Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
Congressional research reportMar 13, 2007
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Federal Research and Development Funding:
FY2007
(name redacted), Coordinator
(name redacted)
Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
(name redacted)
Analyst in Biomedical Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
(name redacted)
Information Research Specialist
March 13, 2007
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL33345
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
Summary
On February 15, 2007 President Bush signed into law P.L. 110-5 (H.J.Res. 20), which provides
funding for the nine outstanding regular appropriations bills through September 30, 2007.The
109th Congress passed two appropriations bills, the Department of Defense (P.L. 109-289, H.Rept.
109-676) and the Department of Homeland Security (P.L. 109-295, H.Rept. 109-699). P.L. 110-5
will fund most agencies at FY2006 levels through September 30, 2007. However, P.L. 110-5
contains some exceptions to those guidelines, including the centerpiece of the President’s
proposed FY2007 R&D budget, the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). Agencies are
required to report their estimated FY2007 R&D funding levels to Congress by March 15, 2007.
The Bush Administration had requested $137.7 billion in federal research and development
(R&D) funding for FY2007. That sum represented a 2.4% increase over the estimated $134.5
billion that was approved in FY2006. National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s)
space vehicles development program.
The centerpiece of the President’s proposed FY2007 R&D budget was the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). The President proposed this initiative in response to growing
concerns about America’s ability to compete in the technological global market place. Over the
next 10 years, the $136 billion initiative would have committed $50 billion for research, science
education, and the modernization of research infrastructure. The remaining $86 billion would
have financed a revised permanent R&D tax incentive over the next 10 years. The current
Research and Experimental Federal tax credit expires at the end of 2007.
As part of the $50 billion for research, the President called for doubling federal R&D funding
over10 years. That increase would have included the physical sciences and engineering research
in three agencies: the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s)
Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Based on P.L.
110-5, H.J.Res. 20, both the House and Senate FY2007 appropriations actions would partially
fund the President’s ACI request. Based on House and Senate actions DOE’s Office Science
would would receive $200 million of ACI funding, NSF $212 million, and NIST an estimated
$37 million for FY2007.
Despite the ACI proposal, total federal basic research funding for FY2007 would have been flat at
$28.2 billion (in real dollars). Five agencies accounted for 90% of all federal basic research
expenditures in FY2006. Total federal research funding (the sum of basic and applied research)
was projected to decline 2.6% in FY2007. That decline was due to a 6.6% drop in applied
research funding. The Department of Defense (P.L. 109-289) and the Department of Homeland
Security (P.L. 109-295) are the only two agencies that have enacted FY2007 appropriations bills.
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
Contents
Recent Developments..................................................................................................................1
Department of Agriculture (USDA).............................................................................................2
Department of Energy (DOE)......................................................................................................5
Department of Defense (DOD)....................................................................................................7
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)......................................................... 10
National Institutes of Health (NIH) ........................................................................................... 12
National Science Foundation (NSF) .......................................................................................... 17
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) R&D ........................................................................ 20
Department of Commerce (DOC).............................................................................................. 23
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ............................................... 23
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) ....................................................... 25
Department of Transportation (DOT) ........................................................................................ 27
Department of the Interior (DOI)............................................................................................... 28
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)................................................................................... 29
Tables
Table 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D ............................................................................4
Table 2. Department of Energy R&D...........................................................................................6
Table 3. Department of Defense RDT&E ....................................................................................8
Table 4. NASA R&D................................................................................................................. 11
Table 5. National Institutes of Health......................................................................................... 15
Table 6. National Science Foundation........................................................................................ 20
Table 7. Department of Homeland Security R&D ...................................................................... 22
Table 8. NOAA R&D Estimates ................................................................................................ 24
Table 9. NIST ........................................................................................................................... 27
Table 10. Department of Transportation R&D ........................................................................... 27
Table 11. Department of Interior R&D ...................................................................................... 29
Table 12. Environmental Protection Agency .............................................................................. 30
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 30
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
Recent Developments
On February 15, 2007 President Bush signed into law P.L. 110-5 (H.J.Res 20), which provides
funding for the nine outstanding regular appropriations bills through September 30, 2007.The
109th Congress passed two appropriations bills, the Department of Defense (P.L. 109-289, H.Rept.
109-676) and the Department of Homeland Security (P.L. 109-295, H.Rept. 109-699). P.L. 110-5
will fund most agencies at FY2006 levels through September 30, 2007. However, P.L. 110-5
contains some exceptions to those guidelines, including the centerpiece of the President’s
proposed FY2007 R&D budget, the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). Agencies are
required to report their estimated FY2007 R&D funding levels to Congress by March 15, 2007.
The Bush Administration had requested $137.7 billion in federal research and development
(R&D) funding for FY2007. That sum represented a 2.4% increase over the estimated $134.5
billion that was approved in FY2006. As in the recent past, the FY2007 increase over the FY2006
estimated funding levels was due to significant funding increases for the Department of Defense
(DOD) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) space vehicles
development program.
The centerpiece of the President’s proposed FY2007 R&D budget was the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). The President had proposed this initiative in response to
growing concerns about America’s ability to compete in the technological global market place. 1
Over the next 10 years, the $136 billion initiative would commit $50 billion for research, science
education, and the modernization of research infrastructure. The remaining $86 billion would
finance a revised permanent research and experimentation (R&E) tax incentive over the next 10
years. The current Research and Experimental Federal tax credit expires at the end of 2007.
As part of the $50 billion for research initiatives, the President called for doubling the federal
R&D funding over 10 years. This increase would include the physical sciences and engineering
research in three agencies: the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy’s
(DOE’s) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Based
on P.L. 110-5, H.J.Res. 20, both the House and Senate FY2007 appropriations actions would
partially fund the President’s ACI request. Based on House and Senate actions DOE’s Office
Science would would receive $200 million of ACI funding, NSF is expected to receive an
estimated $217 million of ACI funding, while NIST is estimated to receive $37 million of ACI
funding in FY2007.
Based on current legislative actions, CRS estimates that funding for nondefense R&D
expenditures will decline 2%, to an estimated $57.2 billion. Spending for defense R&D (the sum
of DOD’s and DOE’s defense programs) will increase over 4%, to an estimated $80.1 billion.
Most of the defense increase is due to significant increases in DOD development funding.
Despite the ACI proposal, total federal basic research funding for FY2007 would have been flat at
$28.2 billion (in real dollars). Five agencies accounted for 90% of all federal basic research
expenditures in FY2006. Total federal research funding (the sum of basic and applied research)
was projected to decline 2.6% in FY2007. That decline was due to a 6.6% drop in applied
1
See Rising Above The Gathering Storm and Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, The
National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, The National
Academies, 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
research funding. The Department of Defense (P.L. 109-289) and the Department of Homeland
Security (P.L. 109-295) are the only two agencies that have enacted FY2007 appropriations bills.
Funding for NIH in FY2007 would be flat in real dollars.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
The FY2007 request for research and education in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
was $2,259.9 million, a 12.7% decrease ($329.7 million) from the FY2006 estimate. (See Table
1.) The USDA conducts in-house basic and applied research. The Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) is the lead federal agency for nutrition research, operating five major laboratories in this
area, including the world’s largest multidisciplinary agricultural research center, located at
Beltsville, Maryland. There are approximately 100 research facilities throughout the United States
and abroad. The ARS laboratories focus on efficient food and fiber production, preservation of
genetic resources, development of new products and uses for agricultural commodities,
development of effective biocontrols for pest management, and support of USDA regulatory and
technical assistance programs. Included in the total support for USDA in FY2007 was $1,027.8
million for ARS, an 18.8% decrease ($238.4 million) from FY2006. The Administration had
proposed reductions of $146.0 million in all projects earmarked by Congress—$50.0 million in
project terminations and approximately $49.0 million in formally unrequested projects. These
amounts were to be redirected to high-priority Administration initiatives that included livestock
production, food safety, crop protection, human nutrition, and new products/value-added.
Included in the FY2007 request for ARS was $8.4 million for buildings and facilities, a
significant reduction from the FY2006 level of $129.9 million. The $8.4 million request by the
Administration was to fund the design and site preparation of the Classical Chinese Garden of the
U.S. National Arboretum. The Garden is a joint project between the governments of the United
States and China.
The FY2007 request supported several research priority areas and strategic goals. The USDA
assigned priority to the mapping and sequencing projects funded by USDA, such as sequencing
genomes of agriculturally important species. The sequencing projects were to be coordinated with
ongoing genomics initiatives supported by other federal agencies and facilitated by interagency
working groups. Increases were provided for research involving animal and plant genomes. Also,
the FY2007 request provided support for research on emerging and exotic diseases as part of the
infrastructure to enhance homeland security. USDA has stated that this research is significant in
protecting the nation from the deliberate or unintentional introduction of an agricultural health
threat. The USDA has biocontainment complexes, where research and diagnostic work is done on
organisms that pose serious threats to the crop, poultry, and livestock industries. Other research
areas that were supported in the FY2007 request included bovine spongiform encephalopathy, air
and water quality, food safety, obesity/nutrition, biobased products/bioenergy research, and
agricultural information.
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) distributes funds
to State Agricultural Experiment Stations, State Cooperative Extension Systems, land-grant
universities, and other institutions and organizations that conduct agricultural research. Included
in these partnerships is funding for research at 1862 institutions, 1890 historically black colleges
and universities, and 1994 tribal land-grant colleges. Funding is distributed to the states through
competitive awards, statutory formula funding, and special grants. The FY2007 request for
CSREES was $997.0 million, a decrease of $124.5 million from the FY2006 level. Funding for
formula distribution in FY2007 to the state Agricultural Experiment Stations (and other eligible
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
institutions) was $273.2 million, almost level with FY2006. The FY2007 request provided $37.9
million for the 1890 formula programs, again almost level with FY2006. The FY2007 request
was to modify the Hatch formula program by expanding the multistate research programs from
25% to 55.6%. A portion of the funds would be redirected to nationally, competitively awarded
grants. It was anticipated that such an approach would continue the matching requirement and
leverage nonfederal resources.
The FY2007 request would have funded the National Research Initiative (NRI) Competitive
Grants Program at $247.5 million, $66.3 million above the FY2006 level. The proposed increase
would have supported initiatives in agricultural genomics, emerging issues in food and
agricultural security, the ecology and economics of biological invasions, plant biotechnology, and
water security. In addition to supporting fundamental and applied science in agriculture, USDA
contends that the NRI makes a significant contribution to developing the next generation of
agricultural scientists. The FY2007 request included approximately $7.0 million for grants to
educational institutions and community-based organizations to benefit socially disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers. These grants are intended to encourage greater participation of black
farmers, tribal groups, and Hispanic and other minority groups in the USDA portfolio of
commodity, loan, education, and grant offerings.
The Economic Research Service (ERS) is the principal intramural economic and social science
research agency in USDA. The FY2007 request for ERS was $82.5 million, a $7.3 million
increase over FY2006. The proposed increase would have continued the development of a
consumer data and information system that provides USDA with, among other things, current
food prices, food purchases, sales volumes, and information on consumer characteristics and
purchasing behavior. In addition, the increase would support a comprehensive data collection and
research program to examine the changing economic health of farm and nonfarm households in
rural areas. The multiyear, longitudinal data generated by this initiative would support the
programs administered by the Rural Development mission area. The National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS) conducts the Census of Agriculture and provides current data on
agricultural production and economic indicators of the well-being of the farm sector. The FY2007
request for the NASS was $152.6 million, $13.3 million above the FY2006 level. Funding would
have helped improve the quality of the principal economic indicators used by the Council of
Economic Advisors and would support the analysis required to develop the upcoming 2007 Farm
Bill. NASS would continue to develop the USDA Enterprise Architecture and the USDA Enablers
initiatives.
On May 23, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5384, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration and Related Appropriations Act, 2007 (H.Rept. 109-463). The bill would
have provided a total of $2535.9 million for research and education activities in FY2007, $276.0
million above that which was requested by the Administration, and $53.7 million below the
FY2006 estimate. H.R. 5384 would have provided $1,197.6 million for ARS in FY2007. Included
in the funding for ARS was $140.0 million for buildings and facilities. The Administration had
requested $8.4 million. The bill supported CSREES at $1,108.6 million, $111.6 million above the
request, $12.9 million below the FY2006 estimate. Included in the total for CSREES was $183.3
million for payments under the Hatch Act. The Committee recommended funding level was 3%
above FY2006, and would have been the first time that this program had increased since 1999.
The Senate reported its version on June 22, 2006, and provided a total of $2,580.9 million for
research and education in FY2007 (S.Rept. 109-266). Included in the Senate version was
$1,211.0 million for ARS, $1,145.2 million for CSREES, $76.0 million for ERS, and $148.7
million for NASS. (CRS Contact: (name redacted).)
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
Table 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D
($ in millions)
FY2007
Housea
FY2007
Senate
Comm.
1,001.4
1,057.6c
1,127.6
129.9
8.4
140.0
83.4
18.0
0.0
18.0
0.0
0.0
1,306.3
1,253.6
1,027.8
1,197.6
1,211.0
FY2005
Act.
FY2006
Act.
FY2007
Req.
Product Quality/Value Added
$104.6
105.4
$93.8
Livestock Production
84.1
85.1
69.8
Crop Production
196.8
201.4
150.8
Food Safety
102.7
104.6
108.1
Livestock Protection
78.5
89.7
98.0
Crop Protection
193.0
197.2
181.6
Human Nutrition
83.7
84.8
84.4
Environmental Stewardship
219.4
223.3
172.3
National Agricultural Library
21.5
21.8
25.0
Repair & Maintenance
17.8
17.7
17.7
Subtotal
1,102.0b
1,123.7
Buildings & Facilities
186.3
Trust Funds
Total, ARS
Agric. Research Service (ARS)
Coop. St. Res. Ed. & Ext. (CSREES) Research and Education
Hatch Act Formula
178.7
177.0
176.9
183.3
185.8
Cooperative Forestry Research
22.2
22.0
22.0
22.7
23.3
1890 Colleges and Tuskegee Univ.
12.3
37.2
37.9
38.3
39.1
Special Research Grants
135.5
126.9
18.1
103.5
119.3
NRI Competitive Grants
179.6
181.2
247.5
190.0
190.2
Animal Health & Disease Res.
5.1
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
Federal Administration
42.5
50.0
9.2
39.5
41.3
Higher Educationd
50.7
55.0
69.7
79.3
73.1
Total, Coop. Res. & Educ.e
655.5b
670.1
566.3
651.6
678.1
Smith-Lever Sections 3b&c
275.5
273.0
273.2
281.4
286.6
Smith-Lever Sections 3d
86.7
92.0
91.5
64.0
65.8
Renewable Resources Extension
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.2
Integrated Activities
54.7
55.2
19.1
55.2
58.7
1890 Research & Extension
16.8
16.6
16.6
34.1
35.2
Other Extension Prog. & Admin.
7.8
14.7
26.2
18.2
16.6
Total, Extension Activitiese
445.6
451.4
430.7
457.0
467.1
Total, CSREESe
1,101.1
1,121.5
997.0
1,108.6
1,145.2
Extension Activities
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
FY2005
Act.
FY2006
Act.
FY2007
Req.
FY2007
Housea
FY2007
Senate
Comm.
Economic Research Service
74.2
75.2
82.5
81.0
76.0
National Agricultural Statistics Service
128.4
139.3
152.6
148.2
148.7
Total, Research, Education & Economics
$2,610.0
$2,589.6
$2,259.9
$2,535.9
$2,580.9
Notes: Funding levels are contained in U.S. Department of Agriculture FY2007 Budget Summary and other
documents internal to the agency. Aggregate support for Homeland Security—FY2005, $30.2 million, FY2006,
$35.6 million, and FY2007, $81.5 million. H.R. 5384, S.Rept. 109-266.
a.
H.R. 5384, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill, 2007 (H.Rept. 109-463).
b.
Totals may not add due to rounding. Research activities carried out in support of Homeland Security are
include in Food Safety, Livestock Protection, and Crop Protection portfolios.
c.
Funding levels for specific programs were not available.
d.
Higher education includes payments to 1994 institutions and 1890 Capacity Building Grants program, the
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, and the Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving
Institutions Education Grants.
e.
Program totals may reflect set-asides (non-add) or contingencies. The CSREES total includes support for
Integrated Activities, Community Food Projects, and the Organic Agriculture Research and Education
Initiative.
Department of Energy (DOE)
The Department of Energy had requested $9.154 billion for R&D in FY2007, including activities
in three major categories: Science, National Security, and Energy. (For details, see Table 2.) That
request was 3.5% above the FY2006 level of $8.848 billion. The House had provided a net
increase of $241 million (H.R. 5427). The Senate committee had recommended a net increase of
$738 million. (S.Rept. 109-274).
The requested funding for Science was $4.102 billion, a 14% increase from FY2006. That
unusually large increase reflected the ACI, which the President announced in February 2006 in
his State of the Union address. Over the next 10 years, the ACI would have doubled R&D
funding for the DOE Office of Science and two other agencies. About $200 million of the
requested increase in FY2007 would have supported an increased operating time for facilities
managed by the Basic Energy Sciences program; the House and Senate appropriations reports for
FY2006 both called for increased funding for this purpose. In the Fusion Energy Sciences
program, the request included $60 million for the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor (ITER), whose estimated U.S. total cost remains at $1.12 billion through FY2014. The
House would have provided the requested amount for Science, plus $30 million additional to fund
earmarks in the Biological and Environmental Research program. The Senate committee had
recommended increases of $49 million to fund earmarks, $25 million for water technology R&D,
and $24 million for national laboratory support for primary and secondary math and science
education, and a transfer of $39 million from a National Security program (along with internal
Science transfers) to create a program in High Energy Density Science.
The requested funding for R&D in National Security was $3.188 billion, a 7.4% decrease. Most
of the reduction resulted from the completion of construction projects and the elimination of
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
items funded at congressional direction in FY2006. The House would have provided an increases
totaling $143 million, including additional funds for Inertial Confinement Fusion and for the
Reliable Replacement Warhead program. The Senate committee recommended a net increase of
$152 million, with additional funds for most weapons programs including the Reliable
Replacement Warhead but a transfer of $39 million out of Inertial Confinement Fusion as noted
above.
The requested funding for R&D in Energy was $1.864 billion, up 3.0% from FY2006. Within this
total, R&D on nuclear, biomass, and solar energy would have increased, while natural gas and oil
technology programs would have been terminated. Termination of the gas and oil technology
programs was also proposed in FY2006, but was rejected by Congress. For FY2007, the House
would have provided no funding for gas technology and just $3 million for oil technology, but it
rejected the request for additional nuclear energy R&D funding, and it increased funding for
R&D on fossil energy, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. The net House increase for R&D
in Energy would have been $68 million. The Senate committee had recommended a total of $27
million for the gas and oil technology programs and recommended other increases including $65
million for biomass, $100 million for nuclear energy, and $100 million for coal. The Senate
increase for nuclear energy R&D would have nearly doubled the program relative to FY2006.
The net Senate committee recommendation for R&D in Energy would have been an increase of
$447 million. (CRS Contact: (name redacted).)
Table 2. Department of Energy R&D
($ in millions)
FY2006
Comprbl.
3635.6
3596.4
4101.7
4131.7
4241.1
Basic Energy Sciences
1083.6
1134.6
1421.0
1421.0
1445.9
High Energy Physics
722.9
716.7
775.1
775.1
766.8
Biological and Environmental
Research
566.6
579.8
510.3
540.3
560.0
Nuclear Physics
394.5
367.0
454.1
454.1
434.1
Fusion Energy Sciences
266.9
287.6
319.0
319.0
307.0
Advanced Scientific Computing
Rsrch.
226.2
234.7
318.7
318.7
318.7
High Energy Density Science
—
—
—
—
79.9
374.9
276.0
303.5
303.5
328.7
3406.9
3442.2
3188.0
3331.1
3339.6
Weapons Activitiesa
2327.5
2311.7
2102.6
2196.5
2240.2
Naval Reactors
801.4
781.6
795.1
795.1
795.1
Nonproliferation and Verification
R&D
219.8
318.8
268.9
308.1
282.9
Defense Environmental Cleanup
TD&D
58.2
30.1
21.4
31.4
21.4
1727.4
1809.0
1863.8
1931.5
2310.8
Science
Other
National Security
Energy
Congressional Research Service
FY2007
Request
FY2007
Sen.
Cmte.
FY2005
Comprbl.
FY2007
House
6
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
FY2006
Comprbl.
Fossil Energy R&D
560.9
592.0
469.7
558.2
644.3
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energyb
908.9
857.0
951.4
1051.6
1119.1
Nuclear Energy R&D
168.4
223.7
347.1
224.1
446.7
Electric Transmn. and Distribn.
R&D
89.2
136.3
95.6
97.6
100.7
8769.9
8847.6
9153.5
9394.3
9891.5
Total
FY2007
Request
FY2007
Sen.
Cmte.
FY2005
Comprbl.
FY2007
House
a.
Includes Stockpile Services R&D Support, Stockpile Services R&D Certification and Safety, Reliable
Replacement Warhead, 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.
Excluding Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.
Department of Defense (DOD)
Nearly all of what the Department of Defense (DOD) spends on Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation (RDT&E) is appropriated in Title IV of the defense appropriation bill (see Table 3).
For FY2007, the Bush Administration requested $73.2 billion for DOD’s baseline Title IV
RDT&E. The baseline Title IV RDT&E request was $2.0 billion more than the total obligational
authority available for Title IV in FY2006. RDT&E funds were also requested as part of the
Defense Health Program ($131 million) and the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction
Program ($231 million). The five-year budget plan projects spending $366.5 billion for RDT&E
through FY2011. The Administration’s FY2007 budget projection for RDT&E through FY2011 is
nearly $22 billion more than its projection last year.
While the FY2007 RDT&E request represents an increase in RDT&E funding over last year,
Science and Technology (S&T) funding would decrease. S&T consists of basic and applied
research and advanced development (6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 activities in the RDT&E account).
Although the FY2007 S&T budget request ($11.1 billion) was approximately $600 million more
than the amount requested by the Administration for FY2006, the FY2007 S&T request was $2.2
billion less than the amount Congress appropriated for S&T in FY2006. The difference between
the FY2007 S&T request and the amount appropriated by Congress for FY2006 roughly equals
the amount the Administration claims was earmarked by Congress in the FY2006 S&T
appropriation. The FY2006 request for basic research ($1.4 billion) was $70 million less than
what Congress appropriated in FY2006 for basic research, but is over $100 million more than
what the Administration requested for basic research in FY2006. 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. The FY2007 S&T request was approximately 2.6% of the
overall baseline DOD budget request. This amount is below the 3% target that the Bush
Administration and Congress have set. The FY2007 budget request for Missile Defense RDT&E
was $9.3 billion (an increase of $1.7 billion from the amount available for Missile Defense in
FY2006).
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
The House approved its defense appropriation bill (H.R. 5631) on June 20. The House voted to
appropriate $75.3 billion for Title IV RDT&E, about $2.2 billion above what was requested. The
increase went primarily to the S&T portion of the program, which was funded at $13.3 billion.
The S&T amount roughly equals 3.2% of the total appropriation for DOD (this includes the $50
in additional war-related appropriations allocated in Title IX—no RDT&E funds were included in
Title IX). The House also approved $231 million for the Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction Program. In a separate appropriation bill (H.R. 5385, the Military Quality of Life and
Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2007), the House approved $444
million for RDT&E within the Defense Health Program. This includes $115 million for the peer
reviewed breast cancer research program and $80 million for the prostrate cancer program.
The Senate approved its defense appropriation bill on September 7. The Senate voted to
appropriate $73.0 billion for Title IV RDT&E, about $200 million less than the Administration’s
request and about $2.4 billion less than what the House approved. The Senate did approve more
S&T funding than was requested, but was not as generous as the House. At just under $12.0
billion, the Senate’s S&T appropriation represents a little less than 3% of the total amount they
appropriated for DOD (this does not consider the additional appropriations of $50 billion
allocated for continuing operations in the global war on terror). Of the $50 billion allocated by the
Senate for the Global War on Terror, $298 was allocated to RDT&E. In addition, the Senate
approved $468 million in RDT&E funds for the Defense Health Program (including $150 million
for the peer reviewed breast cancer program and $80 million for the peer reviewed prostrate
cancer program). The Senate also approved $231 for RDT&E in the Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction Program. The Senate appropriated about $400 million less for DARPA
than was requested, making cuts in nearly all of DARPA’s line items. The Senate approved $9.4
billion for missile defense RDT&E, about $62 million more than was requested.
The conference committee approved $75.4 billion for Title IV RDT&E. (See P.L. 109-289.) This
includes a general reduction of $287 million due to improved economic assumptions (see Section
8106 of the conference report). The conference committee also approved $13.3 billion for S&T.
This does not include S&T’s share of the general reduction. In Title IX of the conference bill,
providing for additional funds for the war on terrorism, another $408 million was added for
RDT&E. In addition, Title IX provided $1.9 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device
Defeat Fund. The Secretary may transfer funds to those budget activities, including RDT&E, as
necessary to accomplish the purposes of defending troops against such devices. The conference
committee also approved $231 million in RDT&E for the Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction program. However, it also, as part of the general reduction cited above reduced Title
VI funding by $9.5 million. The $231 million figure mentioned above does not include the
program’s share of this general reduction. (CRS Contact: John Moteff.)
Table 3. Department of Defense RDT&E
FY2006
Estimatea
Accounts
FY2007
Requestb
FY2007
House
Apprn.
FY2007
Senate
Apprn.
FY2007
Conf.
Apprn.
Billions
$
Army
11,026
10,856
11,835
11,245
11,055
Navy
18,734
16,912
17,655
17,048
18,674
Air Force
21,671
24,397
24,457
23,974
24,516
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
FY2006
Estimatea
FY2007
Requestb
FY2007
House
Apprn.
FY2007
Senate
Apprn.
FY2007
Conf.
Apprn.
Defense Agencies
19,555
20,810
21,208
20,543
21,291
(DARPA)
(2,979)
(3,294)
(3,327)
(2,893)
(3,135)
(MDAc)
(7,682)
(9,310)
(8,955)
(9,372)
(9,421)
Dir. Test & Eval
166
182
182
188
185
-317
-286
Adjustments
improved economic assumptions
Total Obligational Authority
71,152
73,157
75,337
72,998
75,435
Basic Research
1,470
1,422
1,571
1,479
1,552
Applied Research
5,168
4,478
5,276
4,805
5,282
Advanced Dev.
6,603
5,183
6,461
5,702
6,494
Advanced Component
Dev. and Prototypes
13,913
15,387
15,163
15,246
15,785
Systems Dev. and Demo
19,343
19,277
19,255
19,072
19,190
Mgmt. Supportd
4,025
3,938
4,171
4,131
4,197
Op. Systems Dev
20,630
23,471
23,440
22,563
23,221
-317
-286
Budget Activity
Adjustments
improved economic assumptions
71,152
73,156
75,337
72,998
75,435
Defense Health Program
536
131
444
468
n/af
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction
67
231
231
231
231
-94
-9
298
408
Total Obligational Authoritye
Other Defense Programs
Adjustments
improved economic adjustments
Title IX Additional Appropriations for the
Global War on Terror
51g
0
Sources: Figures based on Department of Defense Budget, FY2007 RDT&E Programs (R-1), February 2006.
Figures for the Defense Health Program are taken from the Department of Defense Budget, FY2007 Operations
and Maintenance Programs (O-1) document and the Chemical Agents, and Munitions Destruction Program
figures are taken from the Department of Defense Budget, FY2007 Procurement Programs (P-1) document. Both
released in February 2006. Totals may not add due to rounding. FY2007 House appropriation figures taken from
H.Rept. 109-504, and for the Defense Health Program totals, from H.Rept. 109-464. Senate appropriation
figures taken from S.Rept. 109-292. Conference figures taken from H.Rept. 109-676.
Note: The FY2005 figures in the R-1 reflect the FY2005 Supplemental (P.L. 109-13) which included $587
million for RDT&E. They do not include any rescissions passed as part of the FY2007 appropriation bills.
a.
The FY2006 figures reflect the 1% across the board cut called for in the FY2006 DOD Appropriations bill
(P.L. 109-148). The FY2006 figures do not include the $782 million requested for RDT&E in the $72.4
billion FY2006 emergency supplemental request of February 16, 2006, nor the approximately $19.0 million
for RDT&E included in another Katrina-related supplemental, also requested February 16, 2006. Nor do the
FY2006 figures include any rescissions passed as part of the FY2007 appropriation bills.
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
b.
It is not clear if the FY2006 figures in the R-1 reflect the $91.9 million in additional RDT&E funding included
in Title IX (Division A) and Title IX (Division B) of the FY2006 DOD Appropriations. Division A
appropriated contingency funds for the Global War on Terror that included $50.6 million for specified
RDT&E programs. Division B provided emergency funds for hurricane relief that included $41.6 million for
specified RDT&E activities. The $51 million listed here represents the Division A funds, and, therefore may
lead to double counting.
c.
Includes only BMD RDT&E. Does not include procurement and military construction.
d.
Includes funds for Developmental and Operational Test and Evaluation.
e.
Numbers may not agree with Account Total Obligational Authority due to rounding.
f.
This is funded as part of the Military Quality-Veteran’s Affairs Appropriation (H.R. 5385).
g.
It is not clear if the FY2007 R-1 figures include any RDT&E funds associated with another request by the
Administration for contingency funds for the Global War on Terror to be included as part of the FY2007
DOD appropriations bill.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA)
NASA had requested $12.336 billion for R&D in FY2007. (For details, see Table 4.) That request
was a 7.5% increase over FY2006, in a total NASA budget that would have increased by just
1.0%. Within the increase for NASA R&D overall, however, a large increase for Constellation
Systems (primarily the new Crew Exploration Vehicle and its launch vehicle) would have been
offset by decreases for Human Systems and Aeronautics and an increase for Science that was
substantially less than previously projected. The House would have provided $12.260 billion
(H.R. 5672). The Senate committee had recommended $12.300 billion (S.Rept. 109-280). Both
the House and Senate provided less than requested for Exploration Systems and more for
Aeronautics and Science.
Budget priorities throughout NASA are being driven by the Vision for Space Exploration.
Announced by President Bush in January 2004 and endorsed by Congress in the NASA
Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155), the Vision includes returning the space shuttle to flight
status, then retiring it by 2010; completing the space station, but discontinuing its use by the
United States by 2017; returning humans to the moon by 2020; and then sending humans to Mars
and “worlds beyond.” Constellation Systems, the only R&D program to receive a large increase
in the FY2007 request, is responsible for developing vehicles to return humans to the moon. The
reduced rate of growth in requested funding for the Science Mission Directorate, a total reduction
of $3.1 billion through FY2010 relative to projections in the FY2006 request, is mostly to offset
higher than expected costs for returning the space shuttle to flight status.
The request for Science has been particularly controversial. It includes full funding for a Hubble
Space Telescope servicing mission in early FY2008 (pending approval by the Administrator), but
several robotic missions to Mars are cancelled or deferred. In addition, no funding was requested
for the SOFIA airborne infrared telescope or the Europa mission to one of Jupiter’s moons. The
request for Research and Analysis, which provides grant funding to individual researchers, was
down 15% from FY2006 in most programs. The House had provided an increase of $75 million
for Science, including $50 million for Research and Analysis. The Senate committee had
recommended an increase of $31.5 million and directed NASA to fund SOFIA through a
reprogramming request.
Congressional Research Service
10
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
The request for Aeronautics Research is also of congressional interest. Although the requested
budget for aeronautics is about the same as was projected a year earlier, the proposed activities
have changed significantly. The largest program, Vehicle Systems, has been renamed
Fundamental Aeronautics and will now focus on “core competencies” in subsonic, supersonic,
and hypersonic flight regimes, including work on rotorcraft. An amendment to the Senate
FY2007 budget resolution (S.Amdt. 3033 to S.Con.Res. 83) increased the recommended funding
for NASA aeronautics by $179 million. The House would have provided an increase of $100
million. The Senate committee also recommended an increase of $35 million. (CRS Contact:
(name redacted).)
Table 4. NASA R&D
($ in millions)
FY2006
Estimateda
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
FY2007
Sen. Cmte.
5,253.7
5,330.0
5,404.8
5,361.5c
Solar System Exploration
1,582.3
1,610.2
—b
1,610.2c
The Universe
1,507.9
1,509.2
—b
1,509.2c
Earth-Sun Systems
2,163.5
2,210.6
—b
2,242.1c
Exploration Systems
3,050.1
3,978.3
3,827.6
3,921.5c
Constellation Systems
1,733.5
3,057.6
3,041.6
2,960.8c
Exploration Systems Research and Technology
692.5
646.1
511.4
686.1c
Human Systems Research and Technology
624.1
274.6
274.6
274.6c
Aeronautics Research
884.1
724.4
824.4
759.4c
Cross-Agency Support Programs
533.5
491.7
425.2
491.7c
International Space Station
1,753.4
1,811.3
1,777.9
1,811.3
Reductions not Allocated
—
—
—
—45.3c
Subtotal R&D
11,474.8
12,335.7
12,259.9
12,300.1
Space Shuttle
4,777.5d
4,056.7
4,056.7
4,056.7
Return to Flighte
—
—
—
1,000.0
Space and Flight Support
338.8
366.5
358.9
366.9
Hurricane Katrinae
—
—
—
40.0
Inspector General
32.0
33.5
33.5
33.5
Total NASA
16,623.0d
16,792.2
16,709.0
17,797.2e
Science
a.
Figures for FY2006 are from NASA’s January 2006 operating plan and are not final. Figures for FY2005 are
not shown because changes in budget structure and program shifts between accounts make comparisons
between FY2005 and FY2007 difficult.
b.
The House did not specify amounts at the “theme” level within Science
c.
The Senate committee did not specify amounts within the Science, Aeronautics, and Exploration
appropriations account. These amounts in the table are estimated by CRS based on the requested amounts
and the program increases and decreases specified in the committee report (S.Rept. 109-280). The
amount shown as “Reductions not Allocated” is calculated by CRS as the difference between the
recommended overall decrease for the account and the sum of the specified program increases and
decreases.
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
d.
Includes $349.8 million in emergency supplemental funding for Hurricane Katrina response and recovery.
e.
The Senate committee recommended two new appropriations accounts, Return to Flight and Hurricane
Katrina, both of which would be emergency funding. Excluding emergency funding, the Senate committee
total for NASA is $16,757.2 million. Neither new account would fund R&D.
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
The President requested a program level budget of $28.487 billion for NIH for FY2007,
essentially equal to the FY2006 final budget and $66.8 million (0.2%) lower than the FY2005
level of $28.553 billion (see Table 5). The FY2006 amount was the first decrease in NIH’s
appropriation since 1970. (NIH lost an additional $19.5 million in FY2006 funds in June 2006
when the HHS Secretary exercised his transfer authority to give the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services a total of $40 million from other HHS discretionary accounts, dropping the
NIH program level to $28.468 billion.) The House and Senate Appropriations Committees
reported separate FY2007 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bills (H.R. 5647, H.Rept. 109515 and S. 3708, S.Rept. 109-287), but neither chamber scheduled floor action. The House
committee recommended funding most of the NIH accounts at the same level as the request. The
Senate bill would have provided a program level of $28.688 billion, an increase of about $220
million (0.8%) over the revised FY2006 amount and $200 million above the request and the
House amount. The Senate committee gave every NIH account a modest increase over FY2006,
reversing the cuts to institute and center budgets proposed in the request. Currently, NIH is
operating at the FY2006 rate under the continuing resolution (P.L. 109-383) that runs through
February 15, 2007.
The bulk of NIH’s budget comes through the Labor-HHS-Education appropriation ($28.350
billion in the request). An additional small amount for environmental work related to Superfund
comes from the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriation (H.R. 5386, H.Rept.
109-465 and S.Rept. 109-275). Those two sources constitute NIH’s discretionary budget
authority. In addition, NIH receives $150 million preappropriated in separate funding for diabetes
research and $8.2 million from a transfer within the Public Health Service (PHS). As in past
years, the budget request proposed that $100 million of the NIH appropriation be transferred to
the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. (The “NIH program level” cited
in the Administration’s budget documents, however, did not reflect that transfer.) The House
Appropriations Committee did not include the requested bill language for the transfer, which
would have come from the appropriation for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (NIAID). Instead, the committee report noted that it provided increased funding for
HIV/AIDS activities in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Health
Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). The Senate committee included the $100 million
transfer as in the request.
FY2003 was the final year of the five-year effort to double the NIH budget from its FY1998 base
of $13.7 billion to the FY2003 level of $27.1 billion. The annual increases for FY1999 through
FY2003 were in the 14%-15% range each year. For FY2004 and FY2005, faced with competing
priorities and a changed economic climate, Congress and the President gave increases of between
2% and 3%, levels that were below the then-estimated 3.5% and 3.3% biomedical inflation index
for those two years. (The index was subsequently updated to show inflation of 3.7% for FY2004
and 3.8% for FY2005.) The research advocacy community had originally urged that the NIH
budget grow by about 10% per year in the post-doubling years. They modified their
recommendation to 6% for FY2006 and 5% for FY2007, maintaining that such increases would
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
be needed to continue the momentum of scientific discovery made possible by the increased
resources of the doubling years. With the projected biomedical inflation index at 3.5% for
FY2006 and 3.4% for FY2007, the NIH budget has been losing ground in real terms each year
since the end of the doubling in FY2003. In constant 2006 dollars, the FY2003 NIH budget was
$30.2 billion, the FY2004 level was $30.0 billion, FY2005 was $29.6 billion, FY2006 was $28.5
billion, and the FY2007 request level was $27.5 billion. In inflation-adjusted terms, the FY2006
budget was 5.7% below the FY2003 level, and the FY2007 request was 8.7% below the FY2003
level.
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. The individual institutes and centers (ICs), each of which
focuses on particular diseases, areas of human health and development, or aspects of research
support, plan and manage their own research programs in coordination with the OD. As shown in
Table 5, 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, financed by taps on other NIH appropriations.)
Although the FY2007 President’s budget requested the same overall level of funding for NIH as
in FY2006 (not taking into account the later reduction in FY2006), there were variable increases
and decreases among the ICs and among the different funding mechanisms. Most of the IC
budgets would have decreased by 0.5%-0.8%, with several of the larger institutes losing between
$10 million and $40 million. In the request, two accounts gained funds over FY2006: NIAID, up
$12 million (0.3%), largely due to pandemic influenza funding, and the Office of the Director
(OD), up $140 million (26.6%). The OD increase included a program formerly in NIAID for
advanced development of biodefense countermeasures (up $110 million) and the OD contribution
to the NIH Roadmap (up $29 million). Both programs are discussed below. In the House
committee recommendation, funding for NIAID dropped 2.6% below FY2006 because the $100
million Global Fund money was removed, as was $25 million for construction and renovation of
biosafety laboratories. The biodefense facilities construction money was moved to the more
general extramural construction program in the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR),
giving that account a 2.2% increase. The Senate committee bill did not move the laboratory
construction funds.
Specific priorities highlighted in the budget request included several trans-NIH initiatives
involving multiple institutes with coordination by OD. Biodefense activities were slated to receive
a total of $1.9 billion, a net increase of $110 million (6.2%) over FY2006. The request planned
for a $160 million fund in OD (up $110 million) for the advanced product development of
vaccines and drugs that are priority targets for acquisition by Project BioShield. The activity
would involve NIH more extensively than usual in working with academia and industry to bridge
the research gap between investigational testing of a new drug and full product development.
Also in OD was $96 million for research on countermeasures against nuclear/radiological threats
and chemical threats, the same as in FY2006.
The NIH Roadmap for Medical Research Program, launched in September 2003, has identified
critical scientific gaps that may be constraining rapid progress in biomedical research.
Consequently, the agency has developed a list of 28 NIH-wide initiatives to address the gaps.
NIH planned to fund Roadmap initiatives at $443 million for FY2007 ($332 million from the
institutes and centers and $111 million from the Director’s Discretionary Fund), up $113 million
(34%) from FY2006. Three core themes focus on new paths to biological discoveries ($181
Congressional Research Service
13
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
million), building multidisciplinary research teams ($81 million), and improving the clinical
research enterprise ($181 million).
The Genes, Environment, and Health initiative would have received a total of $68 million (up $49
million) for its second year of funding. It will look for genetic and environmental interactions that
might increase the risk of common chronic diseases and will work on new technologies for
assessing the role of diet, physical activity, and environmental exposures in disease. On the other
hand, a long-term (25+ year) environmental health study called the National Children’s Study,
after five years of planning, was proposed for cancellation in the request. The multi-agency study,
mandated by the Children’s Health Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-310), plans to examine the effects of
environmental influences on the health and development of more than 100,000 children across the
United States, following them from before birth until age 21. Its planned cost for FY2007 was
$69 million (up from $10 million in FY2006), and the overall projected cost for the whole study
is about $2.7 billion. The House committee rejected the termination and included bill language
directing NIH to spend $69 million on the study. The Senate committee report directed NIH to
continue with the study, noting that extra funding had been included in OD (the Senate OD total
was $20 million higher than the request).
The new Pathway to Independence Award program ($15 million in the request) addresses NIH
concerns about the support of new investigators, particularly younger scientists making the
transition from training to independent research. The average age at which they receive their first
independent grant has been increasing. In January 2006, NIH announced the new program to
support promising postdoctoral scientists. The five-year awards will have a two-year mentored
phase and a three-year independent phase. NIH expected to support 150-200 awards beginning in
Fall 2006, and a similar number in each of the following five years, for a total commitment of
almost $400 million. The new Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program,
administered by the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), has been developed to
foster transdisciplinary clinical research and training, with the goal of speeding the translation of
the findings of “discovery” research into clinical practice. Begun in FY2006, the program will
transition elements of existing clinical research programs into CTSAs. Funding was estimated at
$361 million for FY2007, including an additional $3 million requested in NCRR, sponsor of the
current General Clinical Research Centers program.
In addition to showing the appropriation by institute, the other common way to describe the NIH
budget is by “funding mechanism.” On average, the ICs devote more than 80% of their budgets to
supporting peer-reviewed extramural research by awarding research project grants, research
center grants, contracts, training grants, construction grants, and many other types of funding to
researchers in universities and other institutions around the country. The remaining 15%-20% of
the IC budgets supports their intramural research programs and research management costs.
Budget data displayed by funding mechanism reveals the balance between extramural and
intramural funding, as well as the relative emphasis on support of individual investigator-initiated
research versus funding of larger projects, comprehensive research centers, agency-directed
research contracts, research career training, facilities construction, and so forth.
The largest category, “research project grants” (RPGs), represented 53% of the total NIH request,
or $15.1 billion. NIH estimated it would support a total of 37,671 RPGs in FY2007, which was
656 fewer grants than the estimate for FY2006. The main reason for the drop was that a large
number of grants that were started toward the end of the doubling years were completing their
funding cycles. (The average length of an RPG award is just under four years, but each year’s
funds are awarded separately from that year’s appropriation.) Within the RPG total, about one
Congressional Research Service
14
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
quarter (9,337, for $3.3 billion) were to be “competing” (new or competing renewal) grants, and
the remaining three-quarters were to be noncompeting (continuation) grants. The estimated
number of competing RPGs would have been 275 more than the FY2006 number. The request
proposed that the average cost of a competing RPG would not increase over the FY2006 level,
and that noncompeting grants would receive no inflationary increases. NIH expected that the
“success rate” of applicants receiving funding for competing RPGs would be about 19%, the
same as FY2006, compared with 22% in FY2005. During the doubling years, the success rate
averaged 30%-32%.
In the request, support for research centers would have grown by 2.3% to $2.8 billion; research
training grants would have remained at the FY2006 level ($760 million); research and
development contracts would have increased by $44 million (1.6%) to $2.7 billion because of the
Genes, Health, and Environment initiative; the intramural research program ($2.8 billion) was
slated to decrease by $9 million (0.3%); research management and support would have increased
by $14 million (1.3%) to $1.1 billion; extramural research facilities construction would have
supported only the $25 million for biosafety labs, with no funds (same as FY2006) for nonbiodefense extramural construction; and funding for NIH’s own buildings and facilities remained
at $89 million. As noted above, by moving the $25 million in facilities construction money from
NIAID to NCRR, the House bill made the funds available for open competition instead of being
limited to biodefense facilities.
The NIH and other Public Health Service agencies within HHS are subject to a budget “tap”
called the PHS Program Evaluation Transfer (section 241 of the PHS Act), which has the effect of
redistributing appropriated funds among PHS agencies. The FY2005 and FY2006 Labor-HHS
appropriations set the tap at 2.4%, as did the FY2007 Senate bill. The House bill returned the
maximum tap to 1.0%, the level specified in the PHS Act. NIH, with the largest budget among the
PHS agencies, is the largest “donor” of program evaluation funds and is a relatively minor
recipient.
At the end of the 109th Congress, the House and Senate agreed on the first NIH reauthorization
statute enacted since 1993, the NIH Reform Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-482). The law made
managerial and organizational changes in NIH, focusing on enhancing the authority and tools for
the NIH Director to do strategic planning, especially to facilitate and fund cross-institute research
initiatives. It required detailed tracking of the research portfolio and periodic review of NIH’s
organizational structure. The measure authorized, for the first time, overall funding levels for
NIH, although not for the individual ICs, and established a “common fund” for trans-NIH
research. For further information on NIH, see CRS Report RL33695, The National Institutes of
Health (NIH): Organization, Funding, and Congressional Issues, by (name redacted). (CRS
Contact: Pamela Smith.)
Table 5. National Institutes of Health
($ in millions)
Institutes and Centers (ICs)
FY2005
actuala
FY2006 rev
apprb
FY2007
request
FY2007
H.Comm.
FY2007
S.Comm.
Cancer (NCI)
$4,828.2
$4,790.1
$4,753.6
$4,753.6
$4,799.1
Heart/Lung/Blood (NHLBI)
2,941.2
2,919.8
2,901.0
2,901.0
2,924.3
391.8
389.1
386.1
386.1
389.7
Dental/Craniofacial Res
(NIDCR)
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
Institutes and Centers (ICs)
FY2005
actuala
FY2006 rev
apprb
FY2007
request
FY2007
H.Comm.
FY2007
S.Comm.
Diabetes/Diges/Kidney
(NIDDK)
1,713.6
1,703.8
1,694.3
1,694.3
1,707.8
Neuro. Disorders/Stroke
(NINDS)
1,539.4
1,533.7
1,524.8
1,524.8
1,537.7
Allergy/Infectious Dis (NIAID)c
4,402.8
4,380.3
4,395.5
4,270.5
4,395.5
General Medical Sci (NIGMS)
1,944.1
1,934.3
1,923.5
1,923.5
1,934.9
Child Health (NICHD)
1,270.3
1,263.9
1,257.4
1,257.4
1,264.5
Eye (NEI)
669.1
666.3
661.4
661.4
666.9
Environ Health Sci (NIEHS)
644.5
640.7
637.3
637.3
641.3
1,052.0
1,045.9
1,039.8
1,039.8
1,048.9
Arthritis/Musculo/Skin (NIAMS)
511.2
507.6
504.5
504.5
508.6
Deafness/Comm’n Dis
(NIDCD)
394.3
393.2
391.6
391.6
395.2
Nursing Research (NINR)
138.1
137.2
136.6
136.6
137.8
Alcohol Abuse (NIAAA)
438.3
435.6
433.3
433.3
436.6
Drug Abuse (NIDA)
1,006.4
999.3
994.8
994.8
1,000.3
Mental Health (NIMH)
1,411.9
1,402.6
1,394.8
1,394.8
1,403.6
Human Genome Res (NHGRI)
488.6
485.7
482.9
482.9
486.3
Bio Imaging/Bioengrg (NIBIB)
298.2
296.6
294.9
294.9
297.6
Research Resources (NCRR)
1,115.1
1,098.3
1,098.2
1,123.2
1,104.3
Complemnt/Alt Med (NCCAM)
122.1
121.4
120.6
120.6
122.0
Minority Hlth/Disparity
(NCMHD)
196.2
195.3
194.3
194.3
196.8
Fogarty International Center
(FIC)
66.6
66.3
66.7
66.7
66.8
Library of Medicine (NLM)
315.1
314.7
313.3
313.3
315.3
Office of Director (OD)d
405.1
527.2
667.8
667.8
687.8
Buildings & Facilities (B&F)
110.3
81.0
81.1
81.1
81.1
$28,414.5
$28,329.8
$28,350.0
$28,250.0
$28,550.7
79.8
79.1
78.4
79.4
79.4
Total, NIH discr budget
auth
$28,494.4
$28,409.0
$28,428.4
$28,329.4
$28,630.1
Pre-approp Type 1 diabetesf
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
NLM program evaluationg
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
$28,652.6
$28,567.2
$28,586.6
$28,487.6
$28,788.3
-99.2
-99.0
-100.0
0.0
-100.0
$28,553.4
$28,468.2
$28,486.6
$28,487.6
$28,688.3
Aging (NIA)
Subtotal, Labor-HHS-ED Approp
Superfund (Interior/Env
Approp)e
Total, NIH program level
Global HIV/AIDS Fund transferc
Total, NIH prog level w/
transfer
Congressional Research Service
16
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
Sources: FY2007 NIH budget justification, H.Rept. 109-515, and S.Rept. 109-287.
Note: FY2007 funding was continued at the FY2006 rate until February 15, 2007 by P.L. 109-383.
a.
Reflects across-the-board reduction (0.8%) of $229.390m, Labor-HHS-ED reduction of $6.787m for salaries
and expenses, and an additional $2.987m from NCI breast cancer stamp funds.
b.
Reflects across-the-board rescission (1%) of $285.974m, Interior/Env reduction of $0.382m, and HHS
transfer of $19.462m to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (mid-June 2006).
c.
NIAID totals include funds for transfer to Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria (not in FY2007
House bill). FY2006 includes $18.0m supplemental funding from Public Health and Social Services
Emergency Fund (PHSSEF) for pandemic flu (P.L. 109-148), and a comparable transfer of $49.5m from
NIAID to OD for Advanced Development of countermeasures.
d.
OD has Roadmap funds for distribution to ICs (FY2005, $59.520m; FY2006, $82.170m; FY2007,
$110.700m). FY2005 includes $47.021m transferred from PHSSEF for nuclear/radiological countermeasures.
FY2006 includes the $49.5m comparable transfer from NIAID.
e.
Separate account in the Interior/Environment/Related Agencies appropriation for NIEHS research activities
mandated in Superfund legislation (formerly in VA/HUD appropriation).
f.
Pre-appropriated funds available to NIDDK for diabetes research (P.L. 106-554 and P.L. 107360).
g.
Funds from PHS program evaluation set-aside (§ 241 of the PHS Act), $8.2m for NLM each year.
National Science Foundation (NSF)
The FY2007 request for the National Science Foundation (NSF) was $6,020.0 million, a 7.9%
increase ($438.8 million) over the FY2006 level of $5,581.2 million. (See Table 6). President
Bush’s ACI proposed to double the NSF budget over the next 10 years. The FY2007 request was
to be the first installment toward that doubling effort. The FY2007 request for NSF was designed
to support several interdependent priority areas: broadening participation in the science and
engineering enterprise, providing world-class facilities and infrastructure, advancing research at
the frontier, and bolstering K-12 education. NSF was to invest approximately $640.0 million in
programs targeted at those groups underrepresented in the science and engineering workforce.
Total support for providing world-class facilities would have approached $1.7 billion. Across the
agency, activities for advancing research at the frontiers of science were anticipated to reach $4.7
billion.
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. To
address these particular needs, the Administration requested $40.6 million for the Office of
International Science and Engineering. Also, in FY2007, NSF continued in its leadership role in
planning U.S. participation in observance of the International Polar Year, which spans 2007 and
2008. A first-year investment of $62.0 million was provided to address major challenges in polar
research. Other proposed FY2007 highlights included funding for the National Nanotechnology
Initiative ($373.2 million), investments in Climate Change Science Program ($205.3 million),
continued support for homeland security ($384.2 million), and funding for Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development ($903.7 million). Also, a new effort in the
FY2007 request was to be a $20.0 million program of fundamental research on new technologies
for sensor systems that detect explosives.
Included in the FY2007 request was $4,666.0 million for Research and Related Activities
(R&RA), a 7.7% increase ($334.5million) over the FY2006 level of $4,331.5 million. R&RA
Congressional Research Service
17
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
funds research projects, research facilities, and education and training activities. Partly in
response to concerns in the scientific community about the imbalance between support for the life
sciences and the physical sciences, the FY2007 request had provided increased funding for the
physical sciences—$248.5 million, a 6.6% increase ($15.4 million) over the FY2006 estimate.
Research in the physical sciences often leads to advances in other disciplines. R&RA includes
Integrative Activities (IA) and is a source of funding for the acquisition and development of
research instrumentation at U.S. colleges and universities. IA also funds Partnerships for
Innovation, disaster research teams, and the Science and Technology Policy Institute. The
FY2007 request for IA was $131.4 million, a 4.2% decrease ($5.8 million) from the FY2006
estimate. The Office of Polar Programs (OPP) is funded in the R&RA. In FY2006, responsibility
for funding the costs of icebreakers that support scientific research in polar regions was
transferred from the U.S. Coast Guard to the NSF. The NSF will continue to operate and maintain
the three icebreakers. The OPP was funded at $438.1 million in the FY2007 request, 12.5% above
the FY2006 level. Significant increases in OPP for FY2007 were directed at the programs for
arctic and antarctic sciences.
Research project support in the FY2007 would have totaled $2,413.7 million. This support is
provided to individuals and small groups conducting disciplinary and cross-disciplinary research.
Included in the total for research projects was support for centers, proposed at $259.8 million.
The NSF supports a variety of individual centers and center programs. The FY2007 request
provided $67.5 million for Science and Technology Centers, $55.7 million for Materials Centers,
$62.8 million for Engineering Research Centers, $37.4 million for Nanoscale Science and
Engineering Centers, and $6.5 million for Centers for Analysis and Synthesis.
The Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account would have been
funded at $240.5 million in the FY2007, a 26% increase ($49.6 million) over the FY2006 level.
The MREFC supports the acquisition and construction of major research facilities and equipment
that extend the boundaries of science, engineering, and technology. Of all federal agencies, NSF
is the primary supporter of “forefront instrumentation and facilities for the academic research and
education communities.” First priority for funding is directed to ongoing projects. Second priority
is directed at projects that have been approved by the National Science Board for new starts. NSF
requires that in order for a project to receive support, it must have “the potential to shift the
paradigm in scientific understanding and/or infrastructure technology.” NSF stated that the
projects scheduled for support in the FY2007 request met that qualification. Five ongoing projects
and two new starts were proposed for funding in the FY2007 request: Atacama Large Millimeter
Array Construction ($47.9 million), EarthScope ($27.4 million), Ice Cube Neutrino Observatory
($28.7 million), National Ecological Observatory Network ($12.0 million), Scientific Ocean
Drilling Vessel ($42.9 million), Alaskan Region Research Vessel ($56.0 million), and Ocean
Observatories Initiative ($13.5 million).
The FY2007 request had also supported several NSF-wide investments in: biocomplexity in the
environment ($42.6 million), human and social dynamics ($41.5 million), and mathematical
sciences ($78.5 million). Additional priority areas included those of strengthening core
disciplinary research, continuing as lead federal agency in networking and information
technology R&D, and sustaining organizational excellence in NSF management practices. The
NSF maintained that researchers need not only access to cutting-edge tools to pursue the
increasing complexity of research, but funding to develop and design the tools critical to 21st
century research and education. An investment of $596.8 million in cyberinfrastructure would
have allowed for funding of modeling, simulation, visualization, and data storage and other
communications breakthroughs. NSF anticipated that this level of funding would make
Congressional Research Service
18
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
cyberinfrastructure more powerful, stable, and accessible to researchers and educators through
widely shared research facilities. Increasing grant size and duration has been a long-term priority
for NSF. The funding rate for research grants applications has declined from approximately 30%
in the late 1990s to an estimated 23% in FY2006.
The FY2007 request for the Education and Human Resources Directorate (EHR) was $816.2
million, a 2.5% increase ($19.5 million) over FY2006. 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 in all
scientific fields. Support at the various educational levels in the FY2007 request was to be as
follows: precollege, $215.0 million; undergraduate, $196.8 million; and graduate, $160.6 million.
Priorities at the precollege level include research and evaluation on education in science and
engineering ($41.2 million), informal science education ($65.6 million), and a new program,
Discovery Research K-12 ($104.1 million). Discovery Research was structured to combine the
strengths of three existing programs and encourage innovative thinking in K-12 science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics education.
At the undergraduate level, approximately 72% of the funding was to be in support of new
awards and activities. Priorities at the undergraduate level included the Robert Noyce Scholarship
Program ($9.8 million), Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement ($86.5 million), STEM
Talent Expansion Program ($26.1 million), the National STEM Education Digital Library ($16.0
million), the Federal Cyber Service ($11 million), and Advanced Technological Education ($45.9
million). The Math and Science Partnership Program (MSP) was transferred to the undergraduate
level in the FY2007 request.
MSP was to be supported at $46.0 million, a 27.2% decrease from the FY2006 estimate. Funding
in the FY2007 request was to provide support for ongoing awards, in addition to data collection,
evaluation, knowledge management, and dissemination. No new partnership awards were
proposed in the budget request. The MSP has made approximately 80 awards, with an overall
funding rate of about 9%. At the graduate level, priorities were those of Integrative Graduate
Education and Research Traineeship ($24.6 million), Graduate Research Fellowships ($88.0
million), and the Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education ($46.8 million). Added support
was given to several programs directed at increasing the number of underrepresented minorities
in science, mathematics, and engineering. Among these targeted programs in the FY2007 request
were the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Programs ($29.7 million), Tribal Colleges
and Universities Program ($12.4 million), Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation
($39.7 million), and Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology ($24.9 million).
Funding for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) was
supported at $100.0 million in the FY2007 request, a slight increase of $1.3 million over FY2006.
Approximately 55% of the FY2007 request for EPSCoR was to be available for new awards and
activities, with the balance supporting awards made in previous years.
On June 29, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5672, Science-State-Justice-Commence Appropriation
Bill, FY2007 (H.Rept. 109-520). The bill would have provided $6,020.0 million for the NSF in
FY2007, the amount requested by the Administration. Included in the funding was $4, 646.4
million for R&RA, again, the same as the request. The MREFC was to be funded at $237.3
million, $3.0 million below the Administration’s request. The House bill did not include the $3.0
million reimbursement to Judgement Fund of the U.S. Treasury for a settlement related to the
Polar Aircraft Upgrades project. The EHR was to be funded at $832.4 million, approximately
$16.2 million above the request. Included in the amount for the EHR was $105.0 for EPSCoR,
Congressional Research Service
19
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
$5.0 million above the amount requested. The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its
version of H.R. 5672 on July 13, 2006 (S.Rept. 109-280). The Senate provided a total of $5,
991.7 million for the NSF in FY2007, $28.3 million below the request and the House bill. R&RA
was funded at $4,646.4 million, $19.6 million below the Administration’s request and the House
version. Other funding levels included in the Senate version were $237.3 million for MREFC,
$835.8 million for EHR, and $110.0 million for EPSCoR. (CRS Contact: Christine Matthews.)
Table 6. National Science Foundation
($ in millions)
FY2005
Act.
FY2006
Est.
FY2007
Req.
FY2007
House
FY2007
Senate Comm.
Res. & Related Act.
Biological Sciences
$576.8
$576.7
$607.9
Computer & Inform. Sci. & Eng.
490.2
496.4
526.7
Engineering
557.1
580.9
628.6
Geosciences
697.2
702.8
744.9
1,069.4
1,085.5
1,150.3
Social, Behav. & Econ. Sci.
196.8
199.9
213.8
Office of Cyberinfrastructure
123.4
127.1
182.4
Office of International Sci. & Eng.
43.4
34.5
40.6
U.S. Polar Programs
349.7
390.5
439.6
Integrative Activities
130.9
137.2
131.4
$4,234.8
$4,331.5
$4,666.0
$4,666.0a
$4,646.4a
Ed. & Hum. Resr.
843.5
796.7
816.2
832.4
835.8
Major Res. Equip. & Facil. Constr.
165.1
190.9
240.5
237.3
237.3
Salaries & Expenses
223.5
246.8
281.8
268.6
256.5
National Science Board
3.7
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.9
Office of Inspector General
10.2
11.4
11.9
11.9
11.9
$5,480.8
$5,581.2
$6,020.0
$6,020.0
$5,991.7
Math & Physical Sci.
Subtotal Res. & Rel. Act
Total NSFb
Note: Additional funding resulting from H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Receipts is $26 million in FY2005, an
estimated $100 million in FY2006, and a projected $100 million in FY2007.
a.
Specific funding allocations for each directorate or for individual programs and activities were not
determined.
b.
The totals do not include carry overs or retirement accruals. Totals may not add due to
rounding.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) R&D
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested $1.552 billion for R&D in FY2007, an
increase of 4.5% from FY2006. This total included $1.002 billion for the Directorate of Science
and Technology, $536 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), and $14
million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) in the U.S. Coast Guard. (For
Congressional Research Service
20
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
details, see Table 7.) The request for DNDO was a 70% increase. The request for the S&T
Directorate was a 13% decrease. The House provided $956 million for the S&T Directorate; $500
million for DNDO; and $14 million for Coast Guard RDT&E. The Senate provided $818 million
for the S&T Directorate (less a rescission of $200 million in unobligated prior-year funds); $442
million for DNDO; $18 million for Coast Guard RDT&E; and $92 million for R&D in TSA
(transferred from S&T). The final bill provided $973 million for S&T (less $125 million in
rescinded prior-year funds); $481 million for DNDO, and $17 million for Coast Guard RDT&E.
The final total of $1.371 billion (excluding the rescission of unobligated funds) was an overall 9%
reduction from FY2006, made up of a 16% decrease for S&T, a 53% increase for DNDO, and a
6% decrease for Coast Guard RDT&E.2
For individual portfolios within the S&T Directorate, comparing FY2007 with previous years is
difficult because of several accounting factors. Certain expenses previously funded by each R&D
portfolio were requested in the Management and Administration account in FY2007. Funds for
DNDO were requested separately rather than as part of S&T. The former Transportation Security
Administration R&D program, which was merged into S&T and funded in the R&D
Consolidation line in FY2006, constituted part of the Explosives Countermeasures and Support of
Components portfolios in the FY2007 request. The request indicated that some activities, most
notably the Counter MANPADS program to protect commercial aircraft against portable groundto-air missiles, would continue at their current level of effort in FY2007 but required little
additional budget authority because prior-year funds remained unspent. After accounting for these
factors, it appeared that the FY2007 request would reduce net funding for the Standards, Rapid
Prototyping, SAFETY Act, and Critical Infrastructure Protection portfolios, and increase net
funding for Cyber Security and the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility. Several of the
requested net changes would have offset changes that Congress made in FY2006 relative to the
FY2006 request. For congressional changes relative to the FY2007 request, see Table 7.
Both committee reports (H.Rept. 109-476 and S.Rept. 109-273) were highly critical of the S&T
Directorate. The House committee reduced the Management and Administration account by $5
million “for lack of responsiveness” to its information requests. It made $98 million of that
account unavailable for obligation until S&T provided budgetary information “with sufficient
detail.” The Senate bill made $60 million of the Management and Administration account
unavailable for obligation pending the submission and approval of an expenditure plan. In the
S&T Directorate’s main RDA&O account, the House committee made $400 million unavailable
for obligation until the Under Secretary reported on progress in addressing financial management
deficiencies. The Senate transfer of S&T activities back to TSA was because “the Committee has
repeatedly requested a breakout of funding ... which S&T has failed to provide.” The House
committee report objected that the budget justification contains “no details of how risk
assessment was used in its formulation or even which DHS agency was tasked with prioritizing
risks and assigning them resources.” The Senate committee report described the S&T Directorate
as “a rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course.” The conference report (H.Rept.
109-699) did not include such critical language, but language in the final bill did make $60
million from Management and Administration and $50 million from RDA&O unavailable for
obligation pending congressional approval of an expenditure plan and a report on financial
2
DNDO was funded within the S&T Directorate in FY2006. The percentage increases given here for DNDO are
relative to its FY2006 funding within S&T. The percentage decreases for S&T are relative to its FY2006 funding
exclusive of DNDO.
Congressional Research Service
21
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
management. The President’s signing statement construed these provisions on constitutional
grounds as “calling solely for notification.”3
The FY2007 budget request marked the end of a period of consolidation for DHS R&D programs.
In the FY2004 appropriations conference report (H.Rept. 108-280), Congress directed the
department to consolidate its R&D activities into the S&T Directorate. This process began with
several small programs in FY2005, but a proposed move of the Coast Guard RDT&E program
was rejected by the Senate. In FY2006, the much larger R&D program of the Transportation
Security Administration was moved into S&T, but again the Senate rejected moving the Coast
Guard program. The FY2007 request proposed no further consolidations; conversely, it proposed
dividing out DNDO funding into a separate account, which would comprise more than one-third
of the department’s R&D budget. The House committee report expressed puzzlement and
dissatisfaction with the transfer but approved it anyway, because of the “critical importance of the
DNDO mission” and “the liability [DNDO] would face” if left in S&T. The committee directed
S&T to work with DNDO and support its R&D-related needs. The Senate committee made no
comment on the separation of DNDO, but proposed transferring some S&T activities back to
TSA. This Senate proposal was rejected in conference. (CRS Contact: (name redacted).)
Table 7. Department of Homeland Security R&D
($ in millions)
FY2006
Enacteda
FY2007
Rqst.
FY2007
House
FY2007
Senate
FY2007
Final
Science and Technology Directorate
1467.1
1002.3
956.3
618.4
848.1
Management and Administration
80.3
195.9
180.9
106.4
135.0
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
1386.8
806.4
775.4
512.0
713.1
Biological Countermeasures
376.2
337.2
337.2
327.2
350.2
Chemical Countermeasures
94.0
83.1
45.1
75.0
60.0
Explosives Countermeasures
43.6
86.6
76.6
5.0
86.6
Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasuresb
18.9
-
-
-
-
Domestic Nuclear Detection Officeb
314.8
-
-
-
-
Threat Awarenessc
42.6
39.9
39.9
35.0
35.0
Standards
34.6
22.1
22.1
27.1
22.1
Support of DHS Componentsd
79.2
88.6
85.6
80.0
85.6
University and Fellowship Programs
62.4
52.0
52.0
50.0
50.0
Emergent and Prototypical Technologye
42.6
19.5
19.5
12.5
19.5
Counter MANPADS
108.9
4.9
4.9
40.0
40.0
SAFETY Act
6.9
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
Office of Interop. and Compatibility
26.2
29.7
29.7
25.0
27.0
Critical Infrastructure Protection
40.4
15.4
35.4
12.5
35.4
3
“President’s Statement on H.R. 5441“, White House press release October 4, 2006, online at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/print/20061004-10.html.
Congressional Research Service
22
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
FY2006
Enacteda
FY2007
Rqst.
FY2007
House
16.5
22.7
22.7
18.0
20.0
-
-
-
-
2.0
R&D Consolidationf
98.9
-
-
-
-
Rescis. of Unobd. Funds from Prior Yrs.
Cyber Security
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
FY2007
Senate
FY2007
Final
-20.0
-
-
-200.0
-125.0
Transportation Security Administrn. R&Df
-
-
-
91.6
-
Domestic Nuclear Detection Officec
-
535.8
500.0
442.5
481.0
Management and Administration
-
30.5
30.5
30.5
30.5
Research, Development, and Operations
-
327.3
291.5
234.0
272.5
Systems Acquisition
-
178.0
178.0
178.0
178.0
18.1
13.9
13.9
17.6
17.0
Total DHS R&D
1485.2
1552.0
1470.2
1370.1
1246.1
Total (Excluding Prior-Year Rescissions)
1505.2
1552.0
1470.2
1570.1
1371.1
U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E
a.
The FY2006 enacted figures have been reduced by the 1% general rescission (P.L. 109-148) and include a
supplemental appropriation of $525,000 for Coast Guard RDT&E.
b.
Funding for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) was included in the budget for the Science
and Technology Directorate in FY2006. It incorporated most of what had been in Radiological/Nuclear
Countermeasures in FY2005. In FY2007, DNDO had a separate budget request.
c.
Threat Awareness is also known as Threat and Vulnerability Testing and Assessment.
d.
Support of DHS Components is also known as Conventional Missions.
e.
Emergent and Prototypical Technology combines two previous portfolios, Emerging Threats and Rapid
Prototyping, whose funding in FY2006 has been summed for this table.
f.
The Transportation Security Administration R&D program was transferred into the Science and Technology
Directorate in FY2006, and funding for it was requested in that year in the R&D Consolidation line. In
FY2007, this activity is in the Explosives Countermeasures and Support of DHS Components portfolios,
except in the Senate bill, which would have returned the former TSA activities to TSA.
Department of Commerce (DOC)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
For FY2007, the Administration had requested $546 million for NOAA R&D. That sum
represented a 12.6% decline from the $610 million approved by Congress in FY2006. The Office
of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), is NOAA’s primary research office. In FY2007 the
Administration had requested $349 million for OAR R&D, a 6% decline from FY2006 funding
levels. Other R&D funding requested for FY2007 included $73.1 million for the National Ocean
Service (NOS), $ 46.7 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), $31.7 million
for the National Weather Service (NWS), $25.2 million for the National Environmental Satellite
Data and Information Service (NESDIS), and $52 million for the Office of Marine and Aviation
Operations (OMAO). PAC funding of $11.4 million was requested for R&D systems acquisition,
including $9.4 million for OAR and $2.0 million for NWS, to enhance NOAA supercomputing
capabilities.
Congressional Research Service
23
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
The House Science, State, Justice, and Commerce (CJS) Appropriations bill for FY2007 would
have funded NOAA R&D $509 million, $101 million below FY2006 estimated level. (H.Rept.
109-520.) NOAA does not analyze R&D funding for distribution until after final congressional
appropriations are known. H.R. 5672 may have cut funding for research and development
activities, especially those deemed not to be directly serving the agency’s mission. The R&D
programs that stood to be the most affected were federal/university/private sector scientific
research partnerships. As a result, greater funding responsibility would have been shifted to
NOAA’s partners. Applied R&D would have faced fewer reductions and in the case of NOAA
satellites, systems would have increased.
On July 13, 2006 the Senate Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 5672 which included $779
million for NOAA R&D in FY2007. (S.Rept. 109-280). The committee proposed increases for
ocean exploration, the National Centers for Coastal Science, programs in ocean and human
health, and the National Underwater Research Program as was recommended by the JOCI. The
committee recommended $467.2 million for OAR. R&D partnership programs in climate,
weather, and ocean and coastal research activities across the agency would have been funded at
traditional levels and not cut as proposed in House appropriations and the President’s request. The
National Sea Grant College Program, which sponsors marine research and applied science in
cooperation with states, would have received $80 million, 25% more than in FY2006. PAC
funding for systems acquisition and construction supporting OAR would have been $18.4
million. The NOAA Fisheries recommendation included $209.6 million for fishery science and
habitat restoration activities, cooperative research, and R&D-related construction. The committee
also recommended $132.4 million for ocean science-related activities in the National Ocean
Service. The committee would have provided $7.5 million for the NWS U.S. Weather Research
Program. NOAA’s satellites program would have received $21.6 million for applied research and
$11.9 million for R&D-related system acquisition. Also, $37.9 million was recommended for
(science) education programs, which was more than the House and the Senate request. The Office
of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) would have been provided $92.7 million for marine
data acquisition (scored as R&D) and $41.9 million to replace or procure new marine research
vessels. The Senate Committee had approved an estimated $779 million for NOAA R&D, $269
million more than the House recommended.
For information on the agency’s full budget request for FY2007, see CRS Report RS22410, The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Budget for FY2007: President’s
(CRS
Request, Congressional Appropriations, and Related Issues, by (name redacted).
Contact: (name redacted).)
Table 8. NOAA R&D Estimates
($ in millions)
NOAA
FY2006
Estimate
FY2007
Request
House
Senate
Comm.
R&D Total
610
533
510
779
Office of Oceanic & Atmospheric Research (OAR) Line
Office Total
372
349
302
467
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Financial
Administration, NOAA Budget Office, Research and Development Budgets FY2005-FY2007, February 21, 2006. U.S.
Congress, House, Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations, FY2007 (H.Rept. 109-520), June 22,
2006, “House Recommendations,” July 5, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
24
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a laboratory of the Department of
Commerce. It is mandated to increase the competitiveness of U.S. companies through appropriate
support for industrial development of precompetitive generic technologies and the diffusion of
government-developed technological advances to users in all segments of the American economy.
NIST research also provides the measurement, calibration, and quality assurance techniques that
underpin U.S. commerce, technological progress, improved product reliability, manufacturing
processes, and public safety.
The Administration’s FY2007 budget included $581.3 million for NIST, almost 22.7% below the
previous fiscal year. Support for internal R&D activities under the Scientific and Technology
Research and Services (STRS) account would increase 18.3% to $467 million (including $8
million for the Baldrige National Quality Program). There was no funding for the Advanced
Technology Program (ATP), and support for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)
would decline 55.7% to $46.3 million. Construction funding would total $68 million, a 60.8%
decrease from FY2006. (See Table 9.)
The FY2007 appropriations bill passed by the House in the 109th Congress, H.R. 5672, provided
NIST with $627 million, a decrease of almost 16.6% from the earlier fiscal year due primarily to
the absence of support for ATP. Financing for laboratory R&D in the STRS account increased
18.3% to $467 million. MEP funding totaled $92 million, 12% below FY2006. Funding for the
construction budget was $68 million.
The version of H.R. 5672 reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations during the 109th
Congress would have funded NIST at $764 million, 1.6% above the previous fiscal year. While
there was no financing for ATP, there was increased support for internal laboratory R&D, the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, and construction activities. The STRS account
was to receive $467 million, the same amount included in both the Administration’s request and
the original House-passed bill. Funding for MEP increased 1.3% from FY2006 to $106 million.
Construction was to be financed at $191 million, 10% above the earlier level and almost three
times the amount provided by both the Administration’s budget proposal and H.R. 5672 as passed
by the House.
As part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, the Administration stated its intention to
double over 10 years funding for “innovation-enabling research” done at NIST through its “core”
programs (defined as internal research in the STRS account and the construction budget). To this
end, the President’s FY2007 budget requested an increase of 18.3% for intramural R&D at NIST.
H.R. 5672, as passed by the House during the 109th Congress, provided this increased funding. It
remains to be seen how support for this effort will evolve and how this might affect financing of
extramural efforts such as ATP and MEP.
For FY2006, the President’s budget requested $532 million in NIST funding, a 23% decrease
from FY2005 due primarily to an absence of support for ATP and a significant cut in financing for
MEP. Included in the total figure was $426.3 million for the STRS account, which primarily
finances the internal R&D activities of the laboratory. This amount was 12.5% above the previous
fiscal year and included $5.7 million for the Quality Program. MEP was to be funded at $46.8
million, 56% below FY2005 support. The construction budget was $58.9 million.
Congressional Research Service
25
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
H.R. 2862, as originally passed by the House, would have provided $548.7 million for NIST,
21% below FY2005 funding. The STRS account was to receive $397.7 million, 5% more than
FY2005 but 6.7% below the President’s request. Financing for MEP totaled $106 million, a
decrease of 1.4% from the earlier fiscal year and more than twice the Administration’s budget
request. There was no funding for ATP. Construction activities would have received $45 million.
The version of H.R. 2862 initially passed by the Senate would have funded NIST at $844.5
million, for FY2006, almost 21% above the FY2005 budget. Included in this amount was $399.9
million for the STRS account (incorporating $7.2 million for the Quality Program), an increase of
5.6% over previous funding. MEP was to receive $106 million. Support for ATP, absent from both
the President’s budget request and the original House-passed bill, would total $140 million, 2.6%
more than the financing provided in FY2005. The construction budget was to be funded at $198.6
million, more than double the earlier figure. This construction funding was more than three times
that proposed by the Administration and more than four times that included in the original House
version of the bill.
Subsequently, the final FY2006 appropriations legislation, P.L. 109-108, provides $752 million
for NIST (after the mandated rescissions but not including a $7 million rescission from
unobligated balances in the MEP account). This was increase of 8.2% over FY2005 funding.
Support for the STRS account totaled $394.8 million, including $7.3 million for the Quality
Program. This amount was an increase of 4.2% over the previous fiscal year. MEP received
$104.6 million and ATP was financed at $79 million. The funding for MEP is a small decrease
from FY2005, whereas support for ATP declines 42% from the earlier figure. The construction
budget more than doubled to $173.6 million.
For FY2005, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-447, provided NIST with $695.3 million
(after a mandated 0.8% across-the-board rescission and a 0.54% rescission from Commerce,
Justice, and State discretionary accounts). This amount was 14% above FY2004 funding. Internal
research and development under the STRS account was $378.8 million (including funding for the
Quality Program), almost 12% over the previous fiscal year. The Manufacturing Extension
Partnership was funded at $107.5 million, an increase of 178% that brought support for the
program up to pre-FY2004 levels. The Advanced Technology Program was financed at $136.5
million (20% below FY2004), and the construction budget received $72.5 million. The legislation
also rescinded $3.9 million of unobligated balances from prior year funds in the ATP account.
Continued support for the Advanced Technology Program has been a major funding issue. ATP
provides “seed financing,” matched by private sector investment, to businesses or consortia
(including universities and government laboratories) for development of generic technologies that
have broad applications across industries. Opponents of the program cite it as a prime example of
“corporate welfare,” whereby the federal government invests in applied research activities that,
they argue, should be conducted by the private sector. Others defend ATP, arguing that it helps
businesses (and small manufacturers) develop technologies that, while crucial to industrial
competitiveness, would not or could not be developed by the private sector alone. While
Congress has maintained support for the Advanced Technology Program, the initial appropriation
bills passed by the House since FY2002 provided no funding for ATP. Although support was
provided again in the FY2006 appropriations legislation, it was 41% below the earlier fiscal year.
In the 109th Congress, both the House-passed FY2007 appropriations bill and the version reported
from the Senate Committee on Appropriations contained no funding for the program. It remains
to be seen how the 110th Congress will address this issue.
Congressional Research Service
26
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
For additional information, see CRS Report 95-30, The National Institute of Standards and
Technology: An Appropriations Overview, by (name redacted); CRS Report 95-36, The
Advanced Technology Program, by (name redacted); and CRS Report 97-104, Manufacturing
Extension Partnership Program: An Overview, by (name redacted). (CRS Contact: (name red
acted).)
Table 9. NIST
($ in millions)
NIST Program
FY2005a
FY2007
Request
FY2006b
Senate
Comm.
House
NIST Total
695.3
752
581.3
627
764
STRSc
378.8
394.8
467
467
467
ATP
136.5
79
0
0
0
MEP
107.5
104.6
46.3
92
106
Construction
72.5
173.6
68
68
191
a.
After mandated rescissions (but not including those to unobligated balances).
b.
Includes mandated rescissions (but not a $7 million rescission from unobligated balances in the MEP
account).
c.
Includes funding for the Baldrige National Quality Program.
Department of Transportation (DOT)
The Bush Administration had requested $767 million for the Department of Transportation’s
(DOT’s) research and development budget in FY2007. That request represented a decrease of
almost 8.5% below the estimated $838 million approved for R&D in FY2006. (See Table 10.)
Funding for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) would have increased to $397, an
increase of 4% for FY2007. R&D funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would
have declined from $310 million to $235 million in FY2007, a 24% decrease from FY2006
estimated funding levels. Some of that decline can be attributed to continued cuts in FFA’s
development activities. Finally, funding for DOT’s other R&D programswould decline 9% below
FY2006 funding levels to $135 million.
The House appropriations bill (H.R. 5576) would have restored almost all of the President’s
proposed funding cuts for the FAA. Consequently, that would have resulted in a funding decrease
of only $5 million, rather than the $75 million proposed by the President. The House bill had
matched the President’s $397 million request for the FHWA. While the Senate would have funded
the FHWA at the same level as the House, it had proposed to fund the FAA at $48 million below
the House approved level. (CRS Contact: Mike Davey.)
Table 10. Department of Transportation R&D
($ in millions)
Department of Transportation
FY2006
Estimate
FY2007
Request
House
Senate
Comm.
Federal Highway Administration
380
397
397
397
Congressional Research Service
27
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
Department of Transportation
FY2006
Estimate
FY2007
Request
House
Senate
Comm.
Federal Aviation Administration
310
235
305
257
Othersa
148
135
105
139
Total
838
767
807
793
a.
“Others” includes Office of the Secretary, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Federal Railroad
Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and the Research and Innovative
Technology Administration.
Department of the Interior (DOI)
The Administration had requested $598 million for R&D in the Department of the Interior (DOI),
a 5.7% decline from the $634 million the agency estimates it received in FY2006. (See Table 11.)
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the primary supporter of R&D (almost 90 % of the total)
within DOI. The USGS areas of research includes mapping, geological resources, water quality,
and biological resources. The proposed FY2007 budget for R&D within the USGS would have
declined from $558 million in FY2006 to $532 million in FY2007, a 4.7% decline. The USGS is
one of the major sponsors of earth science research, along with NSF, DOE, and NASA.
As indicated in the table, funding for Geological Mineral Resources research was proposed to
decline 8.5%, whereas Water Resources was scheduled to decline 8.7%. The geological hazards
program conducts basic and applied research, collects long-term data, operates a variety of
monitoring networks, and helps to warn the public of impending disasters, such as earthquakes.
The geologic resources program assesses the availability and quality of the nation’s energy and
mineral resources. The geologic processes program researches, monitors, and assesses the
landscape to understand geological processes to help distinguish natural change from those
resulting from human activity. Water resources research focuses on activities aimed at improving
the quality of the U.S. ground water. Within the earth sciences, the USGS plays a major role in
important geological hazards research, including research on earthquakes and volcanoes.
Enterprise Information conducts information science research to enhance the National Map and
National Spatial Data infrastructure.
Funding for USGS Biological Research would have declined 3.3% below FY2006-estimated
funding levels. This research program develops and distributes information needed in the
conservation and management of the nation’s biological resources. The program serves as the
Department’s research arm, utilizing the capabilities of 17 research centers and 40 Cooperative
Research Units that support research on fish, wildlife, and natural habitats. Major research
initiatives are carried out by USGS scientists who collect scientific information through research,
inventory, and monitoring investigations. These activities develop new methods and techniques to
identify, observe, and manage fish and wildlife, including invasive species and their habitats.
Nearly 90% of USGS research is performed within Interior labs to address the science needs of
DOI and other agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land
Management.
The House-passed Interior and Environment appropriations bill (H.R. 5386) included an
estimated $630 million for R&D. That amount was $32 million above the request, but $4 million
less than what the agency had received in FY2006. The Senate Department of Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill (S Rept. 109-275) included an estimated
Congressional Research Service
28
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
$643 million for the conduct of R&D in FY2007. That proposed funding amount was $45 million
above the President’s request, and $13 million above the House recommended funding level.
(CRS Contact: Mike Davey.)
Table 11. Department of Interior R&D
($ in millions)
U. S. Geological Survey
FY2006
Estimate
FY2007
Request
House
Senate
Comm.
National Mapping
40
46
47
48
Geological Resources
212
194
218
216
Water Resources
126
115
123
125
Biological Research
179
173
175
177
Enterprise Information
1
4
4
4
USGS totala
558
532
567
570
Other agenciesb
76
66
63
73
Total all agencies
634
598
630
643
a.
USGS R&D estimates are from the USGS budget office, and the USGS FY2007 Budget Justification
documents.
b.
“Other agencies” includes, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management, the Minerals
Management Service, and the National Park Service.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Science and Technology (S&T) account
incorporates elements of the former research and development account (also called extramural
research) and EPA’s in-house research, development, and technology work. This account also
provides funding for the scientific tools and knowledge necessary to support decisions relating to
preventing, regulating, abating environmental pollution and to advance the base of understanding
on environmental sciences.
On May 11, 2006, the House Committee on Appropriations (H.R. 5386) recommended a total of
$808 million for EPA’s FY2007 S&T activities. Of that amount $557million would have been for
R&D, $3 million below the FY2006 estimated funding level. (See Table 12.) The House
Committee noted that the FY2007 request included $61.0 million transferred into the S&T
account from EPA’s Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account. That transfer of
funds, which is more than the total S&T increase of the FY2007 request over the FY2006 enacted
level, was for rent, security, and utilities costs that were handled previously in EPA’s EPM
account. This shift would have better reflected actual costs for personnel with S&T funds,
according to EPA’s FY2007 Congressional Justification document.
The Senate-passed Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations
bill (S.Rept. 109-275), approved an estimated $793 for EPA’s S&T activities. Of that amount,
$596 million would be for R&D, $12 million below the House passed bill.
Congressional Research Service
29
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007
Following are five noteworthy differences between levels in the budget request and House
recommendations: 1) the FY2007 budget request zeroed the funding level for the category of
congressionally mandated research projects, but the House Committee recommended $30.0
million, which was approximately the amount enacted in FY2006 for this category; 2) the
FY2007 budget requested $12.5 million for its Climate Protection Program, approximately $6.0
million less than the FY2006 level, but the House recommended a $6.0 million increase over the
FY2007 request level to restore the program to its FY2006 level; 3) the FY2007 budget request
proposes to discontinue funds for directed Science to Achieve Results Research Fellowships
(which competitively awards stipends and other research support to graduate students in
environmentally related fields), but the House Committee stated that “funding reductions in this
program are not acceptable;” 4) the FY2007 budget request proposed to discontinue EPA’s
Environmental Technology Verification centers (which verify the performance of innovative
clean-up and other environmental technologies) for a savings of nearly $3.0 million, but the
House Committee recommended $2.4 million to partially restore the program; and 5) the FY2007
budget requested $44.5 million for homeland security preparedness, response, and recovery, up
from the FY2006 enacted level of approximately $36.0 million, but the House Committee
recommended a level of $39.5 million for FY2007. The Senate also would have restored funding
for these programs as well. (CRS Contact: Michael Davey.)
Table 12. Environmental Protection Agency
($ in millions)
EPA
FY2006
Enacted
FY2007
Request
House
Senate
Comm.
S&T total
730
788
808
793
R&D
600
557
608
596
Transferred from Superfund
30.2
28
30
30.0
Author Contact Information
(name redacted), Coordinator
(name redacted)
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.g
ov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Analyst in Biomedical Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Information Research Specialist
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
30
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.