House bill added $50 million to the Research, Development, and
Operations account for activities previously funded by Systems Acquisition, including $40
million for Securing the Cities. The House bill would otherwise have funded DNDO at the
requested levels. The Senate bill would have provided $10 million in Systems Acquisition for
Securing the Cities and $2 million less than the request for Management and Administration. It
would have rescinded $8 million appropriated in prior years but not yet obligated. Otherwise, it
would have provided the requested amounts for DNDO. The final bill provided a total of $383
million for DNDO, an increase of $17 million above the request. It provided $20 million for
Securing the Cities in the Systems Acquisition account. It rescinded $8 million that was
appropriated in prior years but not obligated.
Congressional attention has focused on the testing and analysis DNDO conducted to support its
decision to purchase and deploy ASPs, a type of next-generation radiation portal monitor. A
requirement for secretarial certification before full-scale ASP procurement has been included in
each appropriations act since FY2007 (including P.L. 111-83). The expected date for certification
has been postponed several times. For more information, see CRS Report RL34750, The
Advanced Spectroscopic Portal Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted),
(name redacted), and (name redacted).
The global nuclear detection architecture overseen by DNDO and the relative roles of DNDO and
the S&T Directorate in research, development, testing, and evaluation also remain issues of
congressional interest. For more information on the global nuclear detection architecture, see
CRS Report RL34574, The Global Nuclear Detection Architecture: Issues for Congress, by (name
redacted).
The mission of DNDO, as established by Congress in the SAFE Port Act (P.L. 109-347), includes
serving as the primary federal entity “to further develop, acquire, and support the deployment of
an enhanced domestic system” for detection of nuclear and radiological devices and material (6
U.S.C. 592). Congress may wish to consider whether the acquisition portion of that mission is
consistent with the elimination of most new funding for Systems Acquisition and the following
statement in the President’s Budget Appendix (pp. 560-561):
In the past, DNDO acquired and deployed radiation detection technologies for DHS
components, primarily the Coast Guard and the Customs and Border Patrol, or state and local
users. Funding requests for radiation detection equipment will now be sought by the end
users that will operate them.
Table 7. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
Enacted
FY2010
Request
FY2010
House
FY2010
Senate
FY2010
Enacted
Directorate of Science and
Technology
933
968
968
987
999
Management and Administration
132
142
142
143
143
Congressional Research Service
18
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
FY2009
Enacted
FY2010
Request
FY2010
House
FY2010
Senate
FY2010
Enacted
800
826
825
844
856
Border and Maritime
33
40
40
40
44
Chemical and Biological
200
207
222
207
207
Command, Control, and Interoperability
75
80
81
83
82
Explosives
96
121
121
121
121
Human Factors / Behavioral Sciences
12
15
17
12
16
Infrastructure and Geophysical
76
45
52
68
75
Innovation
33
44
44
44
44
Laboratory Facilities
162
154
123
155
150
Test and Evaluation, Standards
29
29
29
29
29
Transition
29
45
46
45
46
University Programs
50
46
50
48
49
Homeland Security Institute
5
0
0
0
0
Rescission of Prior-Year Unobligated
Balances
—
—
—
(8)
(7)
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
514
366
416
366
375
Management and Administration
38
40
40
38
39
Research, Development, and Operations
323
327
377
319
317
Systems Engineering and Architecture
25
25
25
25
25
Systems Development
108
100
100
100
100
Transformational R&D
103
111
111
111
109
Assessments
32
32
32
32
32
Operations Support
38
38
38
38
38
National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center
17
20
20
20
20
Radiation Portal Monitor Procurement
0
0
10
0
0
Securing the Cities
0
0
40
0
0
Rescission of Prior-Year Unobligated
Balances
—
—
—
(8)
(8)
153
0
0
10
20
Radiation Portal Monitoring Program
120
0
0
0
0
Securing the Cities
20
0
0
10
20
Human Portable Radiation Detection Sys
13
0
0
0
0
18
20
20
30
25
1,465
1,354
1,403
1,384
1,401
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
Systems Acquisition
U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E
TOTAL
Source: DHS FY2010 congressional budget justification, online at http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/budget/; H.R. 2892
as passed by the House; H.Rept. 111-157; H.R. 2892 as passed by the Senate; S.Rept. 111-31; P.L. 111-83; and
H.Rept. 111-298.
Notes: Totals may not add because of rounding.
Congressional Research Service
19
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
National Institutes of Health30
President Obama’s FY2010 budget request included an NIH program level total of $30.696
billion, a $443 million increase (1.5%) over the FY2009 level of $30.253 billion enacted in
regular appropriations. Congress provided a total of $30.946 billion for FY2010, a $693 million
increase (2.3%) over the FY2009 level (see Table 8). In addition to the FY2009 regular
appropriations, which were provided in Division F of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L.
111-8), NIH received emergency supplemental appropriations in Division A of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), also called the economic stimulus package or
Recovery Act (P.L. 111-5). The Recovery Act provided a total of $10.400 billion to NIH, roughly
half of which was slated to be obligated in FY2009 and the remainder in FY2010.
NIH’s funding comes primarily from the annual appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (Labor/HHS), with an
additional amount for Superfund-related activities from the appropriations bill for the Department
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (Interior/Environment). Those two bills
provide NIH’s discretionary budget authority. In addition, NIH receives mandatory funding of
$150 million annually that is provided in the Public Health Service (PHS) Act for a special
program on diabetes research, and also receives $8.2 million annually for the National Library of
Medicine from a transfer within PHS. Each year since FY2002, Congress has provided that a
portion of NIH’s Labor/HHS appropriation be transferred to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS,
Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The transfer, currently $300 million, is part of the U.S. contribution to
the Global Fund. The total funding available for NIH activities, taking account of add-ons and
transfers, is called the program level. Because the “NIH program level” cited in the
Administration’s FY2010 budget documents does not reflect the Global Fund transfer, Table 8
shows the program level both before and after the transfer. Discussions in this section refer to the
program level after the transfer.
In congressional action on FY2010 appropriations bills, the House passed its Labor/HHS bill on
July 24, 2009 (H.R. 3293, H.Rept. 111-220), and its Interior/Environment bill on June 26 (H.R.
2996, H.Rept. 111-180). The House bills would have provided NIH with a program level total of
$31.196 billion, $943 million (3.1%) more than the FY2009 level and $500 million over the
request. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of H.R. 3293 (Labor/HHS) on
August 4, 2009 (S.Rept. 111-66), but the bill was never considered by the full Senate. The Senate
passed its version of H.R. 2996 (Interior/Environment) on September 24, 2009 (S.Rept. 111-38).
The Senate bills would have provided a program level total of $30.696 billion, the same amount
as requested, but the distribution among NIH institutes varied somewhat from the request. From
October 1, 2009, until Congress completed action on its FY2010 appropriations, NIH operated at
FY2009 rates with temporary funding provided by continuing appropriations resolutions. The
Interior/Environment appropriation was enacted as P.L. 111-88 on October 30, 2009 (H.Rept.
111-316). The Labor/HHS appropriation was enacted on December 16, 2009, as Division D of
P.L. 111-117, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 3288, H.Rept. 111-366).
30
This section was written by Pamela Smith, Analyst in Biomedical Policy, CRS Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
20
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
Seven years ago, in FY2003, NIH reached the peak of its purchasing power from regular
appropriations when Congress completed a five-year doubling of the NIH budget. In each year
since then, NIH’s buying power has declined because its annual appropriations have grown at a
lower rate than the inflation rate for medical research. Congress provided NIH with annual
increases in the range of 14%-15% each year from FY1999 through FY2003. From FY2004 to
FY2009, increases dropped to between 1.0% and 3.2% each year (except that the FY2006 total
was a 0.3% decrease), at a time when, according to NIH, the biomedical research inflation rate
ranged between 3.7% and 4.6% per year. The projected changes in the Biomedical Research and
Development Price Index (BRDPI) are 3.8% for FY2009 and 3.3% for FY2010.31 Even though in
current dollars, the FY2010 NIH total is 14.3% higher than it was in FY2003, in inflationadjusted terms (converting all amounts to constant 2009 dollars), the FY2010 funding level
represents an estimated 12.7% decrease in purchasing power from the FY2003 peak.
The agency’s organization consists of the Office of the NIH Director and 27 institutes and
centers. The Office of the Director (OD) sets overall policy for NIH and coordinates the programs
and activities of all NIH components, particularly in areas of research that involve multiple
institutes. The institutes and centers (collectively called ICs) focus on particular diseases, areas of
human health and development, or aspects of research support. Each IC plans and manages its
own research programs in coordination with the Office of the Director. As shown in Table 8,
Congress provides a separate appropriation to 24 of the 27 ICs, to OD, and to a Buildings and
Facilities account. (The other three centers, not included in the table, are funded through the NIH
Management Fund.)
The FY2010 request proposed increases of 1.1% to 1.7% for most of the ICs. Traditionally,
budget requests and enacted appropriations have treated the various institutes and centers
approximately equally in percentage terms, maintaining their relative sizes over the years. That
pattern is, however, subject to alteration because of special initiatives or new developments in
scientific or public health needs. Some past examples have included the substantial ramping up of
funds for ICs doing research on cancer, HIV/AIDS, bioterrorism, and genome sciences.
In the FY2010 request, the Administration proposed initiatives in cancer research and in research
on autism spectrum disorders. Support of cancer research across NIH would have increased by
$268 million (4.7%) to just over $6 billion, representing the first year of a proposed eight-year
plan to double funding for cancer research by FY2017. The budget of the National Cancer
Institute would have increased by 3.6%. The Administration also proposed an eight-year HHS
initiative to invest an additional $1 billion in autism-related activities. The FY2010 request for
NIH proposed a 15.6% increase in NIH’s estimated spending on autism. Another area receiving a
substantial boost in the request, at 4.8% across NIH, was nanotechnology-related research. In
particular, the small program in the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
on the human health impact of nanotechnology was proposed for a $9 million (60.7%) increase to
$24 million, contributing to a 3.2% increase in the proposed total for NIEHS.
31
National Institutes of Health, Biomedical Research and Development Price Index: Fiscal Year 2008 Update and
Projections for FY 2009-FY 2014, Bethesda, MD, February 3, 2009. http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/UI/2009/
BRDPI_Proj_Feb_2009_final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
21
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees rejected the proposals to set specific funding
levels for particular diseases. They expressed concern over establishing a precedent of
congressional funding decisions made outside of the peer review system, noting that the proposed
increases for cancer and autism would have absorbed nearly two-thirds of the overall increase
proposed for NIH. The House Labor/HHS bill recommended an overall increase of 3.1% for NIH,
with most of the ICs receiving a 3.6% increase, in line with the biomedical research inflation rate.
The Senate committee recommended the same overall increase of 1.5% as the request, but
provided most of the ICs with 1.7% increases. The two committees agreed on giving
proportionally larger increases to NIEHS and to the National Center for Research Resources
(NCRR). The final Labor/HHS appropriation provided an overall increase of 2.3% for NIH, with
most of the ICs receiving increases of 2.7%. Funding for NIEHS was increased by 4.1%, and for
NCRR by 3.5%.
The two accounts in which final FY2010 funding decreased compared to FY2009 were the Office
of the Director and the Buildings and Facilities account. The appropriation for the Office of the
Director covers a variety of cross-cutting programs in addition to funding for OD’s own
leadership and management operations. Aggregate funding for OD was $1,247 million in
FY2009. It dropped by $64 million (-5.1%) to $1,183 million in the FY2010 request, and by $70
million (-5.6%) to $1,177 million in the conference agreement, but only because the NIH
Director’s Bridge Award program was not funded. In FY2009, the program received $91 million
to provide short-term awards to investigators whose renewal applications had just missed the
funding cutoff; in FY2010, Recovery Act funds are available for similar purposes. The other
programs managed or coordinated by OD were all proposed for sustained or increased funding.
The House and Senate committees agreed with the OD request for the most part, except that the
House amount, and the conference agreement, provided less for the Common Fund (see below).
The conferees commented in general, “Unless otherwise noted in this statement, the conferees
expect NIH to follow the budget policy assumptions of the President’s fiscal year 2010 budget
and the accompanying explanatory materials.” (H.Rept. 111-366, p. 1029)
The President requested funding of up to $194 million for continuation of the National Children’s
Study (NCS), to which the House and the conferees agreed. Both committees noted that the cost
projections for the NCS have increased substantially, and that NIH is extending its pilot phase,
leading the Senate committee to defer specifying an amount for the study. The request included
$97 million for research on medical countermeasures against nuclear, radiological, and chemical
threats (the House committee noted its agreement); $5 million for a new program in bioethics
research and training (the House and the conference agreement funded the initiative through the
ICs rather than in OD); $5 million to expand ongoing trans-NIH stewardship and oversight
activities; and a total of $181 million (up 2.6%) for several program coordination offices that
work with the ICs.
Also funded through the OD account is the NIH Common Fund, which supports NIH Roadmap
initiatives and other trans-institute research. The NIH Roadmap for Medical Research is a set of
trans-NIH research activities designed to support high-risk/high-impact research in emerging
areas of science or public health priorities. For FY2010, the President requested $549 million for
the Roadmap/Common Fund, up $8 million (1.5%) from FY2009. The Senate committee bill
agreed with that amount, the House bill provided a lower amount of $534 million, and the
conferees provided $544 million, up $3 million (0.5%) from FY2009. Some Roadmap programs
that have been supported for five years are ready to transition to the ICs for continued support.
The Common Fund is also supporting a number of initiatives with Recovery Act money (see
further discussion below).
Congressional Research Service
22
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
The NIH Buildings and Facilities (B&F) program supports both the design and construction of
new facilities for NIH’s intramural research programs, and the repair and improvement of existing
clinical, laboratory, and other facilities. The request and the Senate committee recommendation
would have kept the B&F appropriation at $126 million, while the House bill and the conference
agreement provided $100 million, a 20.4% decrease from FY2009. There will be additional
spending for repairs and construction with the $500 million that NIH received for the purpose in
the Recovery Act.
Of the funds appropriated to NIH each year, about 84% go out to the extramural research
community in the form of grants, contracts, and other awards. The funding supports research
performed by more than 300,000 scientists and technical personnel who work at more than 3,100
universities, hospitals, medical schools, and other research institutions around the country and
abroad. The primary funding mechanism for support of the full range of investigator-initiated
research is competitive, peer-reviewed research project grants (RPGs). In the FY2010 request,
total funding for RPGs, at $16.4 billion, represented about 53% of NIH’s budget. The request
proposed to support an estimated 38,042 awards, 171 more than were projected to be supported
with regular FY2009 appropriations. Within that total, 9,849 awards were to be competing RPGs,
7 more than in FY2009. (“Competing” awards means new grants plus competing renewals of
existing grants.) The House committee said that its funding level would provide support for
38,888 total grants, an increase of 1,105 over FY2009, including 10,739 new and competing
grants, an increase of 914. The request and the House bill would each have provided inflationadjustment increases of 2% for noncompeting continuation awards, as well as a 2.0% increase in
the average cost of competing RPGs. Under the request, the “success rate” of applications
receiving funding was expected to be about 21%, the same as the estimated rate for FY2009.
Estimated success rates for the various ICs were expected to range from 12% to 50%, although
most would have ranged from 15% to 27%. Neither the Senate committee nor the conferees
commented on numbers of awards or success rates.
Several NIH efforts are focused on supporting new investigators to encourage young scientists to
undertake careers in research and to help them speed their transition from training to independent
research. The Pathway to Independence program provides, through all the ICs, mentored grants
that convert to independent RPGs; the House committee specified $102 million for the program.
The NIH Director’s New Innovator Award program provides first-time independent awards to
especially creative investigators; the Administration planned to spend $80 million to support
about 35 New Innovator Awards through the Common Fund in FY2010. In FY2009, NIH began
giving special consideration during peer review to applications for research support made by
Early Stage Investigators (new investigators who are within 10 years of having completed their
terminal research degree or residency). For the National Research Service Awards, NIH’s regular
training mechanism, the request proposed an increase of $8 million (1.0%) to $798 million. The
funding would have supported 17,742 Full-Time Training Positions, an increase of 101. Although
NIH did not request any increases in stipends or other training-related expenses for pre- or postdoctoral fellows, the House bill provided funding for a 2% average increase in research training
stipends. The Senate committee did not identify a specific training stipend increase. The
conference agreement included funding for a 1% increase.
Changes proposed in the request for other funding mechanisms within the NIH budget included
increased support for research centers, up $40 million (1.3%) to $3.056 billion. That included
support of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs), funded at an estimated $467
million, including $25 million from the Common Fund. Support for grants in the Other Research
category was proposed to increase by $25 million (1.4%) to a total of $1.844 billion. R&D
Congressional Research Service
23
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
contracts would have increased by $33 million (1.0%) to $3.412 billion, including $300 million
for the Global HIV/AIDS Fund. A trans-NIH program launched in FY2009, the Therapeutic Rare
and Neglected Diseases Initiative (TRNDI), was to continue at $24 million. The NIH intramural
research program, representing about 10% of the NIH budget, was proposed to increase by $48
million (1.5%) to a total of $3.219 billion. The request included a proposed increase of $25
million (1.8%) to a total of $1.430 billion for research management and support. As has been the
case for the past five years, no new funding was requested or provided for extramural research
facilities construction and renovation. The Recovery Act provided $1.0 billion for this purpose,
from which awards will continue to be made in FY2010. Funding for the intramural buildings and
facilities account has already been discussed.
NIH and three of the other Public Health Service agencies within HHS are subject to a budget tap
called the PHS Program Evaluation Set-Aside. Section 241 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. § 238j)
authorizes the Secretary to use a portion of eligible appropriations to assess the effectiveness of
federal health programs and to identify ways to improve them. The set-aside has the effect of
redistributing appropriated funds for specific purposes among PHS and other HHS agencies.
Section 205 of the FY2010 Labor/HHS appropriations act capped the set-aside at 2.5%, instead of
the 2.4% maximum that had been in place for several years. NIH, with the largest budget among
the PHS agencies, becomes the largest “donor” of program evaluation funds, and is a relatively
minor recipient. By convention, budget tables such as Table 8 do not subtract the amount of the
evaluation tap, or of other taps within HHS, from the agencies’ appropriations.32
As mentioned earlier, in addition to the FY2009 regular appropriations, NIH received a total of
$10.400 billion in emergency FY2009 supplemental appropriations in the economic stimulus
legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The funds were
made available for obligation for two years. NIH’s current implementation plans indicate that
more than $5 billion will remain to be obligated in FY2010. The funding given to NIH included
$8.2 billion for extramural research; $1.3 billion for non-federal research facility construction,
renovation, and equipment; $500 million for NIH buildings and facilities; and $400 million for
comparative effectiveness research. 33
Activities supported with NIH’s ARRA funding are being tracked on the NIH Recovery website. 34
On a webpage about current grant funding opportunities, NIH says: “While NIH Institutes and
Centers have broad flexibility to invest in many types of grant programs, they will follow the
spirit of the ARRA by funding projects that will stimulate the economy, create or retain jobs, and
have the potential for making scientific progress in 2 years.”35 The agency’s implementation plans
for the various funding categories are available on the HHS Recovery Plans website.36 NIH is
32
For further information on the Evaluation Set-Aside, see CRS Report RL34098, Public Health Service (PHS)
Agencies: Background and Funding, coordinated by (name redacted).
33
For further details, see CRS Report R40181, Selected Health Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009, coordinated by (name redacted).
34
NIH and the ARRA, http://www.nih.gov/recovery/.
35
Grant Funding Opportunities Supported by the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA),
http://grants.nih.gov/recovery/. The site also includes searchable state-by-state data on ARRA-funded awards.
36
Department of Health and Human Services Agency-Wide Plan, http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/reports/plans/
index.html. See the section on “Strengthening Scientific Research and Facilities.”
Congressional Research Service
24
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
focusing activities on (1) funding new and recently peer reviewed, highly meritorious research
grant applications that can be accomplished in two years or less; (2) giving targeted supplemental
awards to current grants to push research forward; and (3) supporting a new initiative called the
NIH Challenge Grants in Health and Science Research (at least $200 million to fund 200 or more
grants with budgets under $500,000 per year) for research on specific topics that would benefit
from significant two-year jumpstart funds. NIH received about 20,000 applications in response to
the Challenge Grant announcement. Another new program called Research and Research
Infrastructure “Grand Opportunities” (GO) grants supports large-scale research projects (budgets
over $500,000 per year) working in areas of specific knowledge gaps, creating new technologies,
or developing new approaches to multi- and interdisciplinary research teams. On September 30,
2009, President Obama announced that NIH had awarded $5 billion in ARRA funding, supporting
over 12,000 grants to research institutions in every state. A White House press release highlighted
examples of research in cancer, heart disease, and autism, particularly over $1 billion in research
applying the technology produced by the Human Genome Project.37
Table 8. National Institutes of Health
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
Enacteda
FY2009
ARRA
FY2010
Request
FY2010
House
FY2010
Sen. Cte.
FY2010
Enacted
Cancer (NCI)
4,969
1,257
5,150
5,150
5,054
5,103
Heart, Lung, and Blood
(NHLBI)
3,016
763
3,050
3,123
3,067
3,097
Dental and Craniofacial
Research (NIDCR)
403
102
408
417
409
413
Diabetes, Digestive, and
Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
1,761
445
1,781
1,824
1,791
1,808
Neurological Disorders and
Stroke (NINDS)
1,593
403
1,613
1,650
1,620
1,636
Allergy and Infectious Diseases
(NIAID)b
4,703
1,113
4,760
4,860
4,777
4,818
General Medical Sciences
(NIGMS)
1,998
505
2,024
2,069
2,032
2,052
Child Health and Human
Development (NICHD)
1,295
327
1,314
1,341
1,317
1,330
Eye (NEI)
688
174
696
713
700
707
Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS)
663
187
684
695
683
690
1,081
273
1,093
1,119
1,099
1,110
525
133
531
544
534
539
Institutes and Centers
(ICs)
Aging (NIA)
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and
37
See the press release, “President Obama Announces Recovery Act Funding for Groundbreaking Medical Research,”
and an accompanying fact sheet, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-AnnouncesRecovery-Act-Funding-For-GroundingBreaking-Medical-Research/ and http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/
Fact-Sheet-Recovery-to-Discovery-5-Billion-Recovery-Act-Investment-in-Scientific-Research-and-Jobs/.
Congressional Research Service
25
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
FY2009
Enacteda
FY2009
ARRA
FY2010
Request
FY2010
House
FY2010
Sen. Cte.
FY2010
Enacted
Deafness and Communication
Disorders (NIDCD)
407
103
413
422
415
419
Nursing Research (NINR)
142
36
144
147
144
146
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
(NIAAA)
450
114
455
466
458
462
Drug Abuse (NIDA)
1,033
261
1,045
1,070
1,050
1,060
Mental Health (NIMH)c
1,450
367
1,475
1,502
1,475
1,489
Human Genome Research
(NHGRI)
502
127
510
520
511
516
Biomedical Imaging and
Bioengineering (NIBIB)
308
78
313
319
313
317
1,226
1,610
1,252
1,280
1,257
1,269
Complementary and
Alternative Medicine
(NCCAM)
125
32
127
130
128
129
Minority Health and Health
Disparities (NCMHD)
206
52
209
213
210
212
Fogarty International Center
(FIC)
69
17
69
71
69
70
National Library of Medicine
(NLM)
331
84
334
343
336
340
Office of Director (OD)
1,247
1,337
1,183
1,169
1,183
1,177
Common Fund (non-add)
(541)
(137)
(549)
(534)
(549)
(544)
Buildings & Facilities (B&F)
126
500
126
100
126
100
Subtotal, Labor/HHS
Appropriation
30,317
10,400
30,759
31,259
30,759
31,009
Superfund (Interior
appropriation to NIEHS)d
78
0
79
79
79
79
30,395
10,400
30,838
31,338
30,838
31,088
Pre-appropriated Type 1
diabetes fundse
150
0
150
150
150
150
PHS Evaluation Tap fundingf
8
0
8
8
8
8
30,553
10,400
30,996
31,496
30,996
31,246
-300
0
-300
-300
-300
-300
30,253
10,400
30,696
31,196
30,696
30,946
Institutes and Centers
(ICs)
Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
Research Resources (NCRR)
Total, NIH discretionary
budget authority
NIH program level before Global
Fund transfer (cited in HHS
budget documents)
Global Fund transfer
(AIDS/TB/Malaria)b
Total, NIH program level
after Global Fund transfer
Source: Adapted by CRS from H.Rept. 111-366, Division D, the Labor/HHS portion of the conference report
on the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 3288, P.L. 111-117). Details may not add to totals due to
rounding.
Congressional Research Service
26
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
a.
FY2009 Enacted does not reflect adjustments for transfers among ICs under the NIH Director’s transfer
authority.
b.
NIAID totals include funds for transfer to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria.
c.
FY2009 NIMH does not include $1.0 million transferred from Office of the Secretary to administer the
Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee.
d.
Separate account in the Interior/Environment appropriations for NIEHS research activities related to
Superfund.
e.
Funds available to NIDDK for diabetes research under PHS Act § 330B (authorized by P.L. 106-554, P.L.
107-360, P.L. 110-173, and P.L. P.L. 110-275). Funds have been appropriated through FY2011.
f.
Additional funds for NLM from PHS Evaluation Set-Aside (§ 241 of PHS Act).
Department of Energy38
The Administration requested $11.464 billion for Department of Energy (DOE) R&D and related
programs in FY2010, including activities in three major categories: science, national security, and
energy. This request was 3% above the FY2009 regular appropriation of $11.131 billion. (In
addition, DOE received $10.900 billion for R&D and related programs in the Recovery Act.) The
House provided a total of $11.355 billion. The Senate provided a total of $11.379 billion. The
final bill provided a total of $11.143 billion. See Table 9 for details.
The request for the DOE Office of Science was $4.942 billion, an increase of 3.9% from the
FY2009 regular appropriation of $4.758 billion. (The Office of Science also received $1.600
billion in the Recovery Act.) The Administration intends to double the combined R&D funding of
the Office of Science and two other agencies over the decade from FY2006 to FY2016.39 This
policy continues a goal established by the Bush Administration as part of its American
Competitiveness Initiative. The 3.9% increase requested for FY2010 was less than the annual
growth rate required to achieve a doubling in ten years, but that comparison is complicated by the
planned expenditure of Recovery Act funds in both FY2009 and FY2010. The America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) authorized $5.814 billion for the Office of Science in FY2010.
The House provided $4.944 billion. The Senate provided $4.899 billion. The final appropriation
was $4.904 billion.
Within the Office of Science, the request for basic energy sciences included $68 million for the
establishment of two energy innovation hubs, one focused on materials for energy storage, and
the other on direct production of fuels from solar energy.40 The House funded one hub. The
Senate funded both. The final bill funded neither. A proposed 10.8% increase for advanced
scientific computing research was to support additional design research on computer architectures
38
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
39
See Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The President’s Plan for Science
and Innovation: Doubling Funding for Key Basic Research Agencies, May 7, 2009, http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/
budget/doubling.pdf.
40
DOE proposed to initiate eight energy innovation hubs in FY2010. The House funded one hub. The Senate funded
five. The final bill funded three. The aim of the hubs is to support cross-disciplinary energy R&D that addresses
challenges in basic science, technology, economics, and policy.
Congressional Research Service
27
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
for science and infrastructure improvements for the Leadership Computing Facility at Argonne
National Laboratory. The House provided the requested amount for advanced scientific
computing; the Senate provided $10 million less; the final bill provided $15 million less. In
fusion energy sciences, an increase of $11 million was requested for the U.S. share of the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). Press reports continue to raise
concerns about cost increases and schedule delays for ITER.41 A revised official estimate of cost
and schedule is expected in late FY2010 or FY2011. The House provided the requested amount
for fusion, plus $20 million for laser fusion research at the Naval Research Laboratory. The
Senate provided $416 million. The final bill provided $426 million, including “no explicit
funding” for the Naval Research Laboratory.
The request for the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) was $10 million,
down from the regular FY2009 appropriation of $15 million. This is a new program authorized by
the America COMPETES Act. DOE budget documents describe its mission as overcoming longterm, high-risk technological barriers to the development of energy technologies. The bulk of the
agency’s funding to date is the $400 million it received in the Recovery Act.42 Neither the House
nor the Senate provided FY2010 funding for ARPA-E. The House committee report explained
that this was because Recovery Act funds remain available, and “the decision not to provide any
additional funding ... does not in any way suggest a lack of commitment to this program by the
Committee.” The final bill also provided no new funds for ARPA-E.
The request for DOE national security R&D was $3.300 billion, a 2.9% increase from $3.206
billion in FY2009. A proposed increase of $175 million for the naval reactors program included
$59 million more for R&D on reactor and power plant technology, as DOE and the Navy initiate
development of a successor to the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine, and $48 million more
for refueling, overhaul, and modernization of a prototype reactor plant in upstate New York. A
proposed decrease of $66 million for nonproliferation and verification R&D would have resulted
mostly from a shift of funding to other DOE nonproliferation activities. The request included no
funds for the reliable replacement warhead program. The House provided a total of $3.307
billion, including $25 million more than the request for inertial confinement fusion and $20
million less than the request for development of environmental cleanup technologies for use at
DOE defense sites. The Senate provided $3.408 billion, including $16.5 million more than the
request for inertial confinement fusion, $40 million more for increased development of nuclear
detection technologies, and $30 million less for naval reactor development. The final bill
provided a total of $3.296 billion, including $21 million more than the request for inertial
confinement fusion, $20 million more for nuclear detection technology, $58 million less for naval
reactor development, and $35 million less for defense site environmental cleanup technology.
41
See, for example, Ian Sample, “ITER: Flagship Fusion Reactor Could Cost Twice as Much as Budgeted,” The
Guardian, January 29, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/29/nuclear-fusion-power-iter-funding; Geoff
Brumfiel, “Fusion Dreams Delayed,” Nature, May 28, 2009, http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090527/pdf/
459488a.pdf; and Daniel Clery, “ITER Fusion Reactor Faces New Delay,” ScienceInsider, November 19, 2009,
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/iter-fusion-rea.html.
42
For more information on ARPA-E, see CRS Report RL34497, Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPAE): Background, Status, and Selected Issues for Congress, by (name redacted). In the regular FY2009 appropriation,
ARPA-E was funded in the Science account, which otherwise funds only the Office of Science. In FY2010 budget
documents, ARPA-E funding in the Recovery Act and requested ARPA-E funding for FY2010 appear in a separate
Energy Transformation Acceleration Fund account.
Congressional Research Service
28
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
The request for DOE energy R&D was $3.212 billion, up 1.9% from $3.152 billion in FY2009.
This total included increases for R&D on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and the electric
power grid and decreases for fossil fuel and nuclear energy R&D. The increases for energy
efficiency and renewable energy R&D included $145 million more for solar energy, including
$35 million for a new solar electricity innovation hub; $60 million more for vehicle energy
efficiency; $98 million more for building energy efficiency, including $35 million for a new
innovation hub on energy efficient building systems; and $115 million for RE-ENERGYSE, a
new program for education and workforce development in energy science and engineering. These
increases would have been partly offset by a $100 million decrease for fuel cell technology. The
request would have more than doubled funding for the electricity delivery and energy reliability
R&D program, which is being restructured to reflect the Administration’s goals for grid
modernization; $35 million of the proposed increase would have funded a new energy innovation
hub on grid materials, devices, and systems. A proposed 30% reduction for fossil energy R&D
resulted from no new funding being requested for the Clean Coal Power Initiative; the
department’s budget documents noted that this initiative was “already strongly supported” by the
$800 million it received under the Recovery Act. This decrease would have been partly offset by
the $35 million proposed for a new innovation hub on carbon capture and storage. Within nuclear
energy R&D, a proposed reduction of $158 million for Nuclear Power 2010, which is to be
concluded in FY2010, was partly offset by a request for $70 million to establish two new energy
innovation hubs, one on modeling and simulation and one on extreme materials. The House
provided $3.104 billion for energy R&D. Relative to the request, this total included increases of
$70 million for nuclear energy, $45 million for vehicle energy efficiency, $45 for fuel cell
technology, and $10 million for water power; decreases of $61 million for solar energy, $27
million for building energy efficiency, and $69 million for program direction and support; and no
funding for RE-ENERGYSE. The Senate provided $3.072 billion. Relative to the request, this
total included increases of $82 million for fossil energy and $10 million for nuclear energy; a
decrease of $35 million for smart grid R&D; and a net decrease of $197 million for energy
efficiency and renewable energy. The Senate’s net decrease for energy efficiency and renewable
energy included increases for hydrogen, wind, and water power, decreases in fuel cell technology,
solar energy, and program direction and support, and no funding for RE-ENERGYSE. The final
bill provided $2.944 billion. Relative to the request, this total included increases of $54 million
for fossil energy and $63 million for nuclear energy, a decrease of $49 million for smart grid
R&D, and a net decrease of $338 million for energy efficiency and renewable energy. The final
net decrease for energy efficiency and renewable energy included increases for hydrogen, wind,
and water power, decreases for fuel cell technology, solar energy, and program direction and
support, and no funding for RE-ENERGYSE.
Table 9. Department of Energy R&D and Related Programs
($ in millions)
FY2009
Regular
FY2009
ARRA
FY2010
Request
FY2010
House
FY2010
Senate
FY2010
Final
4,773
2,000
4,952
4,944
4,899
4,904
Office of Science
4,758
1,600
4,942
4,944
4,899
4,904
– Basic Energy Sciences
1,572
555
1,686
1,675
1,654
1,636
– High Energy Physics
796
232
819
819
813
810
– Biological and
Environmental Research
602
166
604
597
604
604
Science
Congressional Research Service
29
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
FY2009
Regular
FY2009
ARRA
FY2010
Request
FY2010
House
FY2010
Senate
FY2010
Final
– Nuclear Physics
512
155
552
536
540
535
– Fusion Energy Sciences
403
91
421
441
416
426
– Advanced Scientific
Computing Research
369
157
409
409
399
394
– Other
504
244
451
467
473
499
Advanced Research
Projects Agency – Energy
15
400
10
0
0
0
3,206
0
3,300
3,307
3,408
3,296
1,982
0
1,945
1,972
2,042
2,013
Naval Reactors
828
0
1,003
1,003
973
945
Nonproliferation and
Verification R&D
364
0
297
297
337
317
Def. Envtal. Cleanup
Technology Devel.
32
0
55
35
55
20
3,152
8,900c
3,212
3,104
3,072
2,944
Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energyb
1,676
5,500
2,018
1,847
1,821
1,680
Fossil Energy R&D
876
3,400c
618
618
699
672
Nuclear Energy R&Dd
515
0
403
473
413
466
Electr. Delivery & Energy
Reliability R&D
85
0
174
166
139
125
11,131
10,900c
11,464
11,355
11,379
11,143
National Security
Weapons Activitiesa
Energy
Total
Source: DOE FY2010 congressional budget justification, online at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/10budget/
Start.htm, H.R. 3183 as passed by the House,H.Rept. 111-203, H.R. 3183 as passed by the Senate, S.Rept. 111-45,
P.L. 111-85, and H.Rept. 111-278.
a.
Includes Stockpile Services R&D Support, Stockpile Services R&D Certification and Safety, Science
Campaigns, Engineering Campaigns except Enhanced Surety and Enhanced Surveillance, Inertial Confinement
Fusion, Advanced Simulation and Computing, and a prorated share of Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities. Additional R&D activities may take place in the subprograms of Directed Stockpile Work that are
devoted to specific weapon systems, but these funds are not included in the table because detailed funding
schedules for those subprograms are classified.
b.
Excludes Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.
c.
A significant portion of the fossil energy funding in the ARRA is likely to be allocated to demonstration
activities that not all observers would consider R&D.
d.
Includes Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative in FY2008 (in the Fuel Cycle Research and Facilities line item) as well
as in FY2009 and FY2010 (in the Research and Development line item).
Congressional Research Service
30
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
National Science Foundation43
The FY2010 request for the National Science Foundation (NSF) was $7.045 billion, an 8.5%
increase ($554.6 million) over the FY2009 estimate of $6.490 billion (see Table 10). Under
President Obama’s Plan for Science and Innovation,44 the Administration proposed doubling the
federal investment in three basic research agencies (NSF, DOE Office of Science, and NIST) over
a period of 10 years relative to the FY2006 level. The FY2010 request is intended as an
installment toward that doubling effort and is structured to build on the scientific investments
funded by the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act and the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (ARRA). The Administration anticipates that the largest increases in the Plan will
occur in FY2012.
NSF identified several strategies in the FY2010 budget request, including expanding the scientific
workforce and broadening participation from underrepresented groups and geographical regions;
increasing three-fold the number of new Graduate Research Fellowships awarded annually;
expanding and enhancing international partnerships and interagency collaborations; performing
effectively with the highest standards of accountability; and maintaining a portfolio of basic,
high-risk, and transformative research across all disciplines. The NSF Director has described
transformative research as “a range of endeavors, which promise extraordinary outcomes; such
as, revolutionizing entire disciplines, creating entirely new fields, or disrupting accepted theories
and perspective.”45 Several reports have recommended that funds be allocated specifically for this
type of research. NSF contends that in the global environment of science and engineering, support
for transformative, high-risk, high-reward research is critical to U.S. competitiveness. The
FY2010 strategies parallel some of the goals contained in the Plan for Science and Innovation and
are designed to promote research that will drive innovation; support the design and development
of world-class facilities, instrumentation, and infrastructure; and maintain an internationally
competitive workforce.
Included in the FY2010 request was $5.733 billion for Research and Related Activities (R&RA),
a 10.6% increase ($550.1 million) above the FY2009 estimate of $5.183 billion. R&RA funds
research projects, research facilities, and education and training activities. Some in the scientific
and academic communities have voiced concerns about the imbalance between support for the
life sciences and the physical sciences. Research can be multidisciplinary and transformational,
and often discoveries in the physical sciences lead to advances in other disciplines. The America
COMPETES Act authorized increased federal research support in the physical sciences,
mathematics, and engineering. The FY2010 request would have provided $1.380 billion for the
Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) Directorate, a 9.9% increase over the FY2009 level.
The MPS portfolio supports investments in fundamental research, facilities, and instruments, and
43
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
44
“The President’s Plan for Science and Innovation,” Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House,
May 7, 2009, http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/budget/doubling.pdf.
45
Bement, Jr., Arden L., Director, National Science Foundation, “Transformative Research: The Artistry and Alchemy
of the 21st Century,” remarks, Texas Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science Fourth Annual Conference,
Austin, Texas, January 4, 2007. http://www.nsf.gov/news/speeches/bement/07/alb070104_texas.jsp.
Congressional Research Service
31
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
provides approximately 43% of the federal funding for basic research in mathematics and
physical sciences conducted at colleges and universities. R&RA includes Integrative Activities
(IA), a cross-disciplinary research and education program that is also a source of funding for the
acquisition and development of research instrumentation at institutions. The FY2010 request
provided $271.1 million for IA. The IA also funds Partnerships for Innovation, disaster research
teams, and the Science and Technology Policy Institute. In FY2008, support for the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) was transferred from the Education and
Human Resources Directorate (EHR) to IA. NSF’s FY2010 request for EPSCoR was $147.1
million, which is a part of the total IA funding request. The FY2010 request supported a portfolio
of three complementary strategies—research infrastructure, co-funding, and outreach—for the 27
EPSCoR jurisdictions. Approximately half of the funding for EPSCoR was to be used for a
combination of new awards and research infrastructure improvement grants. The remaining half
of the funding was to be used to support grants made in previous years.
The NSF asserts that international research partnerships are critical to the nation in maintaining a
competitive edge, addressing global issues, and capitalizing on global economic opportunities.
For FY2010, the Administration requested $49.0 million for the Office of International Science
and Engineering (OISE), an 11.3% increase over FY2009. The OISE manages NSF’s offices in
Beijing, Paris, and Tokyo that analyze and report on in-country and regional science and
technology policies and developments. The OISE serves as a liaison with research institutes and
foreign agencies, and facilitates coordination and implementation of NSF research and education
efforts.
The Office of Polar Programs (OPP) is funded in the R&RA. The OPP is the primary source of
U.S. support for basic research in polar regions. The NSF also serves in a leadership capacity for
several international research partnerships in the Arctic and Antarctic. Research in the Arctic and
Antarctic explores the various aspects of the global earth system that affect the global
environment and climate. The FY2010 request for polar research was $516.0 million, a 9.6%
increase over the FY2009 estimate. Increases in OPP in FY2010 are for arctic and antarctic
sciences—glacial and sea ice, terrestrial and marine ecosystems, the ocean and the atmosphere,
and biology of life in the cold and dark. Priorities of the OPP in FY2010 include support for
national energy goals, support for transformative research, and resupply improvements at the
research stations. From FY2006 through FY2008, NSF had the responsibility for funding the
operational costs of the U.S. Coast Guard’s (USCG) three icebreakers that support scientific
research in the polar regions—Polar Sea, Polar Star, and Healy.46 NSF was responsible for the
operation, maintenance, and staffing of the vessels under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between NSF and USCG. Beginning in FY2009, the MOA no longer covers the Polar Star. The
Polar Star will be refurbished by the USCG using FY2009 funds. The NSF intends to continue to
operate and maintain the Polar Sea and Healy to conduct scientific research.
NSF supported several interagency R&D priorities in its FY2010 request. It is a lead supporter in
the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), requesting $423.0 million for nanotechnology
research. Funding would support research in emerging areas of nanoscale science and technology
such as new drug delivery systems, advanced materials, and more powerful computer chips. This
46
For expanded discussion of the icebreakers see for example CRS Report RL34391, Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker
Modernization: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
32
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
funding included $29.9 million for research to explore potential environmental, health, and safety
affects of nanotechnology. NSF’s other interagency priorities in its FY2010 request included
funding for the Climate Change Science Program ($299.9 million), Homeland Security ($385.5
million), and Networking and Information Technology R&D ($1.111 billion).
The NSF supports a variety of centers and center programs. The FY2010 request provided $57.8
million for Science and Technology Centers, $53.6 million for Materials Research Science and
Engineering Centers, $66.0 million for Engineering Research Centers, $45.2 million for
Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers, $25.8 million for Science of Learning Centers,
$24.0 million for Centers for Chemical Innovation, and $17.4 million for Centers for Analysis
and Synthesis.
The FY2010 request for the EHR Directorate was $857.8 million, $12.5 million (1.5%) above the
FY2009 estimate. The EHR portfolio is focused on, among other things, increasing the
technological literacy of all citizens; preparing the next generation of science, engineering, and
mathematics professionals; and closing the achievement gap of underrepresented groups in all
scientific fields. Support at the various educational levels in the FY2010 request was as follows:
research on learning in formal and informal settings (including precollege), $229.5 million;
undergraduate education, $289.9 million; and graduate education, $181.4 million.
Priorities at the precollege level included research and evaluation on education in science and
engineering ($43.0 million), informal science education ($66.0 million), project and program
evaluation ($12.0 million), and Discovery Research K-12 ($108.5 million). Discovery Research is
structured to combine the strengths of three existing programs and encourage innovative thinking
in K-12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education.
According to NSF, its undergraduate level programs are designed to “create leverage for
institutional change.” Priorities at the undergraduate level included the Robert Noyce Scholarship
Program ($55.0 million); Curriculum, Laboratory and Instructional Development ($87.0 million);
STEM Talent Expansion Program ($31.5 million); and Advanced Technological Education ($64.0
million). The Math and Science Partnership Program (MSP), an interagency program, was
proposed at $58.2 million in the FY2010 request. The NSF coordinates its MSP activities with the
Department of Education and state-funded MSP sites. At the graduate level, NSF’s priorities were
Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship ($29.9 million), Graduate Research
Fellowships ($102.6 million), and the Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education ($49.0
million).
Additional EHR priorities supported a portfolio of programs directed at strengthening and
expanding the participation of underrepresented groups and diverse institutions in the scientific
and engineering enterprise. Among the targeted programs in the FY2010 request were the
Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program ($32.0 million), Louis
Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation ($44.8 million), and Increasing the Participation and
Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers ($1.5 million).
The Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account was funded at
$117.3 million in the FY2010 request, a decrease of 22.8% from the FY2009 estimate. The
MREFC supports the acquisition and construction of major research facilities and equipment that
extend the boundaries of science, engineering, and technology. According to NSF, it is the
primary federal agency providing support for “forefront instrumentation and facilities for the
academic research and education communities.” NSF’s first priority for funding is support for
Congressional Research Service
33
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
ongoing projects. Second priority is given to projects that have been approved by the National
Science Board for new starts. To qualify for support, NSF required MREFC projects to have “the
potential to shift the paradigm in scientific understanding and/or infrastructure technology.” The
FY2010 request was indicative of NSF’s tighter standards and requirements for receiving funding
in this account. The FY2010 request includes support for five ongoing projects: Advanced Laser
Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory ($46.3 million), Atacama Large Millimeter Array
($42.8 million), IceCube Neutrino Observatory ($1.0 million), Advanced Technology Solar
Telescope ($10.0 million), and the Ocean Observatories Initiative ($14.3 million).
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, 2009 (ARRA). The law increased NSF’s FY2009 funding by approximately
$3.0 billion. The NSF directed funding from ARRA to the following priorities:47
•
Support highly rated proposals that would otherwise be declined;
•
Encourage high-risk, transformative research with the potential to grow the
nation’s economy;
•
Create and sustain research jobs through new awards, graduate research fellows,
and early-career researchers;
•
Train and develop the careers of STEM undergraduates, teachers, and
professional;
•
Strengthen the nation’s overall cyberinfrastructure and enhance institutional
broadband access connectivity; and
•
Meet facilities and infrastructure needs, including deferred maintenance.
On May 27, 2009, the NSF announced its first major award made with funding from ARRA—for
construction of the Alaska Region Research Vessel ($148.0 million). This vessel has been
designed to operate as both an ice-breaker and a research ship. This dual-purpose vessel has the
ability to carry as many as 500 people and to stay at sea for as many as 300 days a year. The
vessel has an operational life span of 30 years. NSF states that “The three-year construction phase
of the project will support 4,350 total jobs, 750 directly at the shipyard and as many as 3,600 in
the broader economy.”48 The award announcement noted that NSF intends to ensure that the
vessel will be built in a U.S. shipyard.
On June 18, 2009, the House Committee on Appropriations passed H.R. 2847, the Commerce,
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2010 (H.Rept. 111-149). The House
passed the bill on June 18, 2009. The bill would have provided a total of $6.937 billion for the
NSF in FY2010, $108.5 million below the request and $446.1 million above the FY2009
estimate. Included in the total for FY2010 was $5.642 billion for R&RA, $114.3 million for
MREFC, and $862.9 million for the EHR. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported the bill
on June 25, 2009 (S.Rept. 111-34), and the Senate passed the bill on November 5, 2009. The
47
“FY2010 NSF Budget Request to Congress,” National Science Foundation, p. Overview-7.
National Science Foundation, “NSF Announces First Major Award Under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
to the Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV),” press release, May 27, 2009, http://www.nsf.gov/news/
news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=114796.
48
Congressional Research Service
34
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
Senate measure would have provided $6.917 billion for the NSF, $19.7 million below the Housepassed bill, $128.2 million below the Administration’s request, and $426.4 above the FY2009
estimate. The Senate bill would have provided $5.618 billion for R&RA, $122.3 million for the
MREFC, and $857.8 million for the EHR.
On December 16, 2009, the President signed into law, P.L. 111-117, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010. The omnibus act includes funding for six appropriations for FY2010,
including the CJS appropriations. P.L. 111-117 provides a total of $6.927 billion for the NSF,
$436.0 million above the FY2009 estimate and approximately $118.0 million below the
President’s request. Included in the total for NSF, is $5,617.9 million for R&RA, $872.8 for EHR,
and $177.3 million for MREFC.
Table 10. National Science Foundation
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
Est.
FY2009
ARRA
FY2010
Request
FY2010
House
FY2010
Senate
FY2010
Enacted
(P.L. 111-117)
Biological Sciences
$655.8
$733.0
Computer & Inform. Sci. & Eng.
573.7
633.0
Engineering
693.3
764.5
Geosciences
807.1
909.0
1,256.0
1,380.0
Social, Behav., & Econ. Sciences
240.3
257.0
Office of Cyberinfrastructure
199.3
219.0
Office of International Sci. & Eng.
44.0
49.0
U.S. Polar Programs
470.7
516.0
Integrative Activities
241.3
271.1
U.S. Arctic Research Comm.
1.5
1.6
Subtotal Res. & Rel. Act
5,183.1
2,500.0
5,733.2
5,642.1c
5,618.0d
5,617.9e
Education & Human Resources
845.3
100.0
857.8
862.9
857.8
872.8
Major Res. Equip. & Facil. Constr.
152.0
400.0
117.3
114.3
122.3
117.3
Agency Ops. & Award Mgmt.
294.0
318.4
299.9
300.4
300.0
National Science Board
4.0
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.5
Office of Inspector General
12.0
2.0
14.0
13.0
14.0
14.0
6,490.4b
3,002.0
7,045.0
6,936.5
6,916.8
6,926.5
Math and Physical Sciences
Total NSFb
Source: FY2010 Budget Request to Congress, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, May 7, 2009.
a.
The Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252) provided NSF with $62.5 million in additional
FY2008 funding. The FY2008 supplemental funding was not incorporated into the above table column.
b.
The totals do not include carryovers or retirement accruals. Totals may not add due to rounding.
c.
H.R. 2847, H.Rept. 111-149. Funding levels for specific directorates and programs and activities in R&RA are
not yet available.
d.
H.R. 2847, S.Rept. 111-34.
Congressional Research Service
35
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
e.
P.L. 111-117, Omnibus Appropriations Act, FY2010 (H.R. 3288, H.Rept. 111-366).
Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology49
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a laboratory of the Department of
Commerce with a mandate to increase the competitiveness of U.S. companies through appropriate
support for industrial development of precompetitive, generic technologies and the diffusion of
government-developed technological advances to users in all segments of the American economy.
NIST research also provides the measurement, calibration, and quality assurance techniques that
underpin U.S. commerce, technological progress, improved product reliability, manufacturing
processes, and public safety.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, provides $856.6 million in funding for NIST, an
increase of 4.6% over the FY2009 appropriation, 1.2% below the Administration’s request, 9.7%
above the amount in the original House-passed bill, and 2.5% below the figure in the version of
the bill passed by the Senate. Support for in-house research and development under the Scientific
and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account (including the Baldrige National Quality
Program) increases 9.1% to $515.9 million. This figure represents a decrease of 3.7% from the
President’s budget proposal, an increase of 1.0% from the initial House-passed bill and 1.0% less
than the appropriation in the bill originally passed by the Senate.
The Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program (MEP) will receive $124.7 million, 13.4%
more than FY2009, and the same amount included in the Administration’s budget and both House
and Senate bills. Financing for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) is budgeted at $69.9
million, an increase of 7.5% over the FY2009 appropriation and identical to the funding in the
budget proposal and the initial House and Senate legislation. Construction support totals $147.0
million. This figure is 14.5% below FY2009, 25.7% above the President’s request, almost twice
that included in the original House-passed bill, and 10.3% less than the amount included in the
initial Senate-passed legislation.
The President’s FY2010 budget requested $846.1 million in funding for NIST, an increase of
3.3% over the FY2009 appropriation. The STRS account (including the Baldrige National Quality
Program) would have increased 13.3% to $534.6 million. The Manufacturing Extension Program
received $124.7 million, 13.4% more than FY2009, while financing for the Technology
Innovation Program was budgeted at $69.9 million, an increase of 7.5% over the previous fiscal
year. Construction funding would decline 32.0% to $116.9 million. (See Table 11.)
The FY2010 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, H.R. 2847,
as originally passed by the House, provided $781.1 million for NIST, 4.6% below FY2009
funding (due primarily to decreased funding for construction) and 7.7% less than the
49
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
36
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
Administration’s request. Included in this figure was $510.0 million for the STRS account, 8.1%
more than FY2009, but 4.6% below the budget request. As in the President’s budget, the $124.7
million in support for MEP represented a 13.4% increase while funding for TIP would have
increased 7.5% to $69.9 million. Construction spending totaled $76.5 million, a 55.5% decrease
from FY2009 and 7.7% below what the Administration requested.
The version of H.R. 2847 initially passed by the Senate would have funded NIST at $878.8
million, 7.3% above the previous fiscal year, 3.7% above the President’s budget request, and
12.5% more than the House-passed bill. Support for in-house R&D under the STRS account
totaled $520.3 million, an increase of 10.2% over FY2009, 2.7% less than the Administration’s
request, and 2.0% more than the figure in the initial House-passed version. As in the budget
request and the House-passed bill, funding for MEP would increase 13.4% to $124.7 million and
financing for TIP would increase 7.5% to 69.9 million. The $163.9 million for construction
represented a 4.7% decrease from FY2009, but 40.2% more than the Administration’s budget
figure and over twice that contained in H.R. 2847 as passed by the House.
No final FY2009 appropriations legislation was enacted by the close of the 110th Congress. P.L.
110-329, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act,
2009, provided, in part, funding for NIST at FY2008 levels through March 6, 2009. In the 111th
Congress, P.L. 111-8, the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, funds NIST at $819.0 million
with the STRS account receiving a 7.2% increase to $472.0 million (including the Baldrige
Quality Program). Support for MEP totals $110.0 million, a 22.8% increase, and financing for
TIP remains constant at $65.0 million. The $172.0 million for the construction budget reflects a
7.2% increase in funding.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5, provided an extra $222.0
million for the STRS account to be used for “research, competitive grants, additional research
fellowships and advanced research and measurement equipment and supplies,” as noted in the
Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee on Conference. An additional $360.0 million was
included for construction, of which $180.0 million “shall be for the competitive construction
grant program for research science buildings.” The law also directed the transfer of $20.0 million
from the Health Information Technology initiative to NIST to “create and test standards related to
health security and interoperability in conjunction with partners at the Department of Health and
Human Services,” according to the Joint Statement.
As part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, the Bush Administration stated its intention to
double over 10 years funding for “innovation-enabling research” performed at NIST through its
“core” programs (defined as internal research in the STRS account and the construction budget).
To this end, the former President’s FY2007 budget requested an increase of 18.3% for intramural
R&D at NIST; FY2007 appropriations for these in-house programs increased 9.6%. For FY2008,
the omnibus appropriations legislation provided for a small increase in the STRS account. This
was in contrast to the Bush Administration’s FY2008 budget which included a 15.2% increase in
funding, as did the original appropriations bill, H.R. 3093 (110th Congress), as passed by the
House, while the Senate-passed version contained a 15.6% increase. The former President’s
FY2009 budget request proposed a 21.5% increase in support for the STRS account. Increases in
the STRS account were included in the House and Senate appropriations bills during the 110th
Congress, but at amounts less than the budget request. In the 111th Congress, the Omnibus
Appropriations Act, 2009 bill provides a 7.2% increase to both the STRS account and
construction, while the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides significant
additional funding for both initiatives. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2010 includes an
Congressional Research Service
37
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
increase of 9.1% for the STRS account while construction spending is 14.5% below the FY2009
appropriation.
Continued funding for the extramural programs at NIST has been a major issue. Support for the
Advanced Technology Program was uncertain particularly because opponents objected to large
companies receiving research grants. Although Congress maintained (often decreasing) funding
for ATP, the initial appropriation bills passed by the House since FY2002 failed to include
financing for the program. In FY2006, support for the program was cut 41% and in FY2007, P.L.
110-69 replaced ATP with the Technology Innovation Program, which focuses on small and
medium sized firms. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2008, provided funding for this
new initiative. The Bush Administration’s FY2009 budget request did not include financing for
TIP, while the House and Senate bills provided support similar to FY2008. The budget for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, another extramural program administered by NIST, has
also been debated for several years. The former President’s FY2009 budget proposal
recommended curtailing the federally funded portion of the MEP and provided $2.0 million to
accomplish this objective. During the 110th Congress, the House and Senate appropriation bills
included large increases in funding for the program; the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act
provided a 22.8% increase in MEP financing while TIP funding remained constant. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, includes a 13.4% increase in support for MEP and a 7.5%
increase in funding for TIP.
For additional information, see CRS Report 95-30, The National Institute of Standards and
Technology: An Appropriations Overview; CRS Report RS22815, The Technology Innovation
Program; and CRS Report 97-104, Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program: An
Overview, all by (name redacted).
Table 11. NIST
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
(P.L. 111-8)
ARRAa
(P.L. 111-5)
FY2010
Request
H.R. 2847
House
H.R. 2847
Senate
FY2010
Enacted
(P.L. 111-117)
STRSb
472.0
220.0
534.6
510.0
520.3
515.0
TIP/ATP
65.0
69.9
69.9
69.9
69.9
MEP
110.0
124.7
124.7
124.7
124.7
Construction
172.0
116.9
76.5
163.9
147.0
846.1
781.1
878.8
856.6
NIST
Program
360.0
20.0
HITd
NIST Totale
819.0
600.0
Sources: NIST website (available at http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/budget.htm), P.L. 110-161, P.L. 111-8, P.L.
111-5, Budget Request, H.R. 2847, as passed by House, and H.R. 2847, as passed by the Senate.
a.
Includes FY2009 and FY2010 funding.
b.
Includes funding for the Baldrige National Quality Program.
c.
Funding is for the new Technology Innovation Program (TIP) that replaced ATP.
d.
Transferred from Department of Health and Human Services for Health Information Technology Initiative.
e.
Figures may not add up because of rounding.
Congressional Research Service
38
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration50
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) conducts scientific research in
areas such as ecosystems, climate, global climate change, weather, and water; supplies
information on the oceans and atmosphere; and conserves coastal and marine organisms and
environments. NOAA was created in 1970 by Reorganization Plan No. 4. The reorganization plan
was designed to unify the nation’s environmental activities and to provide a systematic approach
for monitoring, analyzing, and protecting the environment.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) R&D efforts focus on three
areas: climate; weather and air quality; and ocean, coastal and Great Lakes resources. For
FY2010, President Obama requested $568 million in R&D funding for NOAA, a 7.0% decrease
in funding from the FY2009 appropriation level of $611 million. R&D accounted for nearly
12.7% of NOAA’s total FY2010 discretionary FY2010 budget request of $4.474 billion. The
R&D request consisted of approximately 93% research funding and 7% development funding.
About 73% of the R&D request would fund intramural programs and 27% would fund extramural
programs.
NOAA’s administrative structure has evolved into five line offices that reflect its diverse mission
including the National Ocean Service (NOS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), the National Weather
Service (NWS), and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). In addition to
NOAA’s five line offices, Program Support (PS), a cross-cutting budget activity, includes the
Office of Marine and Aviation Services (OMAO).
OAR is the primary center for research and development within NOAA. OAR would have
received $305.9 million for R&D which is 53.9% of the total NOAA FY2010 R&D request and
77.6% of the total OAR request. This was nearly the same as the FY2009 OAR R&D
appropriation of $307.1 million. The OAR budget request supported R&D activities such as
climate research, weather and air quality research, and ecosystem management. The President’s
budget included $60.4 million for NOS R&D, $2.1 million less than FY2009 (-3.4%), and $27.6
million for NESDIS, a decrease of approximately $0.8 million (-2.8%). NWS R&D funding
would have decreased by $9.4 million to $14.3 million (-39.7%) and OMAO funding would have
fallen to $104.0 million, a decrease of $35.0 million (-25.2%). The Administration request would
have expanded R&D funding for NMFS to $55.4 million, an increase of $4.9 million (9.7%)
(Table 12).51
The NOAA FY2010 Budget Summary also provided information on its FY2010 R&D funding
request by function: ecosystems, 32%; climate, 31%; weather and water, 14%; commerce and
transportation, 1%; and mission support (22%).52 R&D accomplishments highlighted by NOAA
50
This section was written by (name redacted), Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
51
Emily Larkin, NOAA Budget Office, personal communication, May 29, 2009.
52
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration FY 2010
Budget Summary, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, May 11, 2009,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
39
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
included upgrading the NOAA operation prediction system; developing fishery bycatch reduction
devices; predicting harmful algal blooms in the Great Lakes; integrating radar data to enhance
weather forecasts and warnings; and implementing the soil moisture observational network.53
Research and development funding of NOAA line offices includes both R&D and non-R&D
activities. Therefore, there is insufficient information in the House and Senate bills and reports
and in the conference report for P.L. 111-117 to determine the precise level of R&D funding for
each line office. For the purposes of this report, where specific data are not available, FY2010
R&D line office funding levels provided in Table 12 have been estimated by assuming the
proportion of R&D in the 2010 request is similar to line office funding reported in House, Senate,
and conference reports. Total NOAA funding also is discussed to provide a general indication of
how R&D funding is likely to have fared.
On June 18, 2009, the House passed the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS)
FY2010 appropriations bill which recommended funding of $4.603 billion for NOAA. This was
an increase of 5.5% from the FY2009 enacted funding level of $4.365 billion and a 2.9% increase
over the Administration’s request of $4.474 million. On June 25, 2009, the Senate passed CJS
FY2010 appropriations and recommended funding of $4.773 billion for NOAA. This represented
an increase of 9.3% compared to the FY2009 enacted level and an increase of 6.7% over the
Administration’s request. On December, 16, 2009, the President signed the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117) that provided $4.737 billion for NOAA. This represented
an increase of 8.5% compared to the FY2009 enacted level and an increase of 5.9% over the
Administration’s request.
On February 13, 2009, the 111th Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) of 2009 (H.R. 1), also referred to as the stimulus package. ARRA provided $830 million
to NOAA, but only $500,000 of this funding (provided to NWS) was classified as R&D.54
Table 12. NOAA R&D
(in millions of dollars)
R&D by NOAA
Line Office
FY2009
Omnibus
(P.L. 111-8)
ARRA
(P.L. 111-5)
FY2010
Request
FY2010
House
FY2010
Senate
FY2010
Enacted
(P.L. 111-117)
NOS
62.5
0
60.4
70.1
73.8
74.9
NMFS
50.5
0
55.4
57.0
54.3
56.3
OAR
307.1
0
305.9
330.5
325.2
339.6
NWS
23.7
0.5
14.3
14.0
14.5
14.6
NESDIS
28.4
0
27.6
28.4
27.2
27.0
OMAO
139.0
0
104.0
102.2
104.0
103.7
(...continued)
http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~nbo/FY10_BlueBook/bb2k10_toc_Intro.pdf.
53
Ibid.
54
Emily Larkin, NOAA Budget Office, personal communication, May 29, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
40
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
R&D by NOAA
Line Office
Total R&D
FY2009
Omnibus
(P.L. 111-8)
$611
ARRA
(P.L. 111-5)
FY2010
Request
FY2010
House
FY2010
Senate
$0.5
$568
$602
$599
FY2010
Enacted
(P.L. 111-117)
$616
Sources: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration FY
2010 Budget Summary, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, May 11, 2009,
http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~nbo/FY10_BlueBook/bb2k10_toc_Intro.pdf.
Emily Larkin, NOAA Budget Office, personal communication, May 29, 2009 and September 21, 2009.
H.R. 2847, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2010, reported by the House
Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 111-149), June 12, 2009.
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2010, (S.Rept. 111-34 to accompany H.R.
2847), June 25, 2009.
H.R. 3288, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Conference Report, (H.Rept. 111-366), December 8, 2009.
a.
Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
b.
R&D funding levels for House, Senate, and Consolidated columns were calculated by assuming the
proportion of R&D funding in the FY2010 request remains constant. The R&D proportions for the FY2010
line office requests were applied to line office funding reported in House and Senate appropriations reports
and the conference report for P.L. 111-117.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration55
The Administration has requested $13.709 billion for NASA R&D in FY2010. This request is a
5.6% increase over FY2009, in a total NASA budget that would increase by 5.1%.56 The House
bill (H.R. 2847 as passed by the House) would provide $13.161 billion. The Senate bill (H.R.
2847 as passed by the Senate) would provide $13.714 million. For details, see Table 13.
For the past several years, budget priorities throughout NASA have been driven by the Vision for
Space Exploration, announced by President Bush in January 2004 and endorsed by Congress in
the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155) and the NASA Authorization Act of 2008
(P.L. 110-422). The Vision includes returning the space shuttle to flight status (already
accomplished) then retiring it by 2010; completing the International Space Station, but
discontinuing U.S. use of it after 2015; returning humans to the moon by 2020; and then sending
humans to Mars and “worlds beyond.” The priorities established by the Vision are now in
question. It is doubtful whether the future-year spending plans provided in NASA’s FY2010
budget documents can accommodate the goal of returning humans to the moon. An
Administration-requested independent review of NASA’s human spaceflight activities (known as
the Augustine report) estimated that this goal would require an additional $3 billion per year, even
with some schedule delays.57
55
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
56
If the FY2009 baseline is taken to include funding from the Recovery Act, then the FY2010 request for NASA R&D
is a 1.6% decrease in a total NASA budget that would decrease 0.5%.
57
Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
41
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
The Administration requested $4.477 billion for Science in FY2010, a 0.6% decrease. 58 Within
this total, increases for Earth Science, Planetary Science, and Heliophysics were offset by a
decrease for Astrophysics. In Earth Science, NASA is considering its options following the loss of
the Orbital Carbon Observatory (OCO), which was launched in February 2009 but failed to reach
orbit. Building a replacement for OCO is one of the options being examined, but the funding that
would be required was not included in the request. The House increased Earth Science by $15
million and Astrophysics by $50 million; these increases were partly offset by transfers of
administrative and construction costs to other accounts, for a net increase in Science of $19
million above the request. The Senate increased Astrophysics by $49 million and Heliophysics by
$42 million; these increases were partly offset by a reallocation of unobligated balances from
prior years, for a net increase in Science of $40 million above the request. The final appropriation
was $4.469 billion, which was $8 million less than the request. Within this amount, increases of
$45 million for Earth Science, $32 million for Heliophysics, and $13 million for Planetary
Science were more than offset by transfers of administrative and construction costs to other
accounts and an unallocated reduction of $59 million. The increase for Earth Science included
$25 million, to be supplemented by another $25 million in prior-year unobligated funds, to
initiate a replacement for the OCO.
The $3.963 billion requested for Exploration in FY2010 was a 13.1% increase,59 as the
Constellation Systems program ramps up its development of the Orion crew vehicle and Ares I
launch vehicle, successors to the space shuttle. According to NASA, the FY2010 request for
Constellation Systems and the accompanying funding projections for FY2011 through FY2014
are consistent with achieving an initial operating capability for Orion and Ares I (i.e., a first
crewed flight) in March 2015. It is doubtful, however, whether the projected FY2010-FY2014
funding for development of the heavy-lift Ares V launch vehicle, the Altair lunar lander, and lunar
surface systems is consistent with returning humans to the moon by 2020. The Augustine report
found that 2017 is a more likely date for an initial operating capability and that currently
projected budgets would permit a return to the moon no sooner than “well into the 2030s, if
ever.”60 The House provided $670 million less than the request for Exploration. The House
committee report described this as a deferral without prejudice, in light of the ongoing Augustine
review, that “should not be viewed ... as a diminution of the Committee’s support for NASA’s
human space flight program.” The Senate provided $23 million less than the request, including
the full requested amount for Orion and Ares I, an increase of $75 million for Ares V, a reduction
for $46 million for Advanced Capabilities, and a reallocation of $52 million in unobligated
balances from prior years. The final appropriation was $3.746 billion, a reduction of $217 million
from the request. This total included reductions of $39 million for Constellation Systems and $21
million for Advanced Capabilities, transfers of administrative and construction costs to other
accounts, and an unallocated reduction of $52 million. The final bill renamed the Constellation
Systems funding line as Human Exploration Architecture Development but prohibited NASA
from terminating any aspect of the Constellation architecture or initiating any new alternative
(...continued)
Nation, October 2009, http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf. See also http://hsf.nasa.gov.
58
Or an 8.7% decrease if the FY2009 baseline is taken to include funding from the Recovery Act.
59
Or a 1.5% increase if the FY2009 baseline is taken to include funding from the Recovery Act.
60
Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, p. 15.
Congressional Research Service
42
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
unless permitted to do so by a subsequent appropriations act. The conference report stated that the
Augustine committee’s report
raises issues requiring thoughtful consideration by the Administration and the Congress,
before the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate can recommend detailed
funding levels.... It is premature for the conferees to advocate or initiate significant changes
to the current program absent a bona fide proposal from the Administration and subsequent
assessment, consideration and enactment by Congress.... It is the expressed hope of the
conferees that the Administration will formulate its formal decision soon, submit its
recommendations for congressional review and consideration, and budget the necessary
resources....
The House bill made most NASA funds available for only one year, rather than the usual two.
Approximately 10% of most of NASA’s appropriations accounts would have continued to be
available for two years. Funds in the new Construction of Facilities and Environmental
Compliance and Remediation account would have been available for six years. The Senate bill
made all NASA funds available for two years as usual. The final bill made funds for Construction
and Environmental Compliance and Remediation available for six years and all other funds
available for two years.
Table 13. NASA R&D
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
Regular
FY2009
ARRA
FY2010
Request
FY2010
House
FY2010
Senate
FY2010
Enacted
(P.L. 111117)
$4,503
$400
$4,477
$4,496
$4,517
4,469
Earth Science
1,380
325
1,405
1,443
1,405
1,450
Planetary Science
1,326
—
1,346
1,348
1,355
1,360
Astrophysics
1,206
75
1,121
1,171
1,170
1,120
Heliophysics
592
—
605
605
647
637
Adjustments
—
—
—
(71)
(59)
(97)
Aeronautics
500
150
507
501
507
501
Explorationa
3,506
400
3,963
3,293
3,940
3,746
Constellation Systems
3,033
400
3,505
2,919
3,580
Advanced Capabilities
472
—
458
477
412
Adjustments
—
—
—
(103)
(52)
2,060
—
2,267
2,267
2,267
2,317
10,569
950
11,214
10,557
11,231
11,033
Other NASA Programsb
3,907
2
4,071
4,040
4,071
4,048c
Construction & Environ.d
—
—
—
442
—
448
Associated with R&D
—
—
—
319
—
Associated with Other
—
—
—
123
—
Cross-Agency Supportd
3,306
50
3,401
3,164
3,384
Science
International Space Station
Subtotal R&D
Congressional Research Service
3,194
43
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
FY2009
Regular
FY2009
ARRA
FY2010
Request
FY2010
House
FY2010
Senate
Associated with R&D
2,414
—
2,495
2,285
2483
Associated with Other
892
50
906
879
900
Total R&D
12,983
950
13,709
13,161
13,714
Total NASA
17,782
1,002
18,686
18,203
18,686
FY2010
Enacted
(P.L. 111117)
18,724
Source: NASA FY2010 congressional budget justification, online at http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/; H.R.
2847 as passed by the House and as passed by the Senate; H.Rept. 111-149; and S.Rept. 111-34. FY2010 enacted
amounts are taken from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117) and H.Rept. 111-366.
a.
The FY2010 request for Exploration is tentative. The Administration stated in early 2009 that it would be
revised following the results of the independent review, but no revised request has been submitted.
b.
Includes Space Shuttle, Space and Flight Support, Education, and Inspector General.
c.
Includes three reductions totaling $176 million: consolidate construction in a single account, realign the
costs of administrative FTE to CAS, and general reduction.
d.
Allocation between R&D and non-R&D is estimated by CRS in proportion to the underlying program
amounts (except FY2009 ARRA) in order to allow calculation of a total for R&D. The Cross-Agency
Support account consists mostly of indirect costs for other programs assessed in proportion to their direct
costs. The House bill’s new Construction and Environmental Compliance and Remediation account consists
mostly of activities included in Cross-Agency Support in the other columns.
Department of Agriculture61
The FY2010 request for research and education activities in the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) was $2.738 billion, a decrease of $54.0 million (-1.9%) from the FY2009 estimate of
$2.792 billion (see Table 14). The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is USDA’s in-house basic
and applied research agency, and operates approximately 100 laboratories nationwide. The ARS
laboratories focus on efficient food and fiber production, development of new products and uses
for agricultural commodities, development of effective biocontrols for pest management, and
support of USDA regulatory and technical assistance programs. Included in the total support for
USDA in FY2010 was $1.173 billion for ARS, $33.6 million below the FY2009 estimate. In
ARS, the Administration proposed a reduction of $40.0 million in funding add-ons designated by
Congress for research at specific locations. The amounts from the discontinued projects were to
be redirected to critical research priorities of the Administration that include genetic and genomic
databases, expansion of domestic and global market opportunities, development of new varieties
and hybrids of feedstocks, addressing animal health and feed efficiency, and the development of
new healthier foods with decreased caloric density. Included in the FY2010 request for ARS was
$20.0 million for buildings and facilities.
61
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
44
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), currently the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), was established in Title VII, Section 7511 of the
2008 Farm Bill. The NIFA will be effective September 20, 2009, and will be responsible for
developing linkages between the federal and state “components of a broad-based, national
agricultural research, extension, and higher education system.”62 NIFA distributes funds to State
Agricultural Experiment Stations, State Cooperative Extension Systems, land-grant universities,
and other institutions and organizations that conduct agricultural research, education, and
outreach. Included in these partnerships is funding for research at 1862 land-grant institutions,
1890 historically black colleges and universities, 1994 tribal land-grant colleges, and Hispanicserving institutions. Funding is distributed to the states through competitive awards, statutory
formula funding, and special grants. The FY2010 request provided $1.320 billion for NIFA, a
decrease of $32.7 million from the FY2009 estimate. The NIFA FY2010 budget included the
proposed elimination of $128.0 million in Congressional add-ons. Funding for formula
distribution in FY2010 to the state Agricultural Experiment Stations was $288.5 million, almost
level with the FY2009 estimate. One of the primary goals of the President’s FY2010 NIFA
request was to expand competitive, peer-reviewed allocation of research funding. Programs are to
be designed that are more responsive to critical national issues such as agricultural security, local
and regional emergencies, zoonotic diseases, and pest risk management. Support was given for a
competitive program directed at developing training and expanding use of web-based and other
technology applications. Funding was provided for programs that improve the quality of rural life
and provide stress assistance programs to individuals engaged in agriculture-related occupations.
The FY2010 request proposed $201.5 million for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
(AFRI), level funding with the FY2009 estimate. In addition to supporting fundamental and
applied science in agriculture, USDA maintains that the AFRI makes a significant contribution to
developing the next generation of agricultural scientists by providing graduate students with
opportunities to work on research projects. A focus of these efforts is to provide increased
opportunities for minority and under-served communities in agricultural science. AFRI funding is
to support projects directed at developing alternative methods of biological and chemical
conversion of biomass, and research on the impact of a renewable fuels industry on the economic
and social dynamics of rural communities. The Administration proposed support for initiatives in
agricultural genomics, emerging issues in food and agricultural security, the ecology and
economics of biological invasions, and plant biotechnology. Research was proposed that moves
beyond water quality issues to extend to water availability, reuse, and conservation.
The FY2010 request for USDA provided $82.5 million for the Economic Research Service
(ERS), $2.5 million above the FY2009 estimated level. ERS supports both economic and social
science information analysis on agriculture, rural development, food and the environment. ERS
collects and disseminates data concerning USDA programs and policies to various stakeholders.
Funding for the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) was proposed at $161.8 million
in the FY2010 request, $9.8 million above FY2009. The budget includes support to improve
research efforts in analyzing the impacts of bioenergy production, and to examine concerns
pertaining to feedstock storage, transportation networks, and the vagaries in commodity
production. Additional research areas include production and utilization of biomass materials;
62
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture FY201 Budget Summary and Annual Performance,
May 2009, p. 94.
Congressional Research Service
45
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
stocks and prices of distillers’ grains; and current and proposed ethanol production plants.
Funding for NASS was to allow for the restoration of the chemical use data series on major row
crops; post harvest chemical use; and alternating annual fruit, nuts, and vegetable chemical use.
Also, funding was provided to fully fund the first year of the 2012 Census of Agriculture’s five
year cycle. Data from the Census of Agriculture is to be used to measure trends and new
developments in the agricultural community.
In the 111th Congress, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) (ARRA). The law increased USDA’s FY2009 funding by
$28.0 billion. Included in ARRA funds for USDA was $128.0 million for ARS buildings and
facilities that is characterized as funding for R&D facilities.
On October 21, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY2010, P.L. 111-80,
H.R. 2997. The act provides $2.981 billion for USDA research and education for FY2010,
$243.8 million above the Administration’s request and $189.8 million above the FY2009
estimate. The appropriation includes $1.251 billion for the ARS, $77.1 million above the request,
and $1.487 billion for NIFA, $166.7 million above the Administration’s request. The act provides
the same level of funding for the ERS and the NASS as the Administration, $82.5 million and
$161.8 million respectively.
Table 14. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
Estimate
FY2009
ARRA
FY2010
Requesta
FY2010
House
FY2010
Senate
FY2010
Enactedg
Agricultural Research Service
Product Quality/Value Added
$103.0
$116.0
Livestock Production
80.0
83.0
Crop Production
200.0
205.0
Food Safety
106.0
108.0
Livestock Protection
75.0
76.0
Crop Protection
199.0
200.0
Human Nutrition
79.0
92.0
Environmental Stewardship
220.0
234.0
National Agricultural Library
21.0
22.0
Repair, Maintenance, and Other
Programs
104.0
17.0
1,187.0
1,153.4
1,155.6
1,181.6
1,179.6
Subtotal
Buildings and Facilities
Total, ARS
20.0
128.0
20.0
35.0
47.0
70.9
1,207.0
128.0
1,173.4
1,190.6b
1,228.6f
1,250.5
National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA)c
Hatch Act Formula
207.0
207.1
215.0
215.0
215.0
Cooperative Forestry Research
28.0
27.5
28.0
30.0
29.0
Congressional Research Service
46
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010
FY2009
Estimate
FY2009
ARRA
FY2010
Requesta
FY2010
House
FY2010
Senate
FY2010
Enactedg
Earmarked P
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.