# Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010 > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR40710 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** January 12, 2010 - **Citation:** R40710 ## 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR40710. Public record. Not legal advice.