Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
Congressional research reportFeb 5, 2008
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Federal Research and Development Funding:
FY2008
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
February 5, 2008
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL34048
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
Summary
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) was the measure used by Congress
and the President to wrap up action on the regular appropriations acts in late 2007. On December
19, 2007, Congress completed action on the act, and it was signed into law by President Bush on
December 26, 2007. Previously, action had been completed on only one of the regular
appropriations acts, the Defense Appropriations Act, FY2008 (P.L. 110-116) which was signed
into law by President Bush on November 13, 2007. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
provides appropriations covered in the eleven outstanding appropriations acts. To ensure
continuity of government operations, Congress had passed four continuing resolutions (P.L. 11092, P.L. 110-116 Division B, P.L. 110-137, and P.L. 110-149) that provided funding for all
agencies that had not received appropriations from the beginning of FY2008 through passage of
the Consolidated Appropriations Act.
The Bush Administration requested $142.7 billion in federal research and development (R&D)
funding for FY2008. Total federal R&D funding for FY2008 provided in P.L. 110-161 and P.L.
110-116 is estimated to be $142.7 billion, a 1.2% increase over FY2007.
FY2008 funding for the American Competitive Initiative (ACI) fell short of the President’s tenyear doubling target for innovation-related research at the National Science Foundation (NSF),
Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science, and National Institute of Standards and
Technology’s (NIST) core laboratory programs. It also falls short of the authorization levels set
by Congress that put R&D funding for these agencies on a seven-year doubling pace. Funding for
DOE’s Office of Science increased by 5.8% in FY2008 to $4.0 billion. NIST’s core laboratory
programs increased 1.4% in FY2008 to $441 million. Total FY2008 funding for NSF was
increased by 2.5%. NSF’s research and related activities increased by only 1.1%, joining other
R&D agencies (notably the Environmental Protection Agency (-2.4%) and National Institutes of
Health (0.5%)) whose R&D budgets decreased or received increases below the rate of inflation.
In total, DOE received $9.9 billion for R&D in FY2008, a 7.7% increase over FY2007, led by a
24.0% increase in its energy programs. Total funding for NIST increased by 11.7% in FY2008 to
$755.8 million due in large measure to increases in its construction budget. NASA’s FY2008
R&D budget increased to $12.8 billion, a 7.5% increase over FY2007, due primarily to increases
in two initiatives: the international space station and the crew launch vehicle/crew exploration
vehicle combination. FY2008 research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) funding for
the Department of Defense increased by 1.1%. DOD’s science and technology research programs
received $12.8 billion for FY2008, though DOD had requested $10.8 billion. DOD’s request for a
$3.9 billion RDT&E increase under its Global War on Terror initiative was not included in P.L.
110-116 or P.L. 110-161.
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
Contents
Overview ....................................................................................................................................1
Department of Energy (DOE)......................................................................................................2
Department of Defense (DOD)....................................................................................................5
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)........................................................... 11
National Institutes of Health (NIH) ........................................................................................... 12
National Science Foundation (NSF) .......................................................................................... 17
Department of Agriculture (USDA)........................................................................................... 21
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ................................................................................. 24
Department of Commerce (DOC).............................................................................................. 27
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ............................................... 27
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) ....................................................... 28
Department of Transportation (DOT) ........................................................................................ 31
Department of the Interior (DOI)............................................................................................... 32
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)................................................................................... 34
Tables
Table 1. Department of Energy R&D...........................................................................................3
Table 2. Department of Defense RDT&E ....................................................................................8
Table 3. Department of Defense RDT&E, FY2007 Emergency Supplemental............................ 10
Table 4. NASA R&D................................................................................................................. 11
Table 5. National Institutes of Health......................................................................................... 16
Table 6. National Science Foundation........................................................................................ 20
Table 7. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D .......................................................................... 22
Table 8. Department of Homeland Security R&D ...................................................................... 26
Table 9. NOAA R&D................................................................................................................ 28
Table 10. NIST.......................................................................................................................... 31
Table 11. Department of Transportation R&D............................................................................ 32
Table 12. Department of the Interior R&D................................................................................. 33
Table 13. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account ........................................................ 36
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 36
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
Overview
Congress continues to take a strong interest in the health of the U.S. research and development
(R&D) enterprise, and in providing sustained support for federal R&D activities. The federal
government has played an important role in supporting R&D efforts that have led to scientific
breakthroughs and new technologies, from jet aircraft and the Internet to defenses against disease
and communications satellites. Most of the research funded by the federal government is in
support of specific activities of the federal government as reflected in the unique missions of the
funding agencies. The federal government has become the largest supporter of long term
fundamental basic research, primarily because the private sector asserts it cannot capture an
adequate return on long-term fundamental research investments. Some of the major agencies
funding basic research include the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science
Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), and Department of Defense (DOD).
The Bush Administration requested $142.7 billion in federal R&D funding for FY2008.1 Total
R&D funding for FY2008 is approximately $142.7 billion, a 1.2% increase over the enacted
FY2007 total of $141.1 billion.2 Funding for FY2008 is provided for in the Defense
Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-116), signed into law by President Bush on November 13,
2007, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161), signed into law on
December 26, 2007. P.L. 110-161 provides funding covered in the eleven appropriations acts on
which action had not been completed. 3
The President’s FY2008 proposed R&D increase over the FY2007 funding level was due
primarily to requested increases for NASA’s space vehicles development program, the
Department of Defense, and continuation of the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI).
While NASA received increased funding for the International Space Station ($2.2 billion, up
24.6%) and the Constellation program (3.0 billion, up 17.3%), DOD and the ACI did not receive
the increases requested by the President. The President’s proposed FY2008 increase for DOD
RDT&E funding resulted almost entirely from its request for $3.9 billion for RDT&E in support
of its Global War on Terror (GWOT) initiative. Congress chose not to address the GWOT request
in P.L. 110-116 or P.L. 110-161, and has not completed action on separate legislation.
The ACI was proposed by President Bush in response to growing concerns about America’s
ability to compete in the global market place. The $136 billion ACI funding request included $50
billion for additional research, science education, and the modernization of research infrastructure
1
The President’s FY2008 R&D request was released before final passage of the Revised Continuing Appropriations
Resolution (P.L. 110-5), which contains estimated agencies’ funding levels for FY2007. Actual FY2007 appropriations
levels were not specified by P.L. 110-5. Estimated funding levels for different agencies have become available as the
agencies reported their FY2007 operating plans. Tables in this report reflect the agencies’ FY2007 estimates derived
from the CR. Unless otherwise indicated, all funding data are in current dollars.
2
American Association for the Advancement of Science, http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/upd1207tb.htm
3
To ensure continuity of government operations, Congress passed, and the President signed, the first of four continuing
resolutions (P.L. 110-92), which extended funding for all agencies from October 1, 2007, through November 16, 2007.
The act became law on September 29, 2007, ahead of the start of FY2008. Congress subsequently passed three
additional continuing resolutions (P.L. 110-116, P.L. 110-137, and P.L. 110-149), providing funding through enactment
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008.The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008 was passed by Congress, but vetoed by the President. Congress
attempted, but failed, to override the President’s veto of this act.
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
from FY2007 through FY2016. These funds were intended to double physical sciences and
engineering research in three agencies—NSF, DOE’s Office of Science, and NIST—over ten
years.4 Congress established authorization levels for FY2008-2010 that would put funding for
R&D at these agencies on track to double in approximately seven years. However, FY2008 R&D
funding provided in P.L. 110-161 for these agencies falls below these doubling targets. Total
FY2008 funding for NSF was increased by 2.5%, though NSF’s research and related activities
increased by only 1.1%. The DOE Office of Science received a 5.8% increase for FY2008.
NIST’s FY2008 core laboratory R&D increased by 1.4%. The NIST construction and research
facilities account increased 173.4% to $160.5 million in FY2008.5 In addition, the ACI proposed
$86 billion to finance a revised and permanent Research and Experimentation (R&E) tax credit
over the 10-year period. Action to make the R&E tax credit permanent was not completed in
2007, nor was the credit extended. As a result, the R&E tax credit expired at the end of calendar
year 2007.6
Funding levels for three federal multiagency research initiatives varied in the President’s FY2008
request. Funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) would have increased by 4.0%
to $1.447 billion (see CRS Report RS20589, Manipulating Molecules: Federal Support for
Nanotechnology Research, by (name redacted)). Funding for the Networking and Information
Technology R&D (NITRD) program would have remained essentially at the same level with
funding at $3.057 billion (see CRS Report RL33586, The Federal Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development Program: Funding Issues and Activities, by (name red
acted)). The administration proposed $1.544 billion for the Climate Change Science
Program, a decrease of 7.4%, primarily due to a decrease in NASA’s funding7 (see CRS Report
RL33817, Climate Change: Federal Program Funding and Tax Incentives, by (name redacted)).
FY2008 funding for these initiatives has not been determined.
Department of Energy (DOE)
The Department of Energy requested $9.781 billion for R&D in FY2008, including activities in
three major categories: science, national security, and energy. (For details, see Table 1.) This
request was 6% above the FY2007 level of $9.236 billion. The House provided $10.448 billion,
or $667 million more than the request. The Senate committee recommended $10.566 billion, or
$785 million more than the request. The final appropriation was $9.947 billion, or $166 million
more than the request.
4
The ACI proposes to double “innovation-enabling physical science and engineering research” at the three agencies
over ten years, and states that “individual agency allocations remain to be determined.” (The American Competitiveness
Initiative: Leading the World in Innovation, Office of Science and Technology Policy/Domestic Policy Council, The
White House, February 2006.)
5
NIST states that only $79.2 million of these funds is directed at “construction and major renovation and repair of
NIST facilities.” According to NIST, the balance of the increase in its construction and research facilities account is for
“congressionally directed construction projects” and a construction grant program. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/
budget.htm
6
Since its enactment in 1981, the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit has been extended 12 times. Several bills
have been introduced in the 110th Congress that would extend or make permanent the Research and Experimentation
Tax Credit. For further information, see CRS Report RL31181, Research and Experimentation Tax Credit: Current
Status and Selected Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
7
Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008, Office of Management and
Budget, The White House, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
Table 1. Department of Energy R&D
($ in millions)
FY2007
estimate
FY2008
request
FY2008
House
FY2008
Senate
FY2008
enacted
3,797
4,398
4,514
4,497
4,018
Basic Energy Sciences
1,250
1,498
1,498
1,512
1,270
High Energy Physics
752
782
782
782
688
Biological and Environmental Researcha
483
532
582
605
544
Nuclear Physics
423
471
471
471
433
Fusion Energy Sciences
319
428
428
427
287
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
283
340
340
335
351
Other
287
346
412
363
445
3,236
3,132
3,245
3,285
3,199
2,162
2,037
1,882
2,099
2,015
Naval Reactors
782
808
808
808
775
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
270
265
446
322
387
Defense Environmental Cleanup TD&D
21
21
108
55
21
2,203
2,252
2,689
2,785
2,731
1,193
1,031
1,559
1,408
1,440
Fossil Energy R&D
593
567
709
808
743
Nuclear Energy R&Dd
319
568
335
471
438
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability R&D
99
86
86
98
110
9,236
9,781
10,448
10,566
9,947
Science
National Security
Weapons Activitiesb
Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energyc
Total
Notes: FY2007 figures are from the DOE operating plan (online at http://www.doe.gov/media/
FY2007OperatingPlanForDOE.pdf). FY2008 figures are from the budget justification (online at
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/08budget/Start.htm), H.R. 2641 as passed by the House (and H.Rept. 110-185), S.
1751 as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee (and S.Rept. 110-127), and P.L. 110-161 (and
explanatory statement, Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H15913-H15952).
a.
The House proposed splitting this item into two: Biological Research for $424 million and Climate Change
Research for $158 million.
b.
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.
c.
Excludes Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.
d.
Includes University Reactor Infrastructure and Education Assistance, Nuclear Power 2010, Generation IV
Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative, Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, and Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.
The request for the DOE Office of Science was $4.398 billion, a 16% increase from FY2007.
This increase reflected the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which President Bush
announced in the 2006 state of the union address. Over 10 years, the ACI would double R&D
funding for the Office of Science and two other agencies. The House provided $4.514 billion, or
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
$116 million more than the request. The Senate committee recommended $4.497 billion, or $99
million more than the request. The final appropriation was $4.018 billion, $380 million less than
the request but an increase of 6% from FY2007.
Within the Office of Science, the final amounts for several major programs were significantly
different from either the request or the House and Senate amounts. In basic energy sciences, the
request was a $248 million increase, mostly to expand facility operating time. The House
provided the requested amount, and the Senate committee recommended an additional $12
million increase, but in the final appropriation, basic energy sciences received only $20 million
more than in FY2007. The request for fusion energy sciences was a $109 million increase, almost
entirely for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). The House and the
Senate committee both provided approximately the requested amount, but the final appropriation
was $141 million less than requested, with zero funding for the U.S. contribution to ITER. For
high energy physics, the House and the Senate committee both provided the requested amount,
but the final appropriation was $94 million less, which led to announcements of layoffs at Fermi
National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) and Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC).8
The requested funding for DOE national security R&D was $3.132 billion, a 3% decrease. Most
of the reduction resulted from the scheduled completion of construction projects, most notably the
National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The request
included $89 million for the reliable replacement warhead (RRW) program. The House provided
$3.245 billion, including increases for nonproliferation and verification R&D, environmental
cleanup technology development, and inertial confinement fusion, but no funding for the RRW.
The Senate committee recommended $3.285 billion, including increases in the same areas and
partial funding for the RRW. The Senate report noted that the committee was divided on the RRW
and called for a bipartisan congressional commission “to evaluate and make recommendations on
the role of nuclear weapons in our future strategic posture.” The final appropriation was $3.199
billion, with increases for nonproliferation and verification R&D and inertial confinement fusion
that were between the House and Senate amounts, no increase for environmental cleanup
technology development, and no funds for the RRW.
The request for DOE energy R&D was $2.252 billion, up 3% from FY2007. Within this total,
R&D on nuclear, hydrogen, biomass, and solar energy were to increase, while geothermal and
natural gas and oil technology programs were to be terminated. The requested $249 million
increase for nuclear energy R&D was mostly for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. For energy
R&D overall, the House provided $437 million more than the request, and the Senate committee
recommended $533 million more than the request. Both included additional funds for energy
efficiency, renewable energy, and fossil energy, and both included smaller increases than
requested in nuclear energy, with less emphasis on the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. The final
appropriation was $2.731 billion, or $479 million more than the request and 24% more than
FY2007, with allocations generally intermediate between the House and the Senate. (CRS
Contact: (name redacted).)
8
Pier J. Oddone, director of Fermilab, presentation slides from an “all hands” meeting on December 20, 2007,
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/files/All_Hands_Meeting_122007.ppt; Persis S. Drell, director of SLAC, presentation
slides from an “all hands” meeting on January 7, 2008, http://today.slac.stanford.edu/misc/AllHands-010708.ppt.
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
Department of Defense (DOD)
Congress supports research and development in the Department of Defense (DOD) through its
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) appropriation. The appropriation
primarily supports the development of the nation’s future military hardware and software and the
technology base upon which those products rely.
Nearly all of what DOD spends on RDT&E is appropriated in Title IV of the defense
appropriation bill (see Table 2). However, RDT&E funds are also requested as part of the
Defense Health Program and the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program. The
Defense Health Program supports the delivery of health care to DOD personnel and family.
Program funds are requested through the Operations and Maintenance appropriation. The
program’s RDT&E funds support Congressionally directed research in such areas as breast,
prostate, and ovarian cancer and other medical conditions. The Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction Program supports activities to destroy the U.S. inventory of lethal chemical agents
and munitions to avoid future risks and costs associated with storage. Funds for this program are
requested through the Army Procurement appropriation. Typically, Congress has funded both of
these programs in Title VI (Other Department of Defense Programs) of the defense appropriations
bill. More recently, RDT&E funds have also been requested and appropriated as part of DOD’s
separate funding to support the Global War on Terror (GWOT). These appropriations have been
located in Title IX of the defense appropriations bill. The Joint Improvised Explosive Device
Defeat Fund also contains additional RDT&E monies. The Joint Improvised Explosive Device
Defeat Office, which now administers the Fund, tracks, but does not report, the amount of
funding allocated to RDT&E.
For FY2008, the Bush Administration requested $75.1 billion for DOD’s baseline Title IV
RDT&E, roughly $800 million less than the total obligational authority available for Title IV in
FY2007. The FY2008 requests for RDT&E in the Defense Health Program and the Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction program were $134 million and $221 million, respectively.
This year’s request for the Global War on Terror included both a FY2008 Title IX request and a
FY2007 Title IX Supplemental request, with $2.9 billion and $1.4 billion being requested for
RDT&E, respectively.
Since FY2001, funding for RDT&E in Title IV has increased from $42 billion to $76 billion in
FY2007. In constant FY2008 dollars, the increase is roughly 58%. Historically, RDT&E funding
has reached its highest levels in constant dollars, dating back to 1948.9 Congress has appropriated
more for RDT&E than has been requested, every year, since FY1996.
RDT&E funding can be broken out in a couple of ways. Each of the military services request and
receive their own RDT&E funding. So, too, do various DOD agencies (e.g., the Missile Defense
Agency and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), collectively aggregated within the
Defensewide account. RDT&E funding also can be characterized by budget activity (i.e. the type
of RDT&E supported).Those budget activities designated as 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 (basic research,
applied research, and advanced development) constitute what is called DOD’s Science and
Technology Program (S&T) and represents the more research-oriented part of the RDT&E
9
This historical data can be found in DOD’s National Defense Budget Estimates for the FY2008 Budget (also known as
the “Green Book”). Office of the Under Secretary for Defense (Comptroller).March 2007.pp 62-67. See
http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/fy2008_greenbook.pdf. Last viewed May 10, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
program. Budget activities 6.4 and 6.5 focus on the development of specific weapon systems or
components (e.g. the Joint Strike Fighter or missile defense systems), for which an operational
need has been determined and an acquisition program established. Budget activity 6.7 supports
system improvements in existing operational systems. Budget activity 6.6 provides management
support, including support for test and evaluation facilities.
S&T funding is of particular interest to Congress since these funds support the development of
new technologies and the underlying science. Assuring adequate support for S&T activities is
seen by some in the defense community as imperative to maintaining U.S. military superiority.
This was of particular concern at a time when defense budgets and RDT&E funding were falling
at the end of the Cold War. As part of its 2001 Quadrennial Review, DOD established a goal of
stabilizing its base S&T funding (i.e., Title IV) at 3% of DOD’s overall funding. Congress has
embraced this goal. The FY2008 S&T funding request in Title IV is $10.8 billion, about $2.5
billion less than what was available for S&T in Title IV in FY2007 (not counting S&T funding
requested as part of the GWOT request). Furthermore, the S&T request for Title IV is
approximately 2.2% of the overall baseline DOD budget request (not counting funds for the
Global War on Terror), short of the 3% goal. The ability for the Administration to meet its 3%
goal has been strained in recent years as the overall Defense budget continues to rise. In the
FY2007 defense authorization bill (P.L. 109-364, Sec. 217), Congress reiterated its support for the
3% goal, extended it to FY2012, and stipulated that, if the S&T budget request does not meet this
goal, DOD submit a prioritized list of S&T projects that were not funded solely due to insufficient
resources.
Within the S&T program, basic research (6.1) receives special attention, particularly by the
nation’s universities. DOD is not a large supporter of basic research, when compared to the
National Institute of Health or the National Science Foundation. However, over half of DOD’s
basic research budget is spent at universities and represents the major contribution of funds in
some areas of science and technology (such as electrical engineering and material science). The
FY2008 request for basic research ($1.4 billion) is roughly $140 million less than what was
available for Title IV basic research in FY2007.
In Congressional action to date, Congress approved, and the President signed, the U.S. Troop
Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007
(P.L. 110-28). The bill contained emergency supplemental funds, including additional FY2007
RDT&E funds in support of the Global War on Terror. As noted above, the RDT&E-related
FY2007 GWOT supplemental request was $1.4 billion. Congress provided $1.1 billion. In
addition, the act provided supplemental FY2007 RDT&E funds for the Defense Health Program
to support additional trauma-related research. See Table 3 below.
The House passed H.R. 3222, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008, on August 5.
The bill provided $1.1 billion more in Title IV RDT&E funding than requested. The bill provided
$12.2 billion in S&T funding (2.7% of the total funds appropriated for the Department), $1.4
billion more than requested. The House chose not to address the FY2008 GWOT request in this
bill. It is not possible to compare directly the House figures with FY2007 numbers in Table 2,
since the latter include GWOT (Title IX) funds from the FY2007 appropriations bill and the
House figures do not yet include any FY2008 GWOT funds. In addition to the general increases
in the S&T accounts, the House made some notable changes in the President’s systems
development requests, providing less funds for the Army’s Future Combat System ($406 million
less) and providing more funds for the Joint Strike Fighter (a total of $705 million more split
between the Navy and the Air Force). The House provided $319 million more in RDT&E-related
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
funds for the Defense Health Program, including $127 million for breast cancer and $80 million
for prostate cancer research. Also, Section 8105 of the bill includes a provision limiting the use of
appropriations to pay negotiated indirect cost rates on basic research grants, contracts or other
agreements to 20% of the direct costs. This may have an impact on university grants.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of H.R. 3222 (see S.Rept. 110-155) on
September 14, 2007. The net effect of the Committee’s recommendations was to reduce Title IV
RDT&E by approximately $102 million. While increasing Title IV RDT&E by $265 million in
the body of the bill, it reduced Title IV funds by $367 million in the General Provisions part of
the bill, as part of a general reduction to account for revised economic assumptions. Similar to the
House, the Senate Appropriations Committee did not include the FY2008 GWOT request in the
bill. The Committee recommended $11.6 billion for the S&T portion of the program (before
allocating the general reduction). This is roughly 2.6% of the total amount recommended for the
Department (before accounting for the reduction). The Committee recommended roughly $196
million more than requested for the Joint Strike Fighter programs of the Navy and Air Force
(reducing program funds in some areas, but increasing funding for a competitive engine
development by $480 million). The Committee did not recommend cuts to the Army’s Future
Combat System programs. The Committee recommended $477 million for the RDT&E portion of
the Defense Health Program, including $150 million for peer-reviewed breast cancer and $80
million for peer-reviewed prostate cancer research. It also included $50 million for additional
unspecified peer-reviewed medical research. The Committee also increased funding for the
RDT&E portion of the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program.
The conference committee filed its report (H.Rept. 110-434) on November 6, 2007. The conferees
recommended $76.9 billion for Title IV RDT&E (this includes the $367 million general reduction
to Title IV related to improved economic assumptions). The conferees recommended $12.8
billion for S&T (including $1.6 billion for basic research). The S&T appropriation represents
approximately 2.8% of the total amount appropriated for the department (before considering the
general reductions). The conferees approximately split their differences on the Future Combat
System and the Joint Strike Fighter programs. The conferees recommended $536 million for
RDT&E within the Defense Health Program (including peer reviewed research for breast cancer
($138 million), ovarian cancer ($10 million), prostate cancer ($80 million), and other medical
research ($80 million). The conferees recommended $313 million for RDT&E within the
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction program. On the issue of indirect costs on
government contracts, grants and cooperative agreements for basic research, the conferees
accepted the House proposal, but raised the ceiling to 35% and grandfathered those awards
entered into before enactment of this act. The conferees also provided $11.6 billion to help
accelerate the development and deployment of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP)
vehicles, to help protect against the improvised explosive devices being use in Iraq and
Afghanistan. This is in addition to $5.2 billion provided earlier for the same purpose in H.J.Res.
52 (P.L. 110-92), which made continuing appropriations for FY2008. In both cases, Congress
instructed the Secretary of Defense to transfer these funds to appropriate accounts, including the
RDT&E account. Both chambers approved the conference report on November 8, 2007. The
President signed the bill (P.L. 110-116) on November 13, 2007.
To address the FY2008 GWOT funding request, the House passed H.R. 4156 on November 14,
2007. It only considered about $50 million of the total request, those activities considered by the
House to be in most immediate need of additional funds. The bill did not include any of the
funding for RDT&E, although some of those projects could be supported with the MRAP funds
appropriated above. H.R. 4156 also allowed the Secretary to transfer certain funds (e.g. those
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
allocated to the Iraqi Security Forces Fund, and others) to RDT&E accounts, or other accounts, to
accomplish the purposes of those funds. On November 16, a Senate vote to end debate on the
House bill (and on a Senate Republican alternative, S. 2340) failed. (CRS Contact: John
Moteff.)
Table 2. Department of Defense RDT&E
($ in millions )
FY2007
estimated
FY2008
request
FY2008
House
FY2008
Senate
FY2008
enacted
Army
10,963
10,590
11,510
11,355
12,127
Navy
18,880
17,076
17,719
17,472
17,919
Air Force
24,421
26,712
26,163
26,070
26,255
Defense Agencies
21,507
20,560
20,659
20,304
20,791
Dir. Test & Eval
184
180
180
180
180
75,955
75,118
76,231
75,381
77,272
6.1 Basic Research
1,564
1,428
1,555
1,566
1,634
6.2 Applied Research
5,329
4,357
5,074
4,560
5,096
6.3 Advanced Development
6,432
4,987
5,562
5,520
6,039
6.4 Advanced Component
Development and Prototypes
15,789
15,662
15,900
14,994
15,745
6.5 Systems Dev. and Demo
19,258
18,098
18,374
18,128
18,321
6.6 Management Supportb
4,216
4,129
4,204
4,391
4,274
6.7 Op. Systems Devc
23,367
26,455
25,561
26,224
26,163
Total Ob. Auth.a
75,955
75,117
76,230
75,383
77,272
-367i
-367i
Title IV
By Account
Total Ob. Auth.a
By Budget Activity
Title IV Adjustments
Adjusted Total Ob. Auth.
75,955
75,117
76,230
75,016
76,905
408e
3,872g
see noteh
see noteh
see notesh,j
Defense Health Program
348f
134
454
477
536
Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction
231
221
221
312
313
76,942
79,344
76,905
75,805
77,754
Additional Appropriations Global War On Terror (GWOT)
Other Defense Programs
Grand Total
Source: Except as mentioned below, the FY2007 estimate and the FY2008 budget request figures are based on
Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2008 RDT&E Programs (R-1), February 2007. The FY2007 figure for
Defense Health Program is based on P.L. 110-5 (H.J.Res. 20). Figures for Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction Program are based on Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2008, Procurement Programs (P1), February 2007. The budget request figure for the Additional Appropriations for Global War on Terror
(GWOT) is based on President’s Budget, Appendix, Additional 2007 and 2008 Proposals, February 2007. The
House figures are based on H.Rept. 110-279 accompanying H.R. 3222, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill,
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
2008. The Senate figures are based on S.Rept. 110-155, accompanying H.R. 3222. The conference figures are
based on H.Rept. 110-434.
a.
Total Obligational Authority for Account and Budget Activity may not agree due to rounding.
b.
Includes funds for Developmental and Operational Test and Evaluation.
c.
Includes funding for classified programs.
d.
Does not include the FY2007 Supplemental, P.L. 110-28 (H.R. 2206, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care,
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007). See Table 3, below.
e.
This is the enacted (not the estimated) level of funding for RDT&E-related FY2007 GWOT provided in Title
IX of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 109-289).
f.
This is the enacted (not the estimated) level of funding for RDT&E-related Defense Health Program
activities, provided by P.L. 110-5 (H.J.Res. 20).
g.
The original FY2008 GWOT request for RDT&E was $2.89 billion. On July 31, 2007, as part of a budget
amendment adding $5.3 billion to the FY2008 GWOT request for the purpose of accelerating the
development and deployment of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, the Administration
requested an additional $30 million in RDT&E funds. On October 22, 2007 the Administration submitted
another amendment to the FY2008 GWOT request which included another $985 million for FY2008
GWOT-related RDT&E projects (bringing the total FY2008 GWOT RDT&E-related request, including the
July amendment, to $3.9 billion).
h.
The House and Senate chose not to address the FY2008 GWOT request in its FY2008 defense
appropriations bill (H.R. 3222, P.L. 110-116). Both planned to take up that request in a separate bill. The
House passed H.R. 4156 that considered only a portion of the FY2008 GWOT request. The bill focused on
areas in immediate need of additional funds. The bill included no RDT&E funding. The President threatened
to veto the bill and the Senate did not end debate on the bill. Subsequently, as part of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2008 (H.R. 2764, P.L. 110-161), Congress provided $70 billion in emergency FY2008
GWOT funding. No RDT&E funds were specifically included. However, Congress authorized the Secretary
of Defense to transfer funds from the Iraqi Freedom Fund, the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, the Iraq
Security Forces Fund, and the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund to other appropriations,
including RDT&E. Such transfers are not captured here. (Also, see Note j below).
i.
I. Section 8098 of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s reported bill recommended a general reduction
to various Titles based on revised economic assumptions. The reduction for Title IV RDT&E was $367
million, to be distributed proportionately across all program elements, projects, and activities. The
conferees agreed. See Section 8104 of the final bill.
j.
As part of a resolution to make continuing appropriations for FY2008 (H.J.Res. 52, P.L. 110-92), Congress
provided $5.2 billion for MRAP. Also, in the defense appropriations bill (H.R. 3222, Sec. 8121), Congress
provided an additional $11.6 billion for MRAP. In both instances, the Secretary was instructed to transfer
these funds to various accounts, including the RDT&E account. The figures here do not reflect any such
transfers.
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
Table 3. Department of Defense RDT&E, FY2007 Emergency Supplemental
($ in millions )
FY2007
Supplemental
Request
FY2007
Supplemental
House
FY2007
Supplemental
Senate
FY2007
Supplemental
Enacted
Additional Appropriations—Global War On Terror (GWOT)
By Account
Army
116
61
126
100
Navy
460
296
308
299
Air Force
221
133
234
187
Defense Agencies
651
546
523
513
1,448
1,035
1,190
1,098
6.3 Advanced Development
4
0
4
0
6.4 Advanced Component Development
and Prototypes
73
9
42
17
6.5 Systems Dev. and Demo
86
93
98
107
6.6 Management Supportb
16
0
10
2
6.7 Op. Systems Dev
1,269
934
1,037
973
Total Ob. Auth.a
1,448
1,036
1,191
1,099
500
72
332
1,1536
1,263
1,431
Dir. Test & Eval
Total Ob. Auth.a
By Budget Activity
6.1 Basic Research
6.2 Applied Research
Other Defense Programs
Defense Health Program
Grand Total
1,448
Source: Figures for the FY2007 Supplemental Request are based on the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
Fiscal Year 2007 Emergency Supplemental Request, Exhibits for FY2007, pp. 13-14. House, Senate and Enacted
figures are taken from H.Rept. 110-107, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending
September 20, 2007, and Other Purpose, Conference Report, to accompany H.R. 1591. H.R. 1591 was vetoed by
the President. The House failed to overturn the President’s veto. Both houses then passed and the President
signed H.R. 2206 (U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act,
2007 (P.L. 110-28)). There is, as yet, no report accompanying H.R. 2206. However, the figures approved for each
account (i.e. the Services and Defense Agencies) in H.R. 2206 agree with those approved in H.R. 1591. The table
assumes the breakdown of those accounts by budget activity reported in H.Rept. 110-107 are valid for H.R.
2206.
a.
Account vs. Budget Activity Total Obligational Authority numbers may not agree due to rounding.
b.
Includes funds for Developmental and Operational Test and Evaluation.
Congressional Research Service
10
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA)
NASA requested $12.7 billion for R&D in FY2008. (For details, see Table 4.) This request was a
7.3% increase over FY2007, in a total NASA budget that was to increase by 6.4%. The House
provided $13.1 billion (H.R. 3093 and H.Rept. 110-240). The Senate provided $12.9 billion (H.R.
3093 and S.Rept. 110-124 accompanying S. 1745). The final appropriation was $12.8 billion (P.L.
110-161 and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, December 17, 2007).
Table 4. NASA R&D
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2008
request
FY2008
House
FY2008
Senate
FY2008
enacted
5,371
5,516
5,696
5,618
5,547
Astrophysics
1,611
1,566
1631
1,555
1,579
Earth Science
1,409
1,497
1,572
1,624
1,524
Heliophysics
1,012
1,057
1,072
1,082
1,057
Planetary Science
1,340
1,396
1,421
1,357
1,387
Exploration Systems
3,457
3,924
3,924
3,946
3,821
Constellation Systems
2,550
3,068
3,068
3,098
2,991
Advanced Capabilities
907
856
856
849
830
Aeronautics Research
717
554
700
550
622
Cross-Agency Support Programs
540
489
577
518
553
1,773
2,239
2,239
2,239
2,209
Subtotal R&D
11,859
12,722
13,135
12,872
12,752
Space Shuttle
3,977
4,008
3,988
4,008
3,981
Space and Flight Support
396
546
466
546
543
Inspector General
32
35
35
35
33
Return to Flight
—
—
—
1,000
—
Total NASA
16,264
17,309
17,622
18,460
17,309
Science
International Space Station
Source: FY2007 amounts are from NASA briefing charts based on the March 2007 operating plan. FY2008
amounts are from the NASA budget justification (http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/); H.R. 3093 as passed by the
House and H.Rept. 110-240; H.R. 3093 as passed by the Senate and S.Rept. 110-124 (accompanying S. 1745); and
P.L. 110-161 and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H15819-H15825. The
italicized rows are shown in the categories NASA uses for FY2008, which are different from those it used for
FY2007. In those rows, some FY2007 amounts have been calculated by CRS to make them comparable with
FY2008; the FY2007 amounts for Earth Science and Heliophysics are CRS estimates. For comparability, the
House amount for Education is included in Cross-Agency Support Programs, and unallocated general reductions
are applied proportionally to the affected programs. FY2007 amounts are adjusted to reflect “full cost
simplification” accounting changes.
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
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155), the Vision includes returning the space shuttle to
regular flight status following the 2003 Columbia disaster, but then retiring it by 2010;
completing the International 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.” To replace the space shuttle and carry astronauts to the Moon, NASA is developing a
new spacecraft and a new launch vehicle, known as Orion and Ares I. Their first crewed flight is
expected in early 2015.
In general, the FY2008 request included substantial increases for programs related to the Vision
and modest increases or even decreases for other programs. The request for Constellation
Systems, the program responsible for developing Orion and Ares I, was an increase of $518
million or 20.3% relative to FY2007. The request for the International Space Station was an
increase of $466 million or 26.3%. Meanwhile, among programs not focused on space
exploration, the request for Science was an increase of $145 million or 2.7%, and the request for
Aeronautics Research was a decrease of $163 million or 22.7%. In the final appropriation,
Congress provided smaller increases than requested for Constellation Systems and the
International Space Station, a larger increase for Science, and a smaller decrease for Aeronautics
Research.
The effect of the Vision on science funding is of particular congressional interest. For example,
the House report said that the requested budget would “sacrifice future missions of discovery to
pay for present efforts,” while the Senate report expressed concern that NASA science “is being
left behind rather than being nurtured and sustained.” Support for Earth Science has been a
particular concern in both Congress and the scientific community. Although the FY2008 request
included increased funding for Earth Science and projected further increases in FY2009 and
FY2010 relative to previous plans, most of the increases were to cover cost growth and schedule
delays in existing missions. In Astrophysics, the FY2008 request deferred the Space
Interferometer mission (SIM) beyond FY2012. The House provided $180 million more than the
request for Science, including $60 million for new Earth Science missions and a $50 million
increase for SIM. The Senate provided $102 million more than the request for Science, with the
bulk of the increase devoted to Earth Science. The final Science appropriation was an increase of
$31 million, including increases for Earth Science ($27 million) and SIM ($38 million) but
partially offsetting these with reductions in other programs. (CRS Contact: (name redacted).)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
The President requested a budget of $28.558 billion at the program level for NIH for FY2008,
$480 million (1.7%) below the final level of $29.038 billion for FY2007 (see Table 5). The
FY2008 program level amount provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110161, December 26, 2007) was $29.170 billion, an increase of $131 million (0.45%) over the
FY2007 level.
House and Senate actions on the original individual FY2008 appropriations bills had produced
recommendations for increases for NIH above the FY2007 level of $569 million (2.0%) for the
House and $770 million (2.7%) for the Senate, with program levels of $29.607 billion and
$29.837 billion, respectively. Conferees had settled on a higher level of approximately $29.937
billion, but action could not be completed on the legislation. The FY2007 level had been derived
from P.L. 110-5, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution (CR), although actual
FY2007 appropriations levels were not specified by the CR. The precise figures became available
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
as agencies reported their FY2007 operating plans, and the final amount for NIH was also
affected by the FY2007 supplemental appropriations legislation, with a transfer of $99 million
from NIH to the Office of the Secretary of HHS. The FY2007 NIH appropriation was $570
million (2.0%) more than the FY2006 program level of $28.468 billion.
The bulk of NIH’s budget comes through the annual Labor-HHS-Education (Labor/HHS)
appropriations legislation, with an additional small amount of funding, for environmental work
related to Superfund, coming from the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. For the FY2008 Labor/HHS bill, the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees reported H.R. 3043 (H.Rept. 110-231) and S. 1710 (S.Rept. 110-107), respectively.
The eventual conference version of H.R. 3043 (H.Rept. 110-424) was vetoed by the President,
who cited overall funding levels that were higher than he had requested. Lengthy negotiations
between Congress and the Administration culminated in enactment of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764, P.L. 110-161), which provided funding for most
government programs outside the Department of Defense. (For detailed tracking of the
Labor/HHS appropriations bill, see CRS Report RL34076, Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education: FY2008 Appropriations, coordinated by (name redacted), by (name redacted),
(name redacted), and (name redacted).)
Funding from the two regular appropriations bills (Labor/HHS and Interior/ Environment)
constitutes 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). For the past several years, about $100 million of the annual NIH
appropriation has been transferred to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and
Malaria. The FY2008 budget request proposed to increase the amount to $300 million,
representing the entire U.S. contribution to the Global Fund. The House and Senate Labor/HHS
bills agreed with that approach; in P.L. 110-161, the final amount of the transfer from the NIH
appropriation was $295 million. The total of all funding available for NIH activities, taking
account of add-ons and transfers, is called the program level.
FY2003 was the final year of a five-year undertaking by Congress 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. The research advocacy
community had originally urged that the NIH budget grow by about 10% per year in the postdoubling years. For FY2004 and FY2005, however, Congress gave NIH increases of between 2%
and 3%, levels which were below the biomedical inflation index for those two years. The
advocates modified their recommendation to 6% for FY2006 and to 5% for FY2007, maintaining
that such increases would be needed to keep up the momentum of scientific discovery made
possible by the increased resources of the doubling years. Instead, the NIH appropriation for
FY2006 declined 0.3%, marking the first decrease in the agency’s budget since 1970. The
FY2007 final level was a 2.0% increase over FY2006, compared to a projected biomedical
inflation index of 3.7% for the year. For FY2008, the final funding level is 0.45% above FY2007,
whereas the advocacy community had urged a 6.7% increase in the appropriation as a step
towards reversing the decline in NIH’s purchasing power that has occurred since FY2003. The
FY2008 funding represents an estimated 11% decrease from FY2003 in inflation-adjusted terms.
The agency’s organization consists of the Office of the NIH Director and 27 institutes and
centers. The Office of the Director (OD) sets overall policy for NIH and coordinates the programs
and activities of all NIH components, particularly in areas of research that involve multiple
institutes. The individual institutes and centers (ICs), each having a focus on particular diseases,
Congressional Research Service
13
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
areas of human health and development, or aspects of research support, plan and manage their
own research programs in coordination with the Office of the Director. 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.)
The FY2008 President’s request was developed prior to congressional completion of the FY2007
appropriation, and most of the institutes and centers wound up approximately level-funded from
their FY2007 amounts. Several of the ICs that received increases from Congress in the FY2007
CR were dropped back in the FY2008 request to levels closer to their FY2006 funding. For
example, the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) was given $34 million extra in
FY2007 for one-year Shared Instrumentation Grants; the FY2008 request decreased the NCRR
budget by $19 million. The biggest institute, the National Cancer Institute, would have been cut
by over $10 million (0.2%) in the request. The second largest, the National Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), would have been increased by $229 million (5.3%) over
FY2007, but only $28 million of that amount was for NIAID programs. The other $201 million of
the increase was for transfer to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria,
mentioned earlier.
The House and Senate Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bills, in contrast, would have
increased funding for most of the institutes and centers over their FY2007 levels by between
1.4% and 1.7% for the House and between 2.2% and 2.5% for the Senate. Somewhat larger
increases would have gone to several ICs in both bills, including NCRR and NIAID. In the
FY2008 final appropriation, increases for most of the ICs were considerably below 1%, and three
ICs were decreased.
The two biggest changes in the request and in the appropriation were in the Buildings and
Facilities account and in the Office of the Director. Many of the laboratories, animal facilities,
and office buildings on the NIH campus are aging, and are in need of upgrading to stay compliant
with health and safety guidelines and to provide the proper infrastructure for the Intramural
Research program. The budget requested $136 million for Buildings and Facilities (B&F), an
increase of $52 million (63%). The final appropriation included $119 million for B&F, an
increase of $35 million (42%).
For the Office of the Director, the President and Congress handled the funding in two different
ways, with the President requesting a $530 million (51%) drop in the account, and the
appropriation giving a $62 million (5.9%) increase. The difference reflects a change in the way
Congress funds the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research, which is a set of trans-NIH research
activities designed to support high-risk/high-impact research in emerging areas of science or
public health priorities. The initiatives are funded through a Common Fund that until FY2007
was supported partially in the OD appropriation and partially by contributions from each IC at a
fixed percentage. The original FY2007 Roadmap total of $443 million required $332 million
from the institutes and centers (a 1.2% tap on their budgets) and $111 million from the Director’s
Discretionary Fund. The final FY2007 CR, however, appropriated $483 million and placed the
entire sum in OD, boosting that appropriation and allowing the ICs to use all of their funding for
their own programs without the Roadmap tap for trans-NIH research. For FY2008, the request
divided a planned total of $486 million for the Roadmap/Common Fund between the IC budgets
($364 million, a 1.3% tap) and OD ($122 million). The House and Senate bills supported the
Common Fund entirely in OD, with the House bill providing a 2.5% increase to $495 million, and
Congressional Research Service
14
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
the Senate providing a 10% increase to $531 million. The final amount in P.L. 110-161 was $496
million.
Also in the OD account for the first time in FY2007 was $69 million for the National Children’s
Study. This long-term (25+ year) environmental health study was proposed for cancellation in the
FY2007 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. The overall projected cost for the whole study is about $2.7 billion. For
FY2007, both appropriations committees directed NIH to continue with the study, and the CR
provided the $69 million. The FY2008 request again included no funding for the study, but the
final appropriation provided $110.9 million to OD for its continued support.
The NIH’s two major concerns in the face of tight budgets are maintaining support of
investigator-initiated research through research project grants (RPGs), and continuing to nourish
the pipeline of new investigators. The FY2008 request concentrated resources on supporting
research grants, planning to fund 10,188 competing RPGs, one of the highest numbers ever.
However, the expected “success rate” of applications receiving funding would have remained at
about 20%, and scientists with non-competing (continuation) grants would not have received
inflationary increases for their costs. Both committee reports indicated that their funding would
have supported a larger number of grants than the request and would have funded some increases
in the average costs of grants. The explanatory statement for P.L. 100-161 says that it “provides
funding for a low percent increase in the average cost of new as well as non-competing grants.”
Several efforts were focused on supporting new investigators, to encourage young scientists to
undertake careers in research despite the discouraging financial climate, and to help them speed
their transition from training to independent research. The request and the bills included increases
for new types of awards such as the Pathway to Independence, the Directors’ Bridge awards, and
New Innovator awards in the Common Fund. The Director’s Pioneer Awards to encourage high
risk research were also supported, as were clinical research training and the new Clinical and
Translational Science Awards. In the final appropriation, the explanatory statement indicates that
the Pioneer, New Innovator, and Bridge awards were funded at FY2007 levels, and that the
Pathways to Independence program received funding at the level of the President’s request.
The biodefense research portfolio was slated in the request to increase slightly by cycling onetime extramural construction costs into other research areas. The Senate bill as reported included
legislative language on human embryonic stem cell research, expanding access to stem cell lines
and tightening ethical guidelines for their use. To avoid controversy, however, the provisions were
dropped before the bill went to the floor.
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 FY2008 appropriation kept the tap at
2.4%, the same as in FY2007. NIH, with the largest budget among the PHS agencies, becomes
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
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
initiatives. It required detailed tracking and reporting on 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 reda
cted). (CRS Contact: Pamela Smith.)
Table 5. National Institutes of Health
($ in millions)
FY2007
adjusteda
FY2008
request
FY2008
House
FY2008
Senate
FY2008
enacted
Cancer (NCI)
$4,792.6
$4,782.1
4,880.4
4,910.2
4,805.1
Heart/Lung/Blood (NHLBI)
2,922.4
2,925.4
2,965.8
2,992.2
2,922.9
Dental/Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
389.1
389.7
395.8
398.6
389.7
Diabetes/Digestive/Kidney (NIDDK)
1,703.0
1,708.0
1,731.9
1,747.8
1,705.9
Neurological Disorders/Stroke (NINDS)
1,533.0
1,537.0
1,569.1
1,573.3
1,543.9
Allergy/Infectious Diseases (NIAID)b,c
4,363.0
4,592.5
4,631.8
4,668.5
4,560.7
General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
1,932.6
1,941.5
1,966.0
1,978.6
1,935.8
Child Health/Human Devel (NICHD)
1,252.8
1,264.9
1,273.9
1,282.2
1,254.7
Eye (NEI)
666.0
667.8
677.0
682.0
667.1
Environmental Health Sci (NIEHS)
647.2
637.4
652.3
656.2
642.3
1,045.5
1,047.1
1,062.8
1,073.0
1,047.3
Arthritis/Musculoskel/Skin (NIAMS)
507.4
508.1
516.0
519.8
508.6
Deafness/Commun Disorders (NIDCD)
393.0
393.7
400.3
402.7
394.1
Nursing Research (NINR)
137.2
137.8
139.5
140.5
137.5
Alcohol Abuse/Alcoholism (NIAAA)
435.6
436.5
442.9
445.7
436.3
Drug Abuse (NIDA)
1,002.0
1,000.4
1,015.6
1,022.6
1,000.7
Mental Health (NIMH)
1,402.4
1,405.4
1,425.5
1,436.0
1,404.5
Human Genome Research (NHGRI)
508.3
484.4
494.0
497.0
486.8
Biomed Imaging/Bioenginrg (NIBIB)
296.4
300.5
303.3
304.3
298.6
1,131.6
1,112.5
1,171.1
1,178.0
1,149.4
Complementary/Alt Med (NCCAM)
121.4
121.7
123.4
124.2
121.6
Minority Health/ Disparities (NCMHD)
199.1
194.5
202.7
203.9
199.6
Fogarty International Center (FIC)
66.4
66.6
67.6
68.0
66.6
Library of Medicine (NLM)
321.6
312.6
325.5
327.8
321.0
Office of Director (OD)c,d
1,047.0
517.1
1,114.4
1,145.8
1,109.1
Common Fund (non-add)d
(483.0)
(121.5)
(495.2)
(531.3)
(495.6)
Buildings & Facilities (B&F)
83.6
136.0
121.1
121.1
119.0
$28,899.9
$28,621.2
$29,669.7
$29,899.9
$29,228.5
79.1
78.4
79.1
78.4
77.5
Institutes and Centers (ICs)
Aging (NIA)
Research Resources (NCRR)
Subtotal, Labor/HHS Approp
Superfund (Interior approp to NIEHS)e
Congressional Research Service
16
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
Institutes and Centers (ICs)
FY2007
adjusteda
FY2008
request
FY2008
House
FY2008
Senate
FY2008
enacted
Total, NIH discretionary budg auth
$28,979.0
$28,699.7
$29,748.8
$29,978.3
$29,306.1
Pre-appropriated Type 1 diabetes fundsf
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
-99.0
-300.0
-299.8
-300.0
-294.8
$29,038.2
$28,557.9
$29,607.2
$29,836.5
$29,169.5
NLM program evaluationg
Global HIV/AIDS Fund transferb
Total, NIH program level
Source: Tables in the explanatory statement on H.R. 2764, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, in the Dec.
17, 2007 Congressional Record, Book II. For NIH, the Labor/HHS appropriation is in Division G on p. H16348H16349, and the Interior/Environment appropriation is in Division F on p. H16174. H.R. 2764 became P.L. 110161 on Dec. 26, 2007. Totals may not add due to rounding.
a.
FY2007 reflects transfers among NIH ICs made under the Director’s transfer authority. FY2007 also
reflects transfer of $99.0m from NIH to the Office of the Secretary, as mandated by the supplemental
appropriations act, P.L. 110-28 (see note c).
b.
NIAID totals include funds for transfer to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria.
c.
For FY2007, the war/emergency supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 110-28, May 25, 2007) transferred
funding for Advanced Development of Medical Countermeasures to the Public Health and Social Services
Emergency Fund ($49.5m each from NIAID and OD).
d.
OD has Roadmap funds for distribution to ICs. In FY2007 and in the FY2008 bills and final appropriation, all
Roadmap/Common Fund money was in OD; in the FY2008 request, IC budgets included funds that were to
be tapped for Roadmap contributions.
e.
Separate account in the Interior/Environment/Related Agencies appropriation for NIEHS research activities
related to Superfund.
f.
Funds available to NIDDK for diabetes research under PHS Act § 330B (P.L. 106-554 and P.L. 107-360).
g.
Additional funds from program evaluation set-aside (§ 241 of PHS Act).
National Science Foundation (NSF)
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161, H.R. 2764), provides $6.065 billion
for the National Science Foundation (NSF) in FY2008, $147.8 million above the enacted FY2007
level, and $364.0 million below the budget request. The act funds the Research and Related
Activities (R&RA) account at $4.822 billion in FY2008, $53.5 million (1.1%) above the FY2007
level, and $310.2 million below the Administration’s request. Appropriators agreed with the
Administration’s request to transfer the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
(EPSCoR) from the Education and Human Resources Directorate (EHR) to the R&RA. Report
language from conferees directs NSF to review its polices concerning transformative research,
research that is described as “cutting edge” and revolutionary. Several reports have been released
recommending that NSF allocate funds specifically for this type of research. Appropriators have
directed the agency to issue a report suggesting how transformative research can be included in
NSF’s portfolio of research activities. Additional report language in the report directs NSF to
increase its support for physical infrastructure improvements of its academic research fleet and
for aging facilities. P.L. 110-161 funds the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction
(MREFC) at $220.7 million and the Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate at
$725.6 million in FY2008.
Congressional Research Service
17
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
The FY2008 request for the NSF was $6.429 billion, an 8.6% increase ($511.8 million) over the
FY2007 estimate of $5.917 billion. (See Table 6.) President Bush’s ACI has proposed to double
the NSF budget over the next 10 years. The FY2008 request will be another installment toward
that doubling effort. The FY2008 request for NSF was designed to support several interdependent
priority areas: discovery research for innovation, preparing the workforce of the 21st century,
transformational facilities and infrastructure, international polar year leadership, and stewardship.
These particular areas of investments, similar to the goals contained in the President’s proposed
ACI, are designed to promote research that will drive innovation and support the design and
development of world-class facilities, instrumentation, and infrastructure at the frontiers of
discovery. The priorities will support also a portfolio of programs directed at strengthening and
expanding the participation of underrepresented groups and diverse institutions in the scientific
and engineering enterprise.
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 had requested $45.0 million for the Office of
International Science and Engineering. Also, in FY2008, NSF continued in its leadership role in
planning U.S. participation in observance of the International Polar Year, which spans 2007 and
2008. The FY2008 request for addressing the challenges in polar research was $464.9 million. A
major focus of planned polar research would be in climate change and environmental
observations. Other proposed FY2008 highlights included funding for the National
Nanotechnology Initiative ($389.9 million), investments in Climate Change Science Program
($208.3 million), continued support for homeland security ($375.4 million), and funding for
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development ($993.7 million).
Included in the FY2008 request was $5.131 billion for R&RA, a 7.6% increase ($363.0 million)
above the FY2007 estimate of $4.768 billion. R&RA 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 FY2008
request provided increased funding for the physical sciences. Research is multidisciplinary and
transformational in nature, and very often, discoveries in the physical sciences often lead 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 FY2008 request transferred support for EPSCoR from the
EHR to IA. It was determined that placement in IA would allow the research focus and crossdirectorate activities of EPSCoR to be more fully integrated in the agency and give it more
leverage for improving and planning its research agendas. The FY2008 request provided $263
million for IA. Included in that amount was $107 million for EPSCoR. The EPSCoR request
would support a portfolio of four investment strategies. Approximately 62.6% of the funding for
EPSCoR would be for a combination of new and continuing awards.
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. While the NSF does not own the ships, it is responsible for
the operation, maintenance, and staffing of the vessels. The OPP was to be funded at $464.9
million in the FY2008 request. Increases in OPP for FY2008 were directed at research programs
for arctic and antarctic sciences—glacial and sea ice, terrestrial and marine ecosystems, the
ocean, and the atmosphere, and biology of life in the cold and dark. The NSF also serves in a
leadership capacity for several international research partnerships in polar regions.
Congressional Research Service
18
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
The NSF supports a variety of individual centers and center programs. The FY2008 request
provided $66.2 million for Science and Technology Centers, $59.2 million for Materials Research
Science and Engineering Centers, $52.9 million for Engineering Research Centers, $42.4 million
for Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers, $27.0 million for Science of Learning Centers,
and $11.5 million for Centers for Analysis and Synthesis.
Additional priority areas in the FY2008 request included those of strengthening core disciplinary
research, and sustaining organizational excellence in NSF management practices. NSF maintains
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 $200.0 million in cyberinfrastructure would allow for funding of
modeling, simulation, visualization, and data storage and other communications breakthroughs.
NSF anticipated that this level of funding will make 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 grant
applications was 21% in FY2006 and 20% in FY2007. NSF planned to return to the 21% funding
rate in FY2008. In addition, the average duration would be lengthened and the average award size
increased.
The FY2008 request for the EHR Directorate was $750.6 million, $55.9 million (8%) below the
FY2007 estimate. The EHR portfolio is focused on, among other things, increasing the
technological literacy of all citizens, preparing the next generation of science, engineering, and
mathematics professionals, and closing the achievement gap in all scientific fields. Support at the
various educational levels in the FY2008 request was as follows: research on learning in formal
and informal settings (includes precollege), $222.5 million; undergraduate, $210.2 million; and
graduate, $169.5 million. Priorities at the precollege level include research and evaluation on
education in science and engineering ($42.0 million), informal science education ($66.0 million),
and Discovery Research K-12 ($107.0 million). Discovery Research is structured to combine the
strengths of three existing programs and encourage innovative thinking in K-12 science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics education.
Programs at the undergraduate level are designed to “create leverage for institutional change.”
Priorities at the undergraduate level included the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program ($10.0
million), Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement ($37.5 million), STEM Talent
Expansion Program ($29.7 million), Advanced Technological Education ($51.6 million), and
Scholarship for Service ($12.1 million). The Math and Science Partnership Program (MSP), a
crosscutting program, was proposed at $46 million in the FY2008 request. The MSP in NSF
coordinates activities with the Department of Education and its state-funded MSP sites. The MSP
in NSF 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
($25.0 million), Graduate Research Fellowships ($97.5 million), and the Graduate Teaching
Fellows in K-12 Education ($47.0 million). Added support was given to several programs
directed at increasing the number of underrepresented groups in science, mathematics, and
engineering. Among these targeted programs in the FY2008 request were the Historically Black
Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program ($30.0 million), Tribal Colleges and
Universities Program ($12.9 million), Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation ($40.0
million), and Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology ($29.5 million).
The MREFC account was funded at $244.7 million in the FY2008 request, a 28.1% increase
($53.8 million) over the FY2007 estimate. The MREFC supported the acquisition and
Congressional Research Service
19
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
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 was directed to ongoing projects. Second priority was directed at projects that
have been approved by the National Science Board for new starts. NSF required 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 FY2008 request met that qualification. Six ongoing projects and one new start were
proposed for funding in the FY2008 request: Atacama Large Millimeter Array Construction
($102.1 million), Ice Cube Neutrino Observatory ($22.4 million), National Ecological
Observatory Network ($8.0 million), South Pole Station Modernization project ($6.6 million),
Alaskan Region Research Vessel ($42.0 million), Ocean Observatories Initiative ($31.0 million),
and Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory ($32.8 million).
On May 2, 2007, the House Committee on Science and Technology passed H.R. 1867 (H.Rept.
110-114), the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. The bill authorizes a total
of $21.0 billion for the NSF for FY2008, FY2009, and FY2010, including $16.4 billion for
R&RA, $2.8 billion for EHR, and $787.0 million for MREFC. Priorities to be addressed in the
three-year authorization bill include those of supporting successful K-12 science, mathematics,
and engineering education programs, promoting university-industry partnerships, balancing
funding between interdisciplinary and disciplinary research, and improving funding rates for new
investigators. (CRS Contact: (name redacted).)
Table 6. National Science Foundation
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2008
request
House
FY2008
Senate
FY2008
FY2008
enacted
Research & Related Activities
Biological Sciences
633.0
Computer & Inform. Sci. & Eng.
574.0
Engineering
683.3
Geosciences
792.0
Math and Physical Sciences
1,253.0
Social, Behav., & Econ. Sciences
222.0
Office of Cyberinfrastructure
200.0
Office of International Sci. & Eng.
45.0
U.S. Polar Programs
464.9
Integrative Activitiesa
263.0
U.S. Arctic Research Commission
1.5
4,768.0c
5,131.7
5,139.7
5,156.1
4,821.5c
Ed. & Hum. Resr.
694.7
750.6
822.6
850.6
725.6
Major Res. Equip. & Facil. Constr.
190.9
244.7
244.7
244.7
220.7
Subtotal Res. & Rel. Act
Congressional Research Service
20
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
request
House
FY2008
Senate
FY2008
FY2008
enacted
248.3
285.6
285.6
285.6
281.8
National Science Board
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Office of Inspector General
11.4
12.4
12.4
12.4
11.4
5,917.2
6,429.0
6,509.0
6,553.4
6,065.0
Agency Operations & Award Management.
Total NSFb
a.
Beginning in the FY2008 request, EPSCoR was transferred from the EHR Directorate to Integrative
Activities.
b.
The totals do not include carry overs or retirement accruals. Totals may not add due to rounding.
c.
Specific funding allocations for each directorate or for individual programs and activities are not yet
available.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
On December 26, 2007, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
(P.L. 110-161, H.R. 2764). This act includes appropriations for agencies covered under the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2008, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). P.L. 110-161
provides a total of $2.603 billion for research and education for USDA in FY2008, $301.6 million
above the budget request and $74.7 million above the FY2007 enacted level.10 (See Table 7.) The
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is USDA’s in-house basic and applied research agency, and
operates approximately 100 laboratories nationwide, including the world’s largest
multidisciplinary agricultural research center, located in Beltsville, Maryland. The ARS
laboratories focus on efficient food and fiber production, development of new products and uses
for agricultural commodities, development of effective biocontrols for pest management, and
support of USDA regulatory and technical assistance programs. Included in the total support for
USDA in FY2008 is $1.176 billion for ARS, $138.5 million above the request and $47.1 million
above the FY2007 enacted level. The Administration had proposed reductions of $141.0 million
in funding add-ons designated by Congress for research at specific locations. The amounts were
to be redirected to high-priority Administration initiatives that included livestock production, food
safety, crop protection, and human nutrition. Included in the FY2008 appropriation for ARS is
$47.1 million for buildings and facilities. The Administration had requested funding for the
planning and design of the Biocontainment Laboratory and Consolidated Poultry Research
Facility in Athens, Georgia.
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, education,
and outreach. 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. P.L. 110-161 provides $1.130 billion for CSREES in FY2008, an increase of $135.9
million over the budget request and $7.8 million above the FY2007 enacted level. Funding for
10
The funding estimates presented for FY2007 are based on the estimated full year amounts available under the
Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (P.L. 110-5, as amended).
Congressional Research Service
21
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
formula distribution in FY2008 to the state Agricultural Experiment Stations is $279.9 million,
$5.7 million below the FY2007 level. Support for the 1890 formula programs is $41.3 million,
almost level with FY2007. The FY2008 budget request proposed, as in previous years, to modify
the Hatch formula program. It would expand the multistate research programs from 25% to
approximately 60% and distribute a portion of the funds through competitively awarded grants. In
previous years, Congress did not accept the Administration’s proposed changes to the Hatch
formula.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act funds the National Research Initiative (NRI) Competitive
Grants Program at $192.2 million, a slight increase over the FY2007 enacted level of $190.2
million. In addition to supporting fundamental and applied science in agriculture, USDA
maintains that the NRI makes a significant contribution to developing the next generation of
agricultural scientists. The FY2008 appropriation includes funding 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 underrepresented groups in the USDA portfolio of commodity,
loan, education, and grant offerings. In addition, NRI funding will support projects directed at
developing alternate methods of biological and chemical conversion of biomass, and research
determining the impact of a renewable fuels industry on the economic and social dynamics of
rural communities. The Administration had proposed support for initiatives in agricultural
genomics, emerging issues in food and agricultural security, the ecology and economics of
biological invasions, plant biotechnology, and water security.
The FY2008 appropriation for USDA provides $77.9 million for the Economic Research Service
(ERS), $2.7 million above the FY2007 enacted level; and $163.4 million for the National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), approximately $16.1 million above the FY2007 level. It is
anticipated that the increase for ERS will expand the market analysis and outlook program and
strengthen the coverage of increasingly complex global markets for various agricultural products.
The increase for NASS will be in support of the 2007 Census of Agriculture. Funding will be
available also to obtain contract services for extensive data collection and processing activities
scheduled to occur in 2008. (CRS Contact: (name redacted).)
Table 7. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D
($ in millions)
FY2007a
FY2008
requestb
House
FY2008
Senate
FY2008
FY2008
enacted
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
Product Quality/Value Added
104.6
Livestock Production
70.7
Crop Production
168.9
Food Safety
103.2
Livestock Protection
108.3
Crop Protection
173.7
Human Nutrition
84.1
Environmental Stewardship
171.0
National Agricultural Library
20.4
Congressional Research Service
22
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
FY2007a
FY2008
requestb
Repair and Maintenance
Subtotal
Buildings and Facilities
Total, ARS
House
FY2008
Senate
FY2008
FY2008
enacted
16.6
1,128.9
1,021.5
1,076.3
1,154.2
1,128.9
0.0
16.0
64.0
40.1
47.1
1,128.9
1,037.5
1,140.3
1,194.3
1,176.0
Cooperative State Research, Education, & Extension (CSREES) Research and Education
Hatch Act Formula
322.6
164.4
195.8
214.9
197.2
Cooperative Forestry Research
30.0
20.5
23.3
30.0
25.0
Evans-Allen Formula (Payments to 1890
Institutions)
40.7
38.3
42.0
40.7
41.3
Special Research Grants
14.7
18.1
110.2
67.7
92.4
NRI Competitive Grants
190.2
256.5
190.2
244.0
192.2
Animal Health and Disease Res.
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Federal Administration
10.3
10.0
44.4
20.8
42.5
Higher Educationd
37.6
40.5
36.5
38.4
48.9
Other Programs
50.7
44.3
24.0
39.3
28.5
671.4
562.5
671.4
700.8
673.0
Smith-Lever Sections 3b&c
285.6
273.2
281.4
285.8
279.9
Smith-Lever Sections 3d
94.5
91.5
100.9
95.5
98.2
Renewable Resources Extension
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
1890 Colleges, Tuskegee, & West Virginia
State University Colleges
35.2
34.1
37.0
35.2
36.1
Other Extension Prog. & Admin.
30.9
28.3
40.5
37.8
38.3
Total, Extension Activitiese
450.3
431.1
463.9
458.3
456.5
1,121.7
993.6
1,135.3
1,159.1
1,129.5
Economic Research Service
75.2
82.5
79.3
76.5
77.9
National Agricultural Statistics Service
147.3
167.7
166.1
167.7
163.4
Integrated Activities
55.2
20.1
57.2
12.9
56.2
2,528.3
2,301.4
2,578.2
2,610.5
2,603.0
Total, Cooperative Research. &
Educatione
Extension Activities
Total, CSREESe
Total, Research, Education, and
Economics
a.
Funding levels for specific programs are not yet available.
b.
Funding levels are contained in U.S. Department of Agriculture FY2008 Budget Summary and other
documents internal to the agency.
c.
Includes Hurricane Katrina Emergency Appropriations of $29.2 million.
d.
Higher education includes payments to 1994 institutions and 1890 Capacity Building Grants program, the
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions
Education Grants, and others.
Congressional Research Service
23
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
e.
Program totals may or may not include 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 Homeland Security (DHS)
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested $1.379 billion for R&D in FY2008, a
decrease of 6.3% from FY2007.11 This total included $799 million for the Directorate of Science
and Technology (S&T), $562 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), and
$18 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) in the U.S. Coast Guard.
(For details, see Table 8.) The request for DNDO was a 17% increase. The request for the S&T
Directorate was an 18% decrease, about half of which resulted from the transfer of some
operational programs out of S&T into other DHS organizations.12 The House provided a total of
$1.351 billion: $777 million for S&T, $556 million for DNDO, and $18 million for Coast Guard
RDT&E (H.R. 2638, H.Rept. 110-181). The Senate provided a total of $1.414 billion: $838
million for S&T, $550 million for DNDO, and $26 million for Coast Guard RDT&E (S. 1644,
S.Rept. 110-84). The final appropriation was a total of $1.328 billion: $830 million for S&T, $473
million for DNDO, and $25 million for Coast Guard RDT&E (P.L. 110-161, explanatory
statement in Congressional Record, December 17, 2007).
Starting in late 2006, the S&T Directorate realigned its programs and reorganized its management
structure. The directorate’s program structure is now as shown in Table 8. The directorate’s
university centers of excellence are expected to be aligned to match the new organization, with
new centers being established for some topics. The requested reduction of $41 million in the
Explosives program was due to the completion of efforts (known as Counter-MANPADS) to
develop a prototype system for protecting commercial aircraft against ground-to-air missiles. The
requested $51 million reduction in the Infrastructure and Geophysical program largely reflected
the elimination of funding for community and regional initiatives previously established or
funded at congressional direction. The operational programs transferred out of S&T are the
BioWatch monitoring system, the Biological Warning and Incident Characterization (BWIC)
system, and the Rapidly Deployable Chemical Detection System (RDCDS) from the Chemical
and Biological program and SAFECOM from the Command, Control, and Interoperability
program.
The House, citing unfilled staff positions in the S&T Directorate, provided $12 million less than
the request for Management and Administration. It rejected the $14 million request for
procurement of third-generation BioWatch units in the Chemical and Biological program. It
provided $10 million more than the request for University Programs and instructed the S&T
Directorate to report on how it selects university centers of excellence, determines the research
topics for centers, and evaluates the quality of their work. The House provided no funding for the
Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement (ADVISE) program,
a data-mining tool, and prohibited obligation of funds for ADVISE until DHS completed a
11
The FY2007 appropriations bill rescinded $125 million in prior-year funds from the S&T Directorate. If the FY2007
enacted total for DHS R&D is reduced by the amount of this prior-year rescission, the FY2008 request was a 2.4%
increase.
12
If the FY2007 enacted funding for S&T is reduced by the amount of the prior-year rescission, the FY2008 request for
S&T is only a 5.8% decrease. See previous footnote. If the FY2007 enacted amount is adjusted for both the rescission
and the transfer of programs out of the S&T Directorate, the FY2008 request for S&T is a 5.4% increase.
Congressional Research Service
24
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
privacy impact assessment.13 Several other smaller changes added up to a net decrease of $10
million for Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations (RDA&O).
The Senate provided an increase of $41 million for RDA&O. Within this total, reductions relative
to the request included $13 million from the Chemical and Biological program, $14 million from
the Innovation program, and zero funding for ADVISE. Increases included $18 million for the
Explosives program to counter car bombs and other improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and $55
million for earmarks in the Infrastructure and Geophysical and Laboratory Facilities programs.
The Senate provided a reduction of $2 million in Management and Administration.
The final appropriation included an increase of $35 million in RDA&O and a reduction of $4
million in Management and Administration. The Chemical and Biological program received $21
million less than requested, including $8 million less for third-generation BioWatch procurement.
Innovation received $27 million less, and the explanatory statement directed S&T to provide a
plan for how the program’s funds will be allocated. University Programs received $11 million
more than the request, and the explanatory statement called for a briefing similar to the report
called for by the House. Explosives received $14 million more, including $15 million to counter
car bombs and IEDs. The final appropriation included the Senate earmarks for $55 million. It
provided no funding for ADVISE or its follow-ons or successors.
In DNDO, the proposed $47 million increase in Research, Development, and Operations focused
primarily on the Transformational R&D program, whose goal is to identify, develop, and
demonstrate technologies that fill major gaps in the nuclear detection architecture. The proposed
$30 million increase in Systems Acquisition was to begin implementation of the Securing the
Cities initiative in the New York City area. Congressional attention has focused recently on
criticism of a cost-benefit analysis that DNDO conducted to support its assessment of nextgeneration Advanced Spectroscopic Portal (ASP) technology for radiation portal monitors.14
The House provided the requested amount for Systems Acquisition. The House committee
recommended a $40 million reduction, including a $20 million reduction in the Securing the
Cities initiative, but this was reversed by a floor amendment. As in past years, the House report
directed DNDO not to procure ASP systems until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies
they are more effective than traditional radiation portal monitors.
In the Senate, the largest change relative to the request was a shift of $29 million from Systems
Acquisition to Research, Development, and Operations. Of this amount, $20 million was to be
spent on screening general aviation aircraft for illicit nuclear materials. The Senate committee
recommended a $10 million reduction in the Securing the Cities initiative, half from Systems
Acquisition and half from Research, Development, and Operations, but a floor amendment
reserved the requested amounts for this initiative. The Senate provided no funding for full-scale
procurement of ASP monitors until DHS provides the report and certification called for in the
FY2007 appropriations conference report (H.Rept. 109-699).
13
The assessment was published after passage of the House bill but before passage of the Senate bill. DHS Privacy
Office, Review of the Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight and Semantic Enhancement (ADVISE) Program,
July 11, 2007.
14
See, for example, Government Accountability Office, Combating Nuclear Smuggling: DHS’s Decision to Procure
and Deploy the Next Generation of Radiation Detection Equipment Is Not Supported by Its Cost-Benefit Analysis,
GAO-07-581T, testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security, March 14, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
25
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
The final appropriation provided $90 million less than the request for Systems Acquisition. As in
previous years, it prohibited full-scale procurement of ASP monitors until their performance has
been certified by the Secretary, and recognizing “the difficulty the Secretary faces” in making this
certification, it provided funds for the National Academy of Sciences “to assist the Secretary in
his certification decisions.” It required the certification to be made separately for primary and
secondary deployments. The final appropriation included the requested amount for Securing the
Cities and $13 million related to screening of general aviation aircraft. (CRS Contact: (name r
edacted).)
Table 8. Department of Homeland Security R&D
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2008
request
FY2008
House
FY2008
Senate
FY2008
enacted
Science and Technology Directorate
848
799
777
838
830
Management and Administrationa
135
143
131
141
139
Research, Development, Acquisition, & Ops.
713
656
646
697
692
Borders and Maritime Security
33
26
26
26
25
Chemical and Biologicala
314
229
215
216
208
Command, Control, and Interoperabilityb
63
64
61
62
57
Explosives
105
64
64
82
78
Human Factors
7
13
13
7
14
Infrastructure and Geophysical
75
24
24
64
64
Innovation
38
60
52
46
33
Laboratory Facilities
106
89
89
104
104
Test and Evaluation, Standards
25
26
28
24
29
Transition
24
25
26
24
25
University Programs
49
39
49
39
49
Homeland Security Institutec
—
—
—
5
5
-125
—
—
—
—
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
481
562
556
550
485
Management and Administration
30
34
31
32
32
Research, Development, and Operations
272
320
317
336
324
Systems Acquisition
178
208
208
182
130
U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E
17
18
18
26
25
Total DHS R&D
1,346
1,379
1,351
1,414
1,340
Total Excluding Prior-Year Rescission
1,471
1,379
1,351
1,414
1,340
Rescission of Unobl’d Prior-Year Funds
Notes: Programs in the S&T Directorate have been realigned since the enactment of the FY2007 appropriation.
For comparability, the FY2007 column is shown here in the new structure. (Enacted amounts for FY2007 are
presented both ways, with a crosswalk between the two, in the FY2008 congressional budget justification.)
a.
BioWatch and related programs are transferred from the S&T Directorate to the Office of Health Affairs in
FY2008. The enacted FY2007 funding for these programs in S&T consisted of $1 million in the Management
and Administration account plus $84 million in the Chemical and Biological program.
Congressional Research Service
26
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
b.
SAFECOM is transferred from the S&T Directorate to the National Protection and Programs Directorate
in FY2008. Its enacted FY2007 funding in S&T was $5 million in the Command, Control, and Interoperability
program.
c.
In FY2007, the Homeland Security Institute (HSI) received funding from each of the S&T Directorate
divisions. For FY2008, the Senate bill and the final appropriation broke out HSI funding as a separate item.
The Senate committee report stated that HSI’s total funding was $10 million in FY2007 and the same in the
FY2008 request.
Department of Commerce (DOC)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
For FY2008, the Bush Administration requested essentially flat funding for NOAA’s R&D
programs. The Administration proposed cuts for some other NOAA research activities, including
a 46% cut for the National Ocean Service R&D budget. However, it did propose an increase of
the $19 million for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), about 6.7% more
than the FY2007 AAAS-estimated funding level.
The Department of Commerce, NOAA FY2008 Budget Summary, released February 8, 2007,
indicated that NOAA R&D funding would be 16% of the agency’s total budget request of $3.82
billion. The request was comprised of 86% research and 14% development funding. Seventy
percent of NOAA R&D would be intramural, while 30% of applied research would be
extramural. OAR accounts for 60% of all NOAA R&D in the President’s FY2008 request.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) estimates that the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 provides a total of $573 million for NOAA R&D (Table
9). This resulted in an overall increase of $41 million, or 7.6%, for the agency from FY2007
appropriation levels and would “result in a turnaround from the steady fall in Commerce R&D for
most of the decade.”15 The largest decrease, compared with the FY2007 request, was a cut of $23
million for the National Ocean Service. However, Congress provided $6 million more than the
FY2008 request for certain coastal science and ocean observation and assessment R&D activities.
There was a combined increase of $53 million for OAR from FY2007 levels which is primarily
targeted for climate change R&D, ocean exploration, and the National Sea Grant College
Program. An increase of $3 million from FY2007 was proposed for NOAA satellite programs
(NESDIS) National Polar Environmental Orbiting Satellite System (NPOESS) preparatory data
project. Funding for NOAA Fisheries and the National Weather Service R&D was requested and
appropriated for approximately at FY2007 levels. The explanatory statement for H.R. 2764
directs $6 million of the FY2008 NOAA budget be set aside for the National Academy of
Sciences to consider establishment of a congressional Climate Change Study Committee, as was
originally proposed by the House, for advising Congress about the scientific underpinning for
national policy responses to climate change.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations had reported S. 1745 (S.Rept. 110-124) that would
have provided $628 million for NOAA R&D, or an 18% increase from the AAAS FY2007
estimated funding level. The Senate report criticized NOAA for requesting steep cuts in key
ocean programs in the past and for requesting only modest increases in ocean programs for
15
American Association for the Advancement of Science, http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/doc08f.htm.
Congressional Research Service
27
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
FY2008 at the expense of steep cuts in other research program areas. The Senate report cited the
Joint Ocean Commission (JOCI)s’ January 2007 findings about the Administration’s progress in
developing a U.S. ocean policy which, they indicated may have influenced the Administration to
request modest increases for some ocean research and ocean-related NOAA R&D programs. The
Senate committee introduced $32 million for competitively-awarded research grants programs in
OAR. Overall, the recommendation for OAR R&D was almost 32% percent more than the
estimated FY2007 level and would have increased the OAR total to $371 million. For climate
change R&D, the Senate recommended $217 million, or $24 million more than the request,
including $140 million for competitive climate change research grants that had been funded at
$126 million in FY2007.
For FY2008, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $585 million for NOAA R&D
in H.R. 3093 (H.Rept. 110-240). This is $43 million, or 7.4%, less than recommended in S. 1745;
$57 million, or 10.8%, more than the request; and $5 million, or 9.9%, more than the FY2007
estimated appropriation. The House would have provided $280 million for OAR climate change
research, or $44 million more than the request. House-recommended competitive grants package
for climate change research totaled $172 million, or $126 million more than the FY2007
appropriation. The House bill would have provided $346 million for OAR overall, 23% more
than the request. The House report did not address funding JOCI policy/research
recommendations. (CRS Contact: Wayne Morrissey.)
Table 9. NOAA R&D
($ in millions)
Type of R&D
FY2007
estimatea
FY2008
request
FY2008
Senate
FY2008
House
FY2008b
enacted
National Ocean Service
65
36
51
37
42
National Marine Fisheries
42
42
45
41
42
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research
281
300
371
346
334
National Weather Service
24
23
23
23
23
National Env. Satellite and
Data Information
24
27
27
27
27
All other NOAA R&Dc
95
100
111
110
104
Total Conduct of R&Dd
532
528
628
585
573
Source: Office of Management and Budget, R&D Bureau Report, February 1, 2007.
a.
P.L. 110-5 (Reported as H.J.Res. 20)
b.
P.L. 110-161 (Reported as Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2764, Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2006, Div. B, Title I, Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
c.
Includes marine research data acquisition services.
d.
Funding data from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a laboratory of the Department of
Commerce with a mandate to increase the competitiveness of U.S. companies through appropriate
Congressional Research Service
28
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
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 President’s FY2008 budget requested $640.7 million for NIST, 5.3% below the FY2007
appropriation. Internal research and development under the Scientific and Technology Research
and Services (STRS) account would have increased 15.2% to $500.5 million (including the
Baldrige National Quality Program). There would be no funding for the Advanced Technology
Program (ATP) and support for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) would have been
reduced 55.8% to $46.3 million. Construction expenses were to increase 60% to $93.9 million.
(See Table 10.)
The initial FY2008 appropriations bill passed by the House, H.R. 3093, provided $831.2 million
for NIST, 22.8% above FY2007. Included in this total was $500.5 million for the STRS account
(with the Baldrige National Quality Program), an increase of 15.2% over the FY2007 figure.
Support for ATP would have increased 17.7% to $93.1 million, while funding for MEP was to
increase 3.9% to $108.8 million. The Committee Report to accompany the bill noted support for
legislation (P.L. 110-69) that reestablishes ATP as the Technology Innovation Program while
making some changes to the activity. The construction budget would more than double to $128.9
million. 16
The version of H.R. 3093 passed by the Senate would have appropriated $863.0 million for NIST,
$30.8 million of which was to be directed to other non-NIST programs, for a total appropriation
of $832.2 million. The STRS account would have been funded at $502.1 million (including the
Baldrige National Quality Program), 15.6% above FY2007. The Advanced Technology Program
was to be financed at $100.0 million, with $30.8 million of this amount utilized for other
activities in the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Marshals Service. There was a
stipulation in the bill that no single ATP award was to be made to companies with revenues
greater than $1 billion. Support for the Manufacturing Extension Program would have increased
5.1% to $110.0 million. The construction budget would total $150.0 million, over two and onehalf times FY2007 funding.
P.L. 110-161, the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, as passed by Congress, provides
NIST with $755.8 million, an increase of 11.7% over FY2007 and almost 18.0% over the
Administration’s request. Support for the STRS account increases 1.4% to $440.5 million
(including $7.9 million for the Baldrige National Quality Program). However, this amount is
almost 12.0% below the President’s budget proposal. The Technology Innovation Program
(formerly the Advanced Technology Program) is appropriated $65.2 million (with an additional
$5 million from FY2007 unobligated balances under ATP), 17.6% below the previous fiscal year.
Funding for MEP totals $89.6 million, 14.4% less than FY2007, but 93.5% above the budget
request. Support for construction almost triples to $160.5 million, an amount over one and onehalf times that contained in the original budget proposal.
No final FY2007 appropriations legislation for NIST was enacted during the 109th Congress. A
series of continuing resolutions funded the program at FY2006 levels through February 15, 2007.
16
The sum of these figures may not total $831.2 million because of rounding.
Congressional Research Service
29
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
However, P.L. 110-5, passed in the 110th Congress, provided $676.9 million in FY2007 support
for NIST. Funding for the STRS account increased 10% over the previous fiscal year to $434.4
million while the construction budget decreased 66% to $58.7 million. Financing for ATP at $79.1
million and support for MEP at $104.7 million reflected similar funding in FY2006.
As part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, the Administration stated its intention to
double over 10 years funding for “innovation-enabling research” performed at NIST through its
“core” programs (defined as internal research in the STRS account and the construction budget).
To this end, the President’s FY2007 budget requested an increase of 18.3% for intramural R&D at
NIST; FY2007 appropriations for these programs increased 9.6%. For FY2008, the omnibus
appropriations legislation provided for a small increase in the STRS account. This is in contrast to
the Administration’s FY2008 budget which included a 15.2% increase in funding, as did the
original appropriations bill, H.R. 3093, as passed by the House, while the Senate-passed version
contained a 15.6% increase.
Continued support for the Advanced Technology Program was a major funding issue. The ATP
provided “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 cited it as a prime example
of “corporate welfare,” whereby the federal government invests in applied research activities that,
they emphasize, should be conducted by the private sector. Others defended ATP, arguing that it
assists businesses (and small manufacturers) in developing technologies that, while crucial to
industrial competitiveness, would not or could not be developed by the private sector alone.
Although Congress maintained (often decreasing) funding for the Advanced Technology
Program, the initial appropriation bills passed by the House since FY2002 failed to include
financing for ATP. During the 109th Congress, the version of the measure reported from the
Senate Committee on Appropriations also did not fund ATP. For FY2006, support again was
provided for the program, but the amount was 41% below that included in the FY2005
appropriations; FY2007 funding remained the same as the previous fiscal year. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 provides support, however reduced, for a new effort, the Technology
Innovation Program, which replaces ATP and is focused on small and medium sized firms.
The budget for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, another extramural program
administered by NIST, was an issue during the FY2004 appropriations deliberations. Although in
the recent past congressional support for MEP remained constant, the Administration’s FY2004
budget request, the initial House-passed bill, and the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act
substantially decreased federal funding for this initiative, reflecting the President’s
recommendation that manufacturing extension centers “...with more than six years experience
operate without federal contribution.” However, P.L. 108-447 restored financing for MEP in
FY2005 to the level that existed prior to the 63% reduction taken in FY2004. While the level of
support decreased in FY2006, it remained significantly above the FY2004 figure; FY2007
funding remained at a similar level. For FY2008, support for this program has been reduced.
For additional information, see CRS Report 95-30, The National Institute of Standards and
Technology: An Appropriations Overview; CRS Report 95-36, The Advanced Technology
Program; and CRS Report 97-104, Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program: An
Overview, all by (name redacted). (CRS Contact: (name redacted).)
Congressional Research Service
30
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
Table 10. NIST
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2008
Request
H.R. 3093
(passed
House)
H.R. 3093
(passed
Senate)
FY2008
STRSa
$434.4
$500.5
500.5
502.1
440.5
ATP
79.1
0
93.1
100b
65.2c
MEP
104.7
46.3
108.8
110
89.6
Construction
58.7
93.9
128.9
150.9
160.5
831.2
863c
755.8
NIST Program
NIST Total
676.9
640.7
Note: Figures may not add up because of rounding.
a.
Includes funding for the Baldrige National Quality Program
b.
Does not include the $30.8 million directed away from the ATP appropriation for use by other non-NIST
programs
c.
Funding is for the new Technology Innovation Program (TIP) the replaces ATP
Department of Transportation (DOT)
The Bush Administration requested $813 million for the Department of Transportation’s (DOT)
R&D budget in FY2008, an increase of approximately $19 million (2.4%) from FY2007 funding
of $794 million. The House (H.R. 3074, H.Rept. 110-238, H.Rept. 110-446) provided a total of
$836 million. The Senate (S. 1789, S.Rept. 110-131) provided a total of $847 million. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act of FY2008 provides a total of $852 million, an increase of $58
million (7.3%) over the FY2007 funding level. (See Table 11.)
The President requested $410 million in FY2008 for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
R&D, an increase of $49 million (13.6%) above the FY2007 funding level. The House and Senate
each provided $410 million. The final appropriation for FHWA R&D in FY2008 is $410 million.
Highway research includes the Federal Highway Administration’s transportation research and
technology contract programs. These research programs include the investigation of ways to
improve safety, reduce congestion, improve mobility, reduce lifecycle construction and
maintenance costs, improve the durability and longevity of highway pavements and structures,
enhance the cost-effectiveness of highway infrastructure investments and minimize negative
impacts on the natural and human environment.
As requested in the President’s budget, the final appropriation for FHWA Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) R&D is $84 million, an increase of $20 million (30.3%) over
FY2007. The FHWA budget also includes state highway R&D distributed to states and local
governments to support their local R&D efforts. The President’s budget included $172 million for
this activity in FY2008, an increase of $9 million (6%) over FY2007. Both the House and Senate
acts provided this amount, and the Consolidated Budget Act included $172 million.
The President’s R&D request for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for FY2008 was
$258 million, down $45 million (14.9%) from FY2007. The request included $140 million in
Research, Engineering and Development, $90.4 million in Air Traffic Organization Capital,$28.7
Congressional Research Service
31
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
million in the Airport Improvement Program, and $0.1 million in Safety and Operations. The final
appropriation for FAA R&D in FY2008 is $274 million, down $30 million (9.6%) from FY2007.
The President proposed $8 million for the Research and Innovative Technology Administration
(RITA) to coordinate and advance the pursuit of transportation research that cuts across all modes
of transportation, such as hydrogen fuels, global positioning, and remote sensing. The final
appropriation for RITA R&D in FY2008 is $8 million, up $6 million (253%) from FY2007. (CRS
Contact: John Sargent.)
Table 11. Department of Transportation R&D
($ in millions)
FY2007
estimate
FY2008
request
FY2008
House
FY2008
Senate
FY2008
enacted
Federal Highway Administration
361
410
410
410
410
Federal Aviation Administration
303
258
265
272
274
Other agenciesa
130
146
160
165
167
Total
794
813
836
847
852
Department of Transportation
Note: R&D estimates are from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, http://www.aaas.org/
spp/rd/dot08f.htm.
a.
“Other agencies” includes National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Railroad Administration,
Federal Transit Administration, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and the Office of the
Secretary.
Department of the Interior (DOI)
The Administration requested $621 million for R&D in the Department of the Interior (DOI) in
FY2008, an estimated decline of 2.1% from FY2007 funding of $634 million. The House (H.R.
2643, H.Rept. 110-187) provided a total of $678 million. The Senate (S. 1696, S.Rept. 110-91)
provided a total of $657 million. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of FY2008 provides a total
of $661 million, an increase of $27 million (4.2%) over the FY2007 funding level. (See Table
12.)
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the primary supporter of R&D within DOI, accounting for
nearly 90% of the department’s total R&D appropriations. The four USGS research divisions are
Geographic Research, Geological Resources, Water Resources and Quality, and Biological
Research. Total funding for USGS in FY2007 was $564 million. The President’s budget proposed
a decrease in USGS R&D funding of 3.0% to $547 million. The House provided $602 million (an
increase of 6.6%) for USGS, and the Senate provided $581 million (an increase of 3.0%). The
Senate bill contained smaller increases for Geological Resources and Biological Research, and
did not include funding for the House initiative related to various aspects of global climate
change. The final appropriation for USGS in FY2008 is $583 million, an increase of $37 million
(3.4%) over the FY2007 budget. Funding is increased in three of the four research areas, and an
additional $7 million is provided for climate change research.
Funding for Geological Resources R&D in FY2008 increases by 2.5% to $219 million. The
Geological Resources Program assesses the availability and quality of the nation’s energy and
Congressional Research Service
32
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
mineral resources. The Geological Resources Program researches, monitors, and assesses the
landscape to understand geological processes to help distinguish natural change from those
resulting from human activity. 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. Geographic Research R&D rises 3.3% to $46 million in
FY2007.
Funding for Water Resources R&D, which focuses on activities aimed at improving the quality of
U.S. groundwater, remains constant in FY2008 at $126 million. The Cooperative Water Program,
which supports the collection of basic hydrologic data, studies of specific water-resources
problems, and hydrologic research through USGS partnerships with state governments and other
entities, is funded at $63 million in FY2008.
Funding for USGS Biological Research in FY2008 increases by 2.2% to $180 million. This
research program develops and distributes information needed in the conservation and
management of the nation’s biological resources. The program serves as DOI’s research arm,
using the capabilities of 17 research centers and 40 Cooperative Research Units that support
research on fish, wildlife, and natural habitats. Major research initiatives are carried out by USGS
scientists who collect scientific information through research, inventory, and monitoring
investigations. These activities develop new methods and techniques to identify, observe, and
manage fish and wildlife, including invasive species and their habitats. Nearly 90% of USGS
research is performed within Interior labs to address the science needs of DOI and other agencies,
such as the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management. (CRS Contact: John
Sargent.)
Table 12. Department of the Interior R&D
($ in millions)
FY2007
estimate
FY2008
request
H.R. 2643
S. 1696
FY2008
enacted
Geographic Research
44
42
47
46
46
Geological Resources
214
198
225
219
219
Water Resources
126
119
128
128
126
Biological Research
176
181
187
182
180
Climate Change Research
0
0
10
0
7
Enterprise Information
5
7
6
6
6
USGS total
564
547
602
581
583
Other agenciesa
70
74
76
76
79
Total
634
621
678
657
661
DOI
Note: R&D estimates are from the American Association for the Advancement of Science http://www.aaas.org/
spp/rd/int08f.htm, USGS budget office, and USGS FY2008 Budget Justification documents. Totals may not add
due to rounding.
a.
“Other agencies” includes the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management, the Minerals
Management Service, and the National Park Service.
Congressional Research Service
33
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Title II of Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161),17
provided $785.8 million for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Science and
Technology account, which reflects most of the Agency’s R&D funding. The enacted FY2008
appropriation, which includes a transfer from the agency’s Superfund account and reflects a
1.56% across the board rescission,18 was less than 1% above the President’s FY2008 request of
$780.6 million, and 3% above the FY2007 appropriation of $763.6 million. (See Table 13.)
Without adjusting for inflation, FY2008 funding for certain research activities increased relative
to FY2007, however, funding for many of the program areas within the S&T account remained
relatively constant or declined.
EPA, the regulatory agency responsible for carrying out a number of environmental laws, funds a
broad portfolio of R&D activities to provide the necessary scientific tools and knowledge to
support decisions relating to preventing, regulating, and abating environmental pollution. EPA’s
annual appropriations are requested, considered, and enacted according to eight line-item
appropriations accounts, which were established by Congress during the FY1996 appropriations
process. The Science and Technology (S&T) account incorporates elements of the former EPA
Research and Development account, as well as a portion of the former Salaries and Expenses, and
Program Operations accounts, which had been in place until FY1996. The S&T account is funded
by a base appropriation plus a transfer of appropriated funds from the Superfund account. These
transferred funds are dedicated to research on more effective methods to clean up contaminated
sites.
R&D at EPA headquarters and laboratories around the country, as well as external R&D, is
managed primarily by EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD). Many of the programs
implemented by other offices within EPA have a research component, but the research is not
necessarily the primary focus of the program. A large portion of the S&T account appropriations
fund EPA’s R&D activities managed by ORD, including the agency’s research laboratories and
research grants, but the account also provides funding for the agency’s applied science and
technology activities conducted through its program offices (e.g. the Office of Water).
Most of the S&T account funds “actual” research activities, but the operational and administrative
expenses of agency research facilities, such as rent, utilities, and security, are also funded within
this account. The overall increase for FY2008 above FY2007 was mostly due to a continued shift
in funds from the Environmental Programs and Management account to pay these operational and
administrative expenses. When comparing funding for research alone (net after operations and
administration expenses), the FY2008 consolidated appropriations provided a $6.4 million
increase above the FY2008 request, but $17.5 million less than FY2007 (includes transfers from
the Superfund account). (See Table 13). Consequently, funding enacted for FY2008 for many of
EPA’s research areas decreased, or remained flat, relative to FY2007.
17
Title II of Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) signed by the President on
December 26, 2007, appropriated a total of $7.46 billion for EPA. For more information regarding EPA’s FY2008
appropriations see CRS Report RL34011, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations,
coordinated by (name redacted) et al.
18
P.L. 110-161 Division F, Title IV § 437.
Congressional Research Service
34
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
However, funding for certain areas, such as Climate Protection and Global Change research, rose
above the President’s request for FY2008 and the prior year appropriation but in many cases not
to the level that the House or the Senate Appropriations Committee had proposed for FY2008.
For example, the FY2008 appropriations of $19.7 million for Global Change Research, was
roughly 20% more than the $16.2 million provided for FY2007 and the $16.9 million requested,
but significantly less than the $33.3 million the House had proposed. The Senate committee had
proposed $18.6 million for this research activity. The FY2008 consolidated appropriations also
did not include the largest increase recommended within the S&T account by the Senate
committee. The Senate committee had recommended $14 million in a new-line item program
activity for “extramural research grants.” No such line-item program activity had been specified
in previous appropriations, nor had it been included in the House proposed bill or the President’s
FY2008 request. These proposed extramural grants would have been in the form of competitive
grants for “high-priority” air quality ($10.0 million) and water quality($4.0 million) research
supplemental to other funding for these research activities elsewhere in the account.
Climate change due to emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) resulting from human activities has
drawn the attention of Congress as scientific understanding of the causes, extent, and impacts has
grown. This attention was reflected in the debate regarding the FY2008 appropriations.19 P.L.
110-161 included increases for EPA’s global climate change activities within the S&T account, as
noted above, as well as within other accounts. However, the FY2008 consolidated appropriations
did not include a new account to establish a Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and
Mitigation as the House had proposed; nor did the law provide funding in any other existing
account for such a commission. The new account would have been supplemental to funding in the
S&T account, and would have provided $50.0 million for FY2008. Of the total, $5 million would
have been for the establishment and operations of a two-year multi-agency commission to
analyze science questions related to climate change adaptation and mitigation and to recommend
research priorities. The remaining $45.0 million proposed for this account would have been
distributed to support federal agency climate change adaptation and mitigation research efforts
based on the commission’s recommendations. Neither the Senate Appropriations Committee nor
the President had proposed funding for such a commission.
Some Members of Congress and an array of stakeholders have continually raised concerns about
the adequacy of funding for scientific research at EPA. For example, EPA’s Science Advisory
Board (SAB) expressed its concerns about the “decreased trends in the funding of ecosystems
research, decreased funding of the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) extramural and fellowship
programs, and the elimination of the economics and decision sciences research program within
ORD.”20 Similarly, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS),
expressed its concerns regarding the President’s FY2008 request and the enacted appropriations. 21
The EPA funding debate for FY2008 took place within the context of a larger discussion about the
adequacy of federal funding for many “core” scientific research activities administered by
multiple federal agencies, including EPA. Some Members of Congress, scientists, and
19
See discussion regarding climate change appropriations under the heading “Climate Change” in the CRS Report
RL34011, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations, by (name redacted) et al.
20
EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB)comments on EPA’s Strategic Research Directions and Research Budget for
FY2008, An Advisory Report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB-07004) http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebCommittees/BOARD.
21
American Association for the Advancement of Science FY2008 Appropriations Summary http://www.aaas.org/spp/
rd/upd1207.htm.
Congressional Research Service
35
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
environmental organizations have expressed concern about the downward trend in overall federal
resources for scientific research over time. The debate continues to center around the question of
whether the regulatory actions of federal agencies are based on “sound science,” and how
scientific research is applied in developing federal policy. (CRS Contact: (name redacted)) .
Table 13. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account
($ in millions)
Environmental Protection Agency
FY2008
Request
H.R. 2643
HousePassed
S. 1696
S. Comm.
Reported
FY2008
Enacteda
$733.4
$754.5
$783.3
$772.5
$760.1
30.2
26.1
26.1
26.1
25.7
763.6
780.6
809.4
798.6
785.8
(33.0)
(73.9)
(73.9)
(73.9)
(72.7)
730.6
706.7
735.5
724.7
713.1
FY2007
Enacted
Science and Technology Appropriations Account
—Base Appropriations
—Transfer in from Superfund Account
Science and Technology Total
—(Operations and Administration)
Net Science and Technology
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using information in the Joint Explanatory
Statement Accompanying Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161, H.R.
2764), as presented in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007.
a.
Enacted amounts for FY2008 in the above table reflect a 1.56% across-the-board rescission required in P.L.
110-161 for any discretionary appropriations in Division F Titles I through IV of the law (Division F Title IV
§ 437 of P.L. 110-161).
Author Contact Information
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
/redacted/@crs.loc.
gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist 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 Science and Technology Policy
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Analyst in Biomedical Policy
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Information Research Specialist
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
36
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.