# Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL34448 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** May 22, 2009 - **Citation:** RL34448 ## Text Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 (name redacted), Coordinator Specialist in Science and Technology Policy May 22, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL34448 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 Summary In February 2008, President Bush proposed total research and development (R&D) funding of $147.0 billion in his FY2009 budget request to Congress, a $3.9 billion (2.7%) increase over the estimated FY2008 level of $143.1 billion. President Bush’s request included $29.3 billion for basic research, up $847 million (3.0%) from FY2008; $27.1 billion for applied research, down $1.0 billion (-3.6%); $84.0 billion for development, up 1.6 billion (1.9%); and $6.5 billion for R&D facilities and equipment, up $2.5 billion (61.7%). In the absence of final action on the regular FY2009 appropriations bills, Congress passed H.R. 2638 (110th Congress), the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-329) which President Bush signed on September 30, 2008. This act provides FY2009 appropriations for the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; continued funding for agencies not covered under these provisions at their FY2008 funding levels through March 6, 2009; and supplemental funding for disaster relief. The uncompleted regular appropriations bills considered by the 110th Congress expired with the beginning of the 111th Congress. On February 23, 2009, H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8), which provides specific FY2009 appropriations for the agencies covered under the continuing appropriations provisions of P.L. 110-329, was introduced in the House and passed two days later. With the Omnibus bill under consideration in the Senate, on March 6 Congress passed and President Obama signed H.J.Res. 38 (P.L. 111-6), extending the continuing appropriations provisions of P.L. 110-329 through March 11, 2009. On March 10, the Senate passed H.R. 1105 without amendment. President Obama signed the act on March 11. Additional funding for research and development was provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1), often referred to informally as “the stimulus bill.” H.R. 1 was passed by the House and Senate on February 13, and signed into law (P.L. 111-5) by President Obama on February 17. The act includes approximately $22.7 billion for R&D, facilities, equipment and related activities. For the past two fiscal years, federal R&D funding and execution has been affected by mechanisms used to complete the annual appropriations process—the year-long continuing resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5) and the combining of 11 appropriations bills into the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161). For example, FY2008 R&D funding for some agencies and programs was below the level requested by President Bush and passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate. Completion of appropriations after the beginning of each fiscal year also resulted in delays or cancellation of planned R&D and equipment acquisition. While the annual budget requests of incumbent Presidents are usually delivered to Congress in early February for the next fiscal year, the change of presidential administrations delayed the initial release of President Obama’s FY2010 budget until February 26, 2009. The director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Peter R. Orzag, has testified that a more detailed version of the budget will be released in the spring. Congressional Research Service Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 Contents Overview ....................................................................................................................................1 Federal R&D Funding Perspectives.......................................................................................2 Agency Perspective.........................................................................................................2 Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment Perspective ...............................................3 Combined Perspective.....................................................................................................4 Multi-Agency Initiatives Perspective...............................................................................5 FY2009 Federal R&D Appropriations Status.........................................................................6 Regular Appropriations ...................................................................................................6 Appropriations Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 .................7 Supplemental Appropriations for FY2008 .............................................................................9 Effect of FY2007-FY2008 Appropriations Process on R&D..................................................9 Multiagency R&D Initiatives ......................................................................................................9 Department of Defense (DOD).................................................................................................. 10 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ................................................................................. 17 National Institutes of Health (NIH) ........................................................................................... 21 Department of Energy (DOE).................................................................................................... 29 National Science Foundation (NSF) .......................................................................................... 33 Department of Commerce (DOC).............................................................................................. 38 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) ....................................................... 38 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ............................................... 41 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)........................................................... 45 Department of Agriculture (USDA)........................................................................................... 48 Department of the Interior (DOI)............................................................................................... 52 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)................................................................................... 54 Department of Transportation (DOT) ........................................................................................ 57 Tables Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2008-FY2009 ....................2 Table 2. Federal Research and Development Funding by Character of Work, Facilities and Equipment, FY2008-FY2009.............................................................................................3 Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities and Equipment, FY2008-FY2009......................................................................................................................4 Table 4. Funding for ACI Agencies in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ........................................................................................................................................6 Table 5. Research, Development and Related Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ........................................................................................................7 Table 6. Department of Defense RDT&E .................................................................................. 14 Congressional Research Service Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 Table 7. Department of Defense RDT&E Associated with the Global War on Terror Funding ................................................................................................................................. 15 Table 8. Department of Defense RDT&E Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ...................................................................................................... 17 Table 9. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs ................................... 20 Table 10. National Institutes of Health....................................................................................... 26 Table 11. Funding for NIH in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ................ 28 Table 12. Department of Energy R&D and Related Programs (Regular Appropriations)............ 31 Table 13. Department of Energy R&D and Related Programs (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act).................................................................................................................. 33 Table 14. National Science Foundation...................................................................................... 37 Table 15. Funding for NSF R&D and Related Activities in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ...................................................................................................... 38 Table 16. NIST.......................................................................................................................... 40 Table 17. Funding for NIST in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 .............. 41 Table 18. NOAA R&D .............................................................................................................. 44 Table 19. NASA R&D (Regular Appropriations) ....................................................................... 46 Table 20. NASA R&D (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) ............................. 47 Table 21. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D......................................................................... 50 Table 22. Funding for USDA R&D and Related Activities in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ...................................................................................................... 51 Table 23. Department of the Interior R&D................................................................................. 53 Table 24. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account ........................................................ 56 Table 25. Department of Transportation R&D ........................................................................... 58 Contacts Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 59 Congressional Research Service Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 Overview The 111th Congress continues to take a strong interest in the health of the U.S. research and development (R&D) enterprise and in providing sustained support for federal R&D activities. The United States government supports a broad range of scientific and engineering research and development. Its purposes include addressing specific concerns such as national defense, health, safety, the environment, and energy security; advancing knowledge generally; developing the scientific and engineering workforce; and strengthening U.S. innovation and competitiveness in the global economy. Most of the 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 played an important role in supporting R&D efforts that have led to scientific breakthroughs and new technologies, from jet aircraft and the Internet to communications satellites and defenses against disease. In February 2008, President Bush requested $147.0 billion for R&D in FY2009, a 2.7% increase over FY2008 R&D funding which was estimated to be $143.1 billion.1 The FY2009 proposed R&D increase over the FY2008 funding level was due primarily to funding for the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and an advance appropriation to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for acquisition under Project BioShield of medical countermeasures, such as vaccines, against biological terror attacks.2 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) classified $2.175 billion of the DHS advance appropriation as R&D facilities construction in FY2009. Some have questioned the appropriateness of classifying these funds as R&D facilities and equipment since the funds appear to be intended for product acquisition rather than research, development, or facilities construction. This advance appropriation accounted for more than half of the net increase in R&D funding in President Bush’s FY2009 budget request. Analysis of federal R&D funding is complicated by several factors, including the Bush Administration’s omission of Congressionally directed spending from the FY2009 budget request, inconsistency among agencies in the reporting of R&D, and the apparent miscategorization of some funding in President Bush’s request. As a result of these and other factors, the R&D agency figures reported by OMB (and shown in Table 1) may differ somewhat from those agency budget analyses that appear later in this report. Another complicating factor for FY2009 is the inclusion of funding for R&D, facilities, and equipment, and related activities in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) in addition to funding provided to agencies in P.L. 110-329 and P.L. 111-8. The act includes approximately $22.7 billion for R&D, facilities, equipment and related activities. 1 Funding levels included in this document are in current dollars unless otherwise noted. Inflation diminishes the purchasing power of federal R&D funds, so an increase that does not equal or exceed the inflation rate may reduce real purchasing power. For example, a key measure of inflation, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), rose 3.8% in 2008, indicating that President Bush’s R&D funding request for FY2009 may represent a decline in real purchasing power. 2 The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-90), provided funding under Title III, Preparedness and Recovery, in the amount of $5.593 billion to remain available through FY2013. The act restricts DHS from spending more than $3.418 billion in fiscal years 2004 through 2008. The balance, $2.175 billion, became available for use by DHS in FY2009. Congressional Research Service 1 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 Federal R&D Funding Perspectives Federal R&D funding can be analyzed from a variety of perspectives that provide unique insights. Agency Perspective The authorization and appropriations process views federal R&D funding primarily from agency and program perspectives. Table 1 provides data on R&D by agency for FY2007 (actual), FY2008 (estimate), and FY2009 (request) as reported by OMB. Under President Bush’s FY2009 budget request, five federal agencies would have received 92.8% of total federal R&D funding: the Department of Defense (DOD), 54.8%; the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (primarily the National Institutes of Health), 20.1%; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 7.3%; the Department of Energy (DOE), 7.2%; and the National Science Foundation (NSF), 3.5%. This report provides an analysis of the R&D budget requests for these agencies, as well as for the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Commerce (DOC), Homeland Security, Interior (DOI), and Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In total these departments and agencies accounted for more than 98% of current and requested federal R&D funding. The Bush Administration had requested significantly larger percentage increases for the three agencies that were part of its American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI): DOE’s Office of Science (up 19% above the estimated FY2008 level), the National Science Foundation (up 14%), and DOC’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (up 5%). In 2007, Congress authorized substantial R&D increases for these agencies under the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69).3,4 President Bush’s budget would have reduced R&D funding for four agencies: the Department of Agriculture, down $357 million (-15.5%); the Department of Veterans Affairs, down $76 million (-7.9%); the Department of the Interior, down $59 million (-8.7%); and the Environmental Protection Agency, down $7 million (-1.3%). Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2008-FY2009 (Budget authority, dollar amount in millions) Department/Agency FY2008 Estimatea Agriculture 2,309 1,952 -357 -15.5 Commerce 1,113 1,157 44 4.0 Defense 80,192 80,494 302 0.4 Energy 9,739 10,558 819 8.4 Environmental Protection Agency 557 550 -7 -1.3 Health and Human Services 29,475 29,480 5 0.0 FY2009 Request Dollar Change, 2008 to 2009 Percent Change, 2008 to 2009 3 For additional information, see CRS Report RL34328, America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected Issues, by (name redacted). 4 H.R. 1, as passed by the House of Representatives, includes an additional $5.4 billion in R&D and related activities for these agencies; S. 1, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, includes an additional $2.4 billion. Congressional Research Service 2 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 Department/Agency FY2008 Estimatea Homeland Security 1,143 3,287 2,144 187.6 Interior 676 617 -59 -8.7 NASA 10,436 10,737 301 2.9 National Science Foundation 4,500 5,201 701 15.6 Transportation 823 901 78 9.5 Veterans Affairs 960 884 -76 -7.9 Other 1,140 1,145 5 0.4 TOTAL 143,063 146,963 3,900 2.7 FY2009 Request Dollar Change, 2008 to 2009 Percent Change, 2008 to 2009 Source: Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009, Office of Management and Budget, The White House, February 2008. a. The FY2008 figures in this table do not include supplemental funding for R&D for FY2008 provided under the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252). Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment Perspective Federal R&D funding can also be examined by the character of work (basic research, applied research, and development) it supports, and funding provided for facilities and acquisition of R&D major equipment (see Table 2). President Bush’s FY2009 request included $29.3 billion for basic research, up $847 million (3.0%) from FY2008; $27.1 billion for applied research, down $1.0 billion (-3.6%); $84.0 billion for development, up $1.6 billion (1.9%); and $6.5 billion for facilities and equipment, up $2.5 billion (61.7%). Table 2. Federal Research and Development Funding by Character of Work, Facilities and Equipment, FY2008-FY2009 (Budget authority, dollar amount in millions) FY2008 Estimate FY2009 Request Dollar Change, 2008 to 2009 Percent Change, 2008 to 2009 Basic research 28,472 29,319 847 3.0 Applied research 28,112 27,087 -1,025 -3.6 Development 82,432 84,013 1,581 1.9 Facilities and equipment 4,047 6,544 2,497 61.7 TOTAL 143,063 146,963 3,900 2.7 Source: Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009, Office of Management and Budget, The White House, February 2008. Congressional Research Service 3 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 Combined Perspective Combining these perspectives, federal R&D funding can be viewed in terms of each agency’s contribution to basic research, applied research, development, and facilities and equipment (see Table 3). The federal government is the nation’s largest supporter of basic research (funding an estimated 58.8% of U.S. basic research in 2006),5 primarily because the private sector asserts it cannot capture an adequate return on long-term fundamental research investments. The Department of Health and Human Services (primarily HHS’s National Institutes of Health (NIH)) accounts for more than half of all federal funding for basic research. In contrast to basic research, industry is the primary funder of applied research in the United States, accounting for an estimated 58.9% in 2006, while the federal government accounted for an estimated 33.3%.6 Among federal agencies, HHS is the largest funder of applied research, accounting for nearly half of all federally funded applied research. Industry also provides the vast majority of funding for development, accounting for an estimated 82.5% in 2006, while the federal government provided an estimated 16.2%.7 DOD is the primary federal agency development funder, accounting for 88.5% of total federal development funding in the FY2009 request. Table 3.Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities and Equipment, FY2008-FY2009 (Budget authority, dollar amount in millions) Dollar Change, 2008 to 2009 Percent Change, 2008 to 2009 FY2008 Estimate FY2009 Request Health and Human Services 15,897 15,884 -13 0.0 National Science Foundation 3,689 4,336 647 17.5 Energy 3,232 3,556 324 10.0 Health and Human Services 13,414 13,424 10 0 Defense 5,058 4,245 -813 -16.1 Energy 3,513 3,474 -39 -1.1 Defense 73,358 74,393 1,035 1.4 NASA 5,436 5,731 295 5.1 Basic Research Applied Research Development 5 Science and Engineering Indicators 2008,Volume 2: Appendix Tables, National Science Foundation, 2008. Ibid. 7 Ibid. 6 Congressional Research Service 4 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 Dollar Change, 2008 to 2009 Percent Change, 2008 to 2009 FY2008 Estimate FY2009 Request 2,232 2,472 240 10.7 147 2,250 2,102 1420.3 NASA 1,922 2,175 253 13.2 Energy 762 1,056 294 38.6 Energy Facilities and equipment Homeland Security Source: Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009, Office of Management and Budget, The White House, February 2008. Note: Top funding agencies based on FY2009 request. Multi-Agency Initiatives Perspective Federal R&D funding can also be viewed in terms of multi-agency efforts, such as the National Nanotechnology Initiative (see “Multiagency R&D Initiatives” section), and other initiatives, such as the Bush Administration’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). Similarly, President Obama has stated that he will seek to double funding for basic research over 10 years. The ACI was proposed by President Bush in February 2006 as a response to growing concerns about America’s ability to compete in the global marketplace. The $136 billion ACI proposal included $50 billion for additional research, science education, and the modernization of research infrastructure 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.8 Congress established authorization levels for FY2008-2010 in the America COMPETES Act that would put funding for research at these agencies on track to double in approximately seven years. However, FY2008 research funding provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) for these agencies fell below these doubling targets. Estimated FY2008 funding for ACI research totaled $10.61 billion, an increase of approximately $350 million (3.5%) over the FY2007 ACI funding level. For FY2009, President Bush requested $12.21 billion in funding for ACI research at NSF, DOE’s Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (including its core research program and facilities), an increase of $1.6 billion (15.1%) above the estimated FY2008 level of $10.61 billion. 9 The NSF funding request for FY2009 was $6.85 billion, an increase of $821 million (13.6%) above the estimated FY2008 level of $6.03 billion. 10 The FY2009 request for the DOE Office of Science was $4.72 billion, $749 million (18.9%) more than the estimated FY2008 level of $3.97 billion. 11 FY2009 proposed funding for NIST’s core research program and 8 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.) 9 American Competitiveness Initiative Research fact sheet, FY2009 request, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House, February 2008. 10 Office of Management and Budget website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/nsf.html 11 Office of Management and Budget website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/energy.html Congressional Research Service 5 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 facilities totaled $634 million, an increase of $33 million (4.5%) above the estimated FY2008 level of $610 million.12 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) includes funding for each of the three ACI agencies totaling approximately $5.2 billion (in addition to the enacted levels in P.L. 110-329) (see Table 4). Table 4. Funding for ACI Agencies in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (in millions of dollars) H.R. 1 (House) H.R. 1 (Senate) P.L. 111-5 National Science Foundation 3,002 1,202 3,002 Department of Energy/Office of Science 2,000 330 1,600a National Institute of Standards and Technology/core researchb,c 100 168 220 National Institute of Standards and Technology/facilities 300 307 360 Agency Sources: H.R. 1 (House, Senate, and enacted), House Rept. 111-016, and the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee on Conference. a. The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee on Conference states that “after taking into account the additional $400,000,000 provided for Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) in a separate account, the funding level for Science is the same as proposed by the House.” b. NIST core research activities are those performed under the Scientific and Technical Research and Services account. c. The final act (as well as the House and Senate versions of H.R. 1) also provides for a transfer of $20 million from the Department of Health and Human Services to support the creation and testing of standards related to health security and interoperability. FY2009 Federal R&D Appropriations Status Regular Appropriations On September 30, 2008, President Bush signed into law H.R. 2638 (110th Congress), the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110329). This act provides FY2009 appropriations for the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, as well as supplemental funding for disaster relief. In addition, Division A of the act provides continuing appropriations for FY2009 at their original FY2008 levels13 to agencies not otherwise addressed in the act through March 6, 2009, or until the enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or activity provided for in the act, or the enactment into law of the applicable appropriations act for FY2009 without any provision for such project or activity, whichever occurs first. 12 Office of Management and Budget website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/commerce.html The original FY2008 funding levels do not include R&D funding provided under the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252). 13 Congressional Research Service 6 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 Previously, only one of the FY2009 regular appropriations bills, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriation, FY2009 (H.R. 6599, 110th Congress) had passed the House; none had passed the Senate. Each of these bills expired at the end of the 110th Congress. On February 23, 2009, H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8) was introduced in the House, and passed two days later, providing specific appropriations for the agencies covered under the continuing appropriations provisions of P.L. 110-329. With the Omnibus bill under consideration in the Senate, on March 6, Congress passed and President Obama signed H.J.Res. 38 (P.L. 111-6), extending the continuing appropriations provisions of P.L. 110-329 through March 11, 2009. On March 10, the Senate passed H.R. 1105 without amendment. President Obama signed the act on March 11. Appropriations Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 On February 13, 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), and President Obama signed it into law on February 17. The act includes funding for R&D, facilities, equipment and related activities in addition to the enacted levels in P.L. 110-329. The final version of the act includes approximately $22.7 billion for R&D, facilities, and equipment and related activities. Greater detail on these funds are provided in Table 5. No attempt is made in this table to differentiate among the specific uses (i.e., R&D, facilities, equipment, related activities) as in several cases there is insufficient detail in the act and in the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Conference Committee. Table 5. Research, Development and Related Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (in millions of dollars) H.R. 1 (House) H.R. 1 (Senate) P.L. 111-5 Office of the Secretary — 200 — Agricultural Research Service (buildings and facilities) 209 — 176 Cooperative State Research, Education, and Economic Service — 50 — —Scientific and Technical Research and Services 100 168 220 —Technology Innovation Program 70 — — —Manufacturing Extension Partnership 30 — — —Construction of Research Facilities 300 307 360 —Health information technology (transfer from HHS) 20 20 20 —Operations, Research, and Facilities 400 377 230 —Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction 600 645 600 Department of Defense 350 200 300 Agency Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Congressional Research Service 7 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 Agency H.R. 1 (House) H.R. 1 (Senate) P.L. 111-5 2,000 330 1,600 Department of Energya —Science —Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy 400 —Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 2,000 2,648 2,500 —Fossil Energyb 2,400 4,600 1,030 200 135 140 —Comparative effectiveness research 400 400 400 —Biomedical Advanced R&D Authority 430 — — —Prepare for/respond to potential influenza pandemic 420 — — —Office of the Director 1,500 9,200 8,200 —Office of the Directorc 400 400 400 1,500 300 1,300 500 500 500 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (buildings and facilities) 462 412 — Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 300 300 300 —Science 400 450 400 —Aeronautics 150 200 150 —Cross Agency Support Programs — 200 50 —Exploration — 450 400 —Research and Related Activities 2,500 1,000 2,500 —Education and Human Resources 100 50 100 —Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction 400 150 400 2 2 2 Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Secretary National Institutes of Health —National Center for Research Resources —Buildings and Facilities National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Science Foundation —Office of the Inspector General Sources: H.R. 1 (House, Senate, and enacted), House Rept. 111-016, and the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee on Conference. a. Funding in the Senate bill for weapons activities and electricity delivery and energy reliability may also include an unspecified amount of R&D. b. An indeterminate amount of funds provided for Fossil Energy R&D will be used to fund research and development. In both bills, a significant portion of the fossil energy funding is likely to be allocated to demonstration activities that not all observers would consider R&D. c. Transfer from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to conduct or support comparative clinical effectiveness research. Congressional Research Service 8 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations for FY2008 On June 30, 2008, President Bush signed into law H.R. 2642 (110th Congress), the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252). Among its provisions, the act provides additional funding for FY2008 of $1.75 billion to the Department of Defense for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) activities; $365 million to the Department of Defense, Defense Health Program RDT&E; and $338 million to other agencies for science-related activities. Of these funds, the National Institutes of Health received $150 million; NASA received $62.5 million for its Return to Flight activity; NSF received $62.5 million; and the Department of Energy received $62.5 million for its non-defense energy programs. In addition, the act provides $62.5 million to the Department of Energy for defense environmental cleanup. Effect of FY2007-FY2008 Appropriations Process on R&D For the past two fiscal years, federal R&D funding levels and execution have been affected by the mechanisms used to complete the annual appropriations process—the year-long continuing resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5) and the combining of 11 appropriations bills into the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161). For example, FY2008 R&D funding for some agencies and programs was below the level requested by President Bush, and originally passed by House and Senate appropriations committees.14 The Department of Energy estimated that cuts in its FY2008 R&D budget for its Office of Science would result in layoffs of 525 personnel at the Stanford Linear Accelerator, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, and other laboratories and universities.15 Completion of the appropriations process after the beginning of the fiscal year may also result in delay, reduction, or cancellation of planned R&D, equipment acquisition, and facilities construction, and may impede the ability of agencies to fully obligate funds ultimately appropriated (see CRS Report RS22774, Federal Research and Development Funding: Possible Impacts of Operating under a Continuing Resolution, by (name redacted) and (name redacted)). The following sections provide analyses of President Bush’s FY2009 R&D and related funding requests for selected Federal agencies and multiagency R&D initiatives. These sections also include information on appropriations actions taken by Congress. Multiagency R&D Initiatives President Bush’s FY2009 budget requested increased funding for three multiagency R&D initiatives. Funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) was requested in the amount of $1.53 billion for FY2009, an increase of 2.4% over the estimated FY2008 level of $1.50 billion (see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by (name redacted)). 16 Under President Bush’s 14 Letter from Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman to Sen. Jeff Bingaman, Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, February 4, 2008. http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/ SignedlettertoSenBingamanrequest0.pdf. Subsequent to this letter, additional funds were provided under P.L. 110-252. 15 Ibid. 16 National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Funding in the President’s FY2009 Budget, fact sheet, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House, February 2008; National Nanotechnology Initiative website. http://www.nano.gov/html/about/funding.html. Congressional Research Service 9 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 FY2009 budget, the NNI would have increased its efforts in fundamental phenomena and processes by $19.2 million (3.6%); instrument research, metrology, and standards by $21.1 million (34.9%); environmental, health, and safety by $17.8 million (30.4%); and nanomanufacturing by $11.9 million (23.7%). Smaller increases would have support major research facilities and instrumentation acquisition (up $6.9 million, 4.5%) and efforts in education and societal dimensions (up $1.7 million, 4.4%). Funding would have fallen by $27.5 million (-10.8%) for nanomaterials research and by $15.3 million (-4.5%) for nanoscale devices and systems. President Bush requested $3.57 billion in FY2009 funding for the Networking and Information Technology R&D (NITRD) program, an increase of 5.8% above the estimated FY2008 level of $3.37 billion. The requested NITRD increase was due primarily to requested funding increases for NSF (up $159 million, 17.1%) and DOE (up $58 million, 13.3%).17 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33586, The Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program: Funding Issues and Activities, by (name redacted) . The Bush Administration proposed $2.01 billion for the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), an increase of 9.6% over the estimated FY2008 level of $1.84 billion.18 (See CRS Report RL33817, Climate Change: Federal Program Funding and Tax Incentives, by (name redacted).) Four agencies accounted for most of the FY2009 CCSP requested funding increase: NASA (up $126 million, 11.7%), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (up $20 million, 8.3%), DOE (up $18 million, 14.1%), and NSF (up $16 million, 7.8%). 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 6). 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 their families. Program funds are requested through the Operations and Maintenance appropriation. The program’s RDT&E funds support Congressionally directed research in such areas as breast, prostate, and ovarian cancer and other medical conditions. The Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program supports activities to destroy the U.S. inventory of lethal chemical agents and munitions to avoid future risks and costs associated with storage. Funds for this program are requested through the Army Procurement appropriation. The Joint Improvised Explosive Device 17 Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009, Office of Management and Budget, The White House, 2008. The NITRD data in OMB’s Analytical Perspectives include the DOD Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). According to the NITRD National Coordination Office, DISA’s contribution is not included in the FY2009 Networking and Information Technology Research and Development: Supplement to the President’s Budget report. 18 Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009, Office of Management and Budget, The White House, 2008. Congressional Research Service 10 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 Defeat Fund also contains additional RDT&E monies. However, the fund does not contain an RDT&E line item as do the two programs mentioned above. The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office, which now administers the fund, tracks (but does not report) the amount of funding allocated to RDT&E. Typically, Congress has funded each of these programs in Title VI (Other Department of Defense Programs) of the defense appropriations bill. RDT&E funds have also been requested and appropriated as part of DOD’s separate funding to support what the Bush Administration termed the Global War on Terror (GWOT). Congress has appropriated these funds in response to emergency supplemental requests and under a separate GWOT request. GWOT-related requests/appropriations often include funds for a number of transfer funds. These include the Iraqi Freedom Fund (IFF), the Iraqi Security Forces Fund, the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, and the Mine Resistant and Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund (MRAPVF). Congress typically makes a single appropriation into each of these funds, and authorizes the Secretary to make transfers to other baseline accounts, including RDT&E, at his discretion. GWOT-related RDT&E funding is shown in Table 7. Note that while these GWOTrelated appropriations may be distributed to baseline program elements, they are accounted for separately. For FY2009, the Bush Administration requested $79.6 billion for DOD’s baseline Title IV RDT&E, roughly $2.5 billion more than Congress appropriated for Title IV in FY2008. The FY2009 requests for RDT&E in the Defense Health Program and the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction program were $194 million and $269 million, respectively. The Bush Administration also submitted an FY2008 Global War on Terror Pending request (i.e., a supplemental request), which included $2.9 billion for RDT&E. During the FY2008 appropriations deliberations, Congress only approved a portion of the Bush Administration’s FY2008 GWOT request. The Bush Administration requested the FY2008 GWOT Pending supplemental in hopes of receiving the balance of that earlier request. The Bush Administration also made a FY2009 GWOT “Bridge” request in March. This additional request included $379 million in classified RDT&E. By requesting bridge funding, the administration hoped to have ready GWOT-related emergency funds at the beginning of the fiscal year (in October) should the passage of the baseline defense appropriations be delayed. Since FY2001, funding for RDT&E in Title IV has increased from $42 billion to $80 billion in FY2009. In constant FY2009 dollars, the increase is roughly 60%. Historically, RDT&E funding has reached its highest levels in constant dollars, dating back to 1948.19 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 departments request and receive their own RDT&E funding. So, too, do various DOD agencies (e.g., the Missile Defense Agency and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), collectively aggregated within the Defensewide account. RDT&E funding also can be characterized by budget activity (i.e., the type of RDT&E supported).Those budget activities designated as 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 (basic research, applied research, and advanced development) constitute what is called DOD’s Science and Technology Program (S&T) and represents the more research-oriented part of the RDT&E program. Budget activities 6.4 and 6.5 focus on the development of specific weapon systems or 19 This historical data can be found in DOD’s National Defense Budget Estimates for the FY2009 Budget (also known as the “Green Book”). Office of the Under Secretary for Defense (Comptroller).March 2008.pp 62-67. See http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2009/fy2009_greenbook.pdf. Last viewed January 28, 2009. Congressional Research Service 11 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 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. Congress is particularly interested in S&T funding 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 baseline S&T funding (i.e., Title IV) at 3% of DOD’s overall funding. Congress has embraced this goal. The FY2009 S&T funding request in Title IV was $11.5 billion, about $1.3 billion less than what Congress appropriated for S&T in Title IV in FY2008 (not counting S&T funding requested as part of the GWOT request or S&T’s share of the general reduction made to Title IV in the FY2008 appropriations bill). Furthermore, the S&T request for Title IV was 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 of DOD to meet its 3% goal has been strained in recent years as the overall Defense budget continues to rise. Within the S&T program, basic research (6.1) receives special attention, particularly by the nation’s universities. DOD is not a large supporter of basic research, when compared to the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation. However, over half of DOD’s basic research budget is spent at universities and represents the major contribution of funds in some areas of science and technology (such as electrical engineering and material science). The FY2009 request for basic research ($1.7 billion) was roughly $65 million more than what Congress appropriated for Title IV basic research in FY2008. Congress passed the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252) on June 30, 2008. Title IX of the act provided supplemental funding for the Department of Defense and the Global War on Terror. See Table 7. Chapter 1 of Title IX addressed the GWOT Pending request and Chapter 2 of Title IX addressed the FY2009 GWOT Bridge request. Congress did not provide all the RDT&E funding requested in the FY2008 GWOT Pending request for the departments and defense agencies, but added RDT&E funds for the Defense Health Program. In addition, Congress directed a general reduction of the RDT&E funds provided. Congress provided the requested level of RDT&E in the Bridge request, plus $9 million more for the Air Force. The act also provided a $2.5 billion for the Iraqi Security Forces Fund, $2 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund, and $1.7 billion for the Mine Resistant and Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund, from which the Secretary may transfer funds into RDT&E. Congress passed a FY2009 defense appropriations as part of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 101-329, Division C). The bill provided $80.5 billion for Title IV RDT&E. This included $13.5 billion for S&T, of which $1.8 billion was for basic research (i.e. approximately $100 million more for basic research than was requested). Section 8101 reduced Title IV funding by $218 million to account for revised economic assumptions. In addition, Congress provided $903 million for RDT&E within the Defense Health Program (including $150 million and $80 million for peer-reviewed breast and prostate cancer research, respectively) and $289 million for RDT&E within the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program. Congressional Research Service 12 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 On February 13, 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5, see Table 8). The House version of H.R. 1 provided DOD $350 million to support RDT&E directed at improving energy generation, transmission, regulation, use and storage, for military installations, military vehicles, and other military equipment. The House bill did not specify which programs should be funded. The Senate version of H.R. 1, per S.Amdt. 570, provided $200 million within the Defensewide RDT&E account. S.Rept. 111-3, the report accompanying the earlier Senate version (S. 336), stipulated that the $200 million go to the Manufacturing Technology Program to help transition and demonstrate energy efficient technologies including fuel cells and solar cells. The Senate bill appeared directed at the program element 0603680D8Z, which in FY2009 received $18 million. The Senate bill would have appropriated an order of magnitude more for this program than what it already received in FY2009, raising the issue of whether such an increase could have been accommodated efficiently. The final version of the bill P.L. 111-5 followed the House version, but reduced the funding to $300 million. The bill requires the Secretary of Defense to report on how the funds were used and the progress made in achieving the goals of the funding. Part of the debate over the stimulus bill was whether the funds provided should focus on nearterm job retention or formation or whether they can also be used as a down payment in a longer term transition toward a more energy independent, efficient, and green economy. It would appear that the appropriations provided here are in keeping with the latter. On April 9, 2009, the Obama Administration sent to Congress a supplemental request for additional FY2009 funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although the Obama Administration is inclined not to use the term Global War on Terror, the supplemental is shown in Table 7 since it is directed specifically at the two wars. The House passed its version of the bill (H.R. 2346) on May 14, 2009. The Senate passed its version, S. 1054, on May 21 (S.Rept. 11120).The Administration requested $810 million in Title IV RDT&E funds, the House provided $722 million, and the Senate recommended $886 million. The funds would be used to accelerate the development, testing, and demonstration of technologies and equipment needed in both wars. In addition, the Administration requested $34 million in RDT&E funding within the Defense Health Program for research in information technologies in support of Wounded, Ill, and Injured program. The House provided $201 million, $168 million of which is directed toward additional research in traumatic brain injuries, psychological health, and orthopedics. The Senate recommended the requested level of $34 million. As the total figures indicate, there are some substantial differences between the House and Senate version. For example, the House sought to zero the Manned Reconnaissance Systems request of the Navy, the Senate sought to increase the request by $26 million. The Senate also added $61 million to the Air Force request for LINK 16 Support and Sustainment, which was not in the original request or the House version. Finally, the House voted to substantially increase RDT&E funding in the Defense Health Program, while the Senate did not recommend any additional funds beyond the request. (CRS Contact: John Moteff.) Congressional Research Service 13 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 Table 6. Department of Defense RDT&E (in millions of dollars) FY2008 Enacteda FY2009 Request FY2009 Final (P.L. 110-329)a Army 12,127 10,524 12,060 Navy 17,919 19,337 19,764 Air Force 26,255 28,067 27,084 Defensewide 20,791 21,499 21,423 Dir. Test & Eval 180 189 189 Adjustments improved economic assumptions (367)b Title IV - By Account Total Title IV - By Accountc (218) 76,905 79,616 80,303 6.1 Basic Research 1,634 1,699 1,842 6.2 Applied Research 5,096 4,245 5,113 6.3 Advanced Development 6,039 5,532 6,532 6.4 Advanced Component Development and Prototypes 15,745 15,774 6.5 Systems Dev. and Demo 18,321 19,537 18,654 6.6 Management Supportd 4,274 4,369 4,543 6.7 Op. Systems Deve 26,163 28,461 28,020 Title IV - By Budget Activity Adjustments improved economic assumptions (218) (367)b Total Title IV - by Budget Activityc 76,905 Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund 150 15,817 79,617 80,303 Title VI - Other Defense Programs Defense Health Program 536 194 903 Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction 313 269 289 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-92) and Consolidated Appropriations Act 2008 (P.L. 110-161) 926f 80,080 81,495 Grand Total 78,830 Sources: Title IV figures for the FY2009 request were taken from RDT&E Programs (R-1) Exhibits, Department of Defense Budget FY2009. The FY2009 RDT&E request for the Defense Health Program was taken from the Operations and Maintenance Exhibit (O-1), Department of Defense Budget FY2009. The FY2009 RDT&E request for the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program was taken from the Procurement Exhibit (P-1), Department of Defense Budget FY2009. The FY2009 enacted figures were taken from P.L. 110-329 and the Congressional Record version of the DOD explanatory statement, Sept. 24, 2008. The FY2009 Supplemental figures were taken from the White House submission to Congress, H.Rept. 111-105 and S.Rept. 111-20. a. Does not include subsequent rescissions or transfers, unless noted. b. Sec. 8104 of the FY2008 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-116) required a general reduction to account for improved economic assumptions. RDT&E’s designated share was $367 million. Sec. 8097 of this Congressional Research Service 14 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 act also required a general reduction of $507 million to be taken proportionately from Operations and Maintenance (Title II), Procurement (Title III), and RDT&E (Title IV) to account for contractor efficiencies. The RDT&E’s share of this reduction is not counted in this table. c. Total Budget Authority for Account and Budget Activity may not agree due to rounding. d. Includes funds for Developmental and Operational Test and Evaluation. e. Includes funding for classified programs. f. Congress addressed some of the Administration’s FY2008 GWOT request in one of the continuing resolutions (P.L. 110-92) which supported government operations in early FY2008 and in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161). The continuing resolution provided additional funds for the MRAPVF. The Consolidated Appropriations Act provided funds to the IFF, some of which were transferred to RDT&E. Table 7. Department of Defense RDT&E Associated with the Global War on Terror Funding (in millions of dollars) FY2008 GWOT Pending Request FY2009 GWOT (Bridge Request) Request P.L. 110-252 Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 Title IX Enacted Chapter1 FY2008 Supplemental Chapter2 FY2009 Bridge Funding FY2009 Supplemental Request H.R. 2346 S. 1054 Final GWOT-Related Title IV By Account Army 163 163 74 74 72 Navy 611 113 366 113 145 96 142 Air Force 1,487 72 400 72 108 93 174 Defensewide 684 194 816 203 483 459 498 2,945 379 1,745 388 810 722 886 Dir. Test & Eval Total Budget Auth.a By Budget Activity 6.1 Basic Research 6.2 Applied Research 6 6.3 Advanced Development 25 6.4 Advanced Component Dev. and Prototypes 228 7 7 3 6.5 Sys. Dev. 514 86 80 152 Congressional Research Service 2 15 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 FY2008 GWOT Pending Request FY2009 GWOT (Bridge Request) Request P.L. 110-252 Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 Title IX Enacted Chapter1 FY2008 Supplemental Chapter2 FY2009 Bridge Funding FY2009 Supplemental Request H.R. 2346 S. 1054 Final and Demo 6.6 Management Supportb 54 6.7 Op. Systems Dev 2,121 379 Sec. 8003 general reduction Total Budget Auth.a 18 12 18 388d 699 621 714 388 810 722 886 34 201 33 844 923 919 ?c 2,948 379 1,745 GWOT-Related Other Defense Programs Defense Health Program Grand Total 365 2,948 379 <2,110 388 Sources: The figures for the Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-92) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2008 (P.L. 110-161) and the FY2008 GWOT Pending Request were taken from the Office of Secretary of Defense, FY2008 Global War on Terror Pending Request, Exhibits for FY2008, February 2008. FY2009 Supplemental figures from budget submission dated April 9, 2009 and H.Rept. 111-105. 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. c. Section 8003 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 included a general reduction of $3.6 billion to be applied proportionately to each of the following accounts: Procurement, RDT&E, and Defense Working Capital. RDT&E’s share is not calculated here. d. P.L. 110-252 does not designate which budget activity was supported. The table presumes the enacted amounts were for the same budget activity as requested. Congressional Research Service 16 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 Table 8. Department of Defense RDT&E Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (in millions of dollars) H.R. 1 (House) H.R. 1 (Senate) P.L. 111-5 Title IV by Account Army 87.5 75.0 Navy 87.5 75.0 Air Force 87.5 75.0 Defensewide 87.5 200..0 75.0 350.0 200.0 300.0 Dir. of Test and Eval. Total Title IV by Account Title IV by Budget Activity 6.1 Basic Research 6.2 Applied Research 6.3 Advanced Development 200.0 6.4 Advanced Component Development and Prototypes 6.5 Systems Dev. and Demo. 6.6 Management Support 6.7 Op. Systems Dev. Total Tile IV by Budget Activity 350.0 200.0 300.0 Sources: H.R. 1, S.Amdt. 570, S.Rept. 111-3, and H.Rept. 111-16. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested $1.449 billion for R&D and related programs in FY2009, an 8% increase from FY2008. This total included $869 million for the Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T), $564 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), and $16 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) in the U.S. Coast Guard. The House committee recommended a total of $1.447 billion.20 The Senate committee recommended a total of $1.476 billion. 21 The final appropriation was a total of $1.465 billion.22 For details, see Table 9. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) included no additional funding for R&D in DHS.23 20 21 CRS analysis of H.R. 6947 (110th Congress) as reported and H.Rept. 110-862. CRS analysis of S. 3181 (110th Congress) as reported and S.Rept. 110-396. 22 CRS analysis of P.L. 110-329, Division D, and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, September 24, 2008, pp. H9806-H9807. 23 The Senate bill as reported (S. 336) included $14 million for cyber security research. Congressional Research Service 17 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 The Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) is the primary DHS R&D organization. Headed by the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, the directorate performs R&D in several laboratories of its own and funds R&D performed by the national laboratories, industry, universities, and other government agencies. The FY2009 request for the S&T Directorate was 5% above the FY2008 appropriation. A proposed increase of $18 million for the Explosives program was to fund R&D on countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs), with an emphasis on basic research to complement shorter-term R&D being conducted by other agencies. A proposed increase of $43 million for the Laboratory Facilities program included $29 million for startup costs at the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) as well as $14 million for laboratory employee salaries previously budgeted in the Management and Administration account. A proposed $27 million reduction in the Infrastructure and Geophysical program was largely the result of reducing funding for local and regional initiatives previously established or funded at congressional direction. The House committee recommended a total of $887 million for S&T. Increases relative to the request included $11 million for the Infrastructure and Geophysical program to support the National Institute for Hometown Security; $5 million for Laboratory Facilities to accelerate ongoing construction activities at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL); $4 million to help develop an operational test and evaluation program for first responder technologies; $2 million for a pilot program to improve the productivity and efficiency of the homeland security industrial base; and $7 million for University Programs to support university centers of excellence and maintain the fellowship program at the FY2008 level. Decreases included $5 million for new maritime technologies “more appropriately handled by the Coast Guard” and $6 million for the Innovation program “due to a lack of budgetary details.” The committee directed DHS to provide a report on issues related to the S&T Directorate’s unobligated balances. The Senate committee recommended a total of $919 million for S&T. Increases relative to the request included $25 million for cyber security research in the Command, Control, and Interoperability program; $27 million for the Infrastructure and Geophysical program to continue the Southeast Region Research Initiative; and $15 million for the ongoing construction at PNNL. Decreases included $12 million for Innovation (because of the need for “sound business plans” based on “operational requirements”) and $4 million for Human Factors. The committee recommended that $5 million for the Homeland Security Institute be provided as a separate item, as it was in FY2008, rather than as part of the Transition program as the Administration requested. The final appropriation for S&T was $933 million. Relative to the request, this total included increases of $10 million for cyber security research, $11 million for the National Institute for Hometown Security, $27 million for the Southeast Region Research Initiative, $15 million for the ongoing construction at PNNL, and $6 million for University Programs. Decreases included $12 million from Innovation, because the DHS Inspector General “raised concerns about how projects were selected and managed” and because S&T took nine months to inform the committee how FY2008 funding would be spent. Funding for the Homeland Security Institute was provided as a separate line item. Among the issues facing Congress are the S&T Directorate’s priorities and how they are set, its relationships with other federal R&D organizations, its budgeting and financial management, and the allocation of its R&D resources to national laboratories, industry, and universities. The directorate announced five new university centers of excellence in February 2008. Some existing centers are expected to be terminated or merged over the next few years to align with the Congressional Research Service 18 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 directorate’s division structure. For more information, see CRS Report RL34356, The DHS Directorate of Science and Technology: Key Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) and (name r edacted). The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) is the primary DHS organization for combating the threat of nuclear attack. It is responsible for all DHS nuclear detection research, development, testing, evaluation, acquisition, and operational support. The FY2009 request for DNDO was a 16% increase from FY2008. Most of the growth was in the Systems Acquisition account, where an increase of $68 million for procurement of Advanced Spectroscopic Portals (ASPs) was partly offset by a decrease of $10 million for the Securing the Cities initiative in the New York City area. The House committee recommended a total of $544 million for DNDO. Changes relative to the request included reductions of $3 million for new headquarters employees, $1 million for a proposed fellowship program at the National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center, and $15 million for the Radiation Portal Monitoring Program. The House bill continued the prohibition on fullscale procurement of ASPs until the Secretary certifies their performance and would prohibit DNDO from engaging in high-risk concurrent development and production of mutually dependent software and hardware. The draft House report directed DNDO to conduct a risk assessment for radiological dispersal devices. The Senate committee recommended a total of $541 million for DNDO. The only change relative to the Administration request was a reduction of $23 million in the Radiation Portal Monitoring Program because of delays in the required certification of ASP performance. Like the House bill, the Senate bill continued the prohibition on full-scale procurement of ASPs and prohibit high-risk concurrent development and production. The Senate committee report urged DNDO to prioritize its programs based on risk and directed it to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (or another independent organization) to develop a conceptual framework for prioritizing defensive efforts relative to mitigation measures. The final appropriation for DNDO was $514 million. Reductions relative to the request included $10 million from new initiatives in Transformational R&D and $38 million from the Radiation Portal Monitoring Program due to development delays. Like the House and Senate bills, the final bill continued the prohibition on full-scale procurement of ASPs and prohibited high-risk concurrent development and production. Congressional attention has focused on the testing and analysis DNDO conducted to support its decision to purchase and deploy ASPs, a type of next-generation radiation portal monitor. The requirement for secretarial certification before full-scale ASP procurement has been included in each appropriations act since FY2007. The expected date for certification has been postponed several times; it is currently expected in mid-2009. For more information on the ASP program, see CRS Report RL34750, The Advanced Spectroscopic Portal Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted). The global nuclear detection architecture overseen by DNDO and the relative roles of DNDO and the S&T Directorate in research, development, testing, and evaluation also remain issues of congressional interest. For more information on the global nuclear detection architecture, see CRS Report RL34574, The Global Nuclear Detection Architecture: Issues for Congress, by (name redacted). (CRS Contact: (name redacted).) Congressional Research Service 19 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 Table 9. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs (in millions of dollars) FY2008 Enacted FY2009 Request FY2009 H. Cte. FY2009 S. Cte. FY2009 Final (P.L. 110329) Directorate of Science and Technology 830 869 887 919 933 Management and Administrationa 139 132 132 132 132 R&D, Acquisition, and Operations 692 737 755 787 800 Border and Maritime 25 35 30 35 33 Chemical and Biological 208 200 200 200 200 Command, Control, and Interoperability 57 62 62 87 75 Explosives 78 96 96 96 96 Human Factors 14 12 12 8 12 Infrastructure and Geophysical 64 38 49 65 76 Innovation 33 45 39 33 33 Laboratory Facilitiesa 104 147 152 162 162 Test and Evaluation, Standards 29 25 29 25 29 Transitionb 25 32 34 27 29 University Programs 49 44 51 44 50 Homeland Security Instituteb 5 — — 5 5 Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 485 564 544 541 514 Management and Administration 32 39 35 39 38 Research, Development, and Operations 324 334 333 334 323 Systems Engineering and Architecture 22 25 25 25 25 Systems Development 118 108 108 108 108 Transformational R&D 96 113 113 113 103 Assessments 38 32 32 32 32 Operations Support 34 38 38 38 38 National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center 15 18 17 18 17 130 191 176 168 153 Radiation Portal Monitoring Program 90 158 143 135 120 Securing the Cities 30 20 20 20 20 Human Portable Radiation 10 13 13 13 13 Systems Acquisition Congressional Research Service 20 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 FY2009 Final (P.L. 110329) FY2008 Enacted FY2009 Request FY2009 H. Cte. FY2009 S. Cte. 25 16 16 16 18 1,340 1,449 1,447 1,476 1,465 Detection Systems U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E TOTAL Sources: DHS FY2009 congressional budget justification; H.R. 6947 (110th Congress) as reported and H.Rept. 110-862; S. 3181 (110th Congress) as reported and S.Rept. 110-396; P.L. 110-329, Division D, and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, September 24, 2008, pp. H9806-H9807. Note: Totals may not add because of rounding. a. Funding for the salaries of DHS laboratory employees ($14 million in FY2008) was transferred from Management and Administration to Laboratory Facilities in the FY2009 request. b. For FY2008, Congress appropriated $5 million for the Homeland Security Institute as a separate line item. The FY2009 budget justification incorporated this amount into Transition. The FY2009 request for Transition included $5 million for the Homeland Security Institute. National Institutes of Health (NIH) The 111th Congress completed action on two pieces of legislation that provided FY2009 funding to NIH. The regular appropriations for the agency are part of Division F of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 1105, P.L. 111-8, March 11, 2009). Funding in the omnibus act for NIH totals $30.253 billion at the program level, which is $933 million (3.2%) above the comparable level for FY2008 (see Table 10). The increase is the largest NIH has received in the last six years. Emergency supplemental appropriations were provided in Division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), also called the economic stimulus bill (H.R. 1, P.L. 111-5, February 17, 2009). ARRA provided an additional $10.0 billion directly to NIH plus $400 million more through a transfer (see Table 11 and further discussion of the stimulus funding later in this section). The total funding from both laws for FY2009 amounts to $40.653 billion, an increase of $11.333 billion (38.7%) over FY2008. Unlike regular annual appropriations, ARRA funds are available for two years, through the end of FY2010. Regular appropriations are discussed first. President George W. Bush’s FY2009 request for $29.165 billion for NIH was about level with the original FY2008 amount. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161, December 26, 2007) had provided a total of $29.171 billion. Later, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252, enacted June 30, 2008) gave NIH an additional $150 million, bringing the FY2008 program level total to $29.321 billion, 1.0% above FY2007. The FY2009 request was $155 million below the FY2008 enacted program level (-0.5%). In Table 10, FY2008 amounts are shown with the supplemental appropriations. In the discussion below, however, most references are to FY2008 funding levels prior to the supplemental appropriations, since the FY2009 request and committee actions by the 110th Congress were based on the original FY2008 amounts. NIH’s funding comes primarily from the annual appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (Labor/HHS), with an additional amount for Superfund-related activities from the appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (Interior/Environment). Those two bills provide NIH’s discretionary budget authority. In addition, NIH receives $150 million annually Congressional Research Service 21 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 from separate legislation funding diabetes research, and $8.2 million from a transfer within the Public Health Service (PHS). NIH loses part of its appropriation to a transfer to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The transfer was about $100 million for several years, then increased to about $300 million in FY2008 and FY2009. In Table 10, the total funding available for NIH activities, taking account of add-ons and transfers, is called the program level. 24 In congressional action by the 110th Congress on the FY2009 request, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 3230 (S.Rept. 110-410) on July 8, 2008, recommending a program level total of $30.113 billion for NIH within the Labor/HHS appropriations bill. Although the committee did not take action on the FY2009 Interior/ Environment bill, funding of approximately $78 million for the NIH Superfund account might have been projected based on previous years. The NIH program level total recommended by the Senate committee would then have been about $30.191 billion, some $1.02 billion (3.5%) over the original FY2008 amount and $870 million (3.0%) over the revised FY2008 level. During the 110th Congress, the full House Appropriations Committee did not take final action on either its FY2009 Labor/HHS bill or its FY2009 Interior/Environment bill. On June 19, 2008, the House Labor/HHS subcommittee reported a draft bill to the full committee that recommended program level funding of $30.238 billion for NIH, $125 million more than the Senate committee amount. The total NIH program level, again assuming $78 million for the Superfund account, might have been projected at approximately $30.316 billion, some $1.145 billion (3.9%) over the original FY2008 total amount and $995 million (3.4%) over the revised FY2008 level. In this decade, the peak of NIH’s purchasing power was in FY2003, when Congress completed a five-year doubling of the NIH budget. Congress provided NIH with annual increases in the range of 14%-15% each year from FY1999 through FY2003. From FY2004 to FY2008, increases were between 1%-3% each year, except that the FY2006 total was a 0.3% decrease. In February 2008, President Bush requested no increase for NIH for FY2009, while the advocates in the research community recommended a 6.5% increase. The projected inflation rate for medical research prices was 3.5% for both FY2008 and FY2009 at that time. In inflation-adjusted terms (converting all amounts to constant 2008 dollars), the FY2008 funding level represented an estimated 10.7% decrease in purchasing power from the FY2003 peak, and the FY2009 request level was 14.1% below FY2003. Applying the same calculations to final FY2009 funding levels, the regular NIH appropriations provided in the omnibus act were 10.9% below the FY2003 level, and the total FY2009 funding level from the omnibus plus the stimulus represented a 19.7% increase over the FY2003 level. 25 The agency’s organization consists of the Office of the NIH Director and 27 institutes and centers. The Office of the Director (OD) sets overall policy for NIH and coordinates the programs and activities of all NIH components, particularly in areas of research that involve multiple institutes. The institutes and centers (collectively called ICs) focus on particular diseases, areas of human health and development, or aspects of research support. Each IC plans and manages its 24 The “NIH program level” cited in the Bush Administration’s FY2009 budget documents does not reflect the Global Fund transfer. 25 Updated estimates for the medical research inflation rate have since been provided by NIH, with the figure for FY2008 now estimated at 4.4% and the projection for FY2009 at 3.8%. See National Institutes of Health, Biomedical Research and Development Price Index: Fiscal Year 2008 Update and Projections for FY 2009-FY 2014, Bethesda, MD, February 3, 2009. http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/UI/2009/BRDPI_Proj_Feb_2009_final.pdf. Congressional Research Service 22 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 own research programs in coordination with the Office of the Director. As shown in Table 10, 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.) President Bush’s FY2009 budget proposal gave most of the institutes and centers approximately level funding from their original FY2008 amounts, requesting increases of 0.1% or 0.2%. President Bush requested increases greater than 0.5% only for the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR, 1.0%) and the National Library of Medicine (NLM, 0.8%). The Senate Appropriations Committee and the House Labor/HHS Appropriations Subcommittee recommended increases of about 3% and 3.5%, respectively, for most of the ICs compared to the original FY2008 levels. Funding in the omnibus act provided increases of nearly 3% for most of the ICs, with some exceptions. NCRR received a $72 million (6.3%) increase, mostly for clinical research training. NLM was increased 2.4%, the environmental health institute increased 1.7%, and the genome research institute decreased by 0.6%. The two biggest changes proposed in the request were a 5.6% increase in the Buildings and Facilities (B&F) account, and a 4.7% drop in funding for 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 $126 million for Buildings and Facilities, an increase of $7 million. The House subcommittee agreed with that amount, while the Senate committee recommended $147 million, an increase of $28 million (23%). Final funding in the omnibus was at the requested level of $126 million, a 5.6% increase over FY2008. As discussed later, however, the stimulus bill provided supplemental funding of $500 million for NIH B&F activities. In the request, the net $52 million drop in the OD account, from $1,109 million in FY2008 to $1,057 million, represented the proposed cancellation of a study combined with increases for several other OD activities. The National Children’s Study was funded at $111 million in FY2008. It is a long-term (25+ year), multi-agency environmental health study that was mandated by the Children’s Health Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-310). The overall projected cost for the whole study is about $2.7 billion. Starting with the FY2007 request, when the study moved from the planning phase to the more costly implementation phase, the Bush Administration proposed each year to end its funding. Congress has continued to support the study. Both committees and the final language in the omnibus appropriations act included FY2009 funding of up to $192 million for the study, an increase of $81 million (73%). President Bush proposed increases within the OD account totaling $59 million, including a $38 million increase (7.7%) for the NIH Roadmap initiatives funded through the Common Fund. The NIH Roadmap for Medical Research is a set of trans-NIH research activities designed to support high-risk/high-impact research in emerging areas of science or public health priorities. For FY2009, President Bush requested $534 million for the Roadmap/Common Fund, up from $496 million in FY2008. In S. 3230, the Senate committee recommended $568 million for the Common Fund (a $73 million increase), and boosted overall funding for the OD account to $1,275 million, an increase of $166 million (15%). In its draft bill, the House subcommittee recommended $544 million for the Common Fund (a $49 million increase) within overall funding of $1,255 million for the OD account, an increase of $146 million (13%). The final amounts in the omnibus were higher than the request but lower than either committee allowance: $1,247 Congressional Research Service 23 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 million for OD overall, an increase of $135 million (12.2%), and $541 million for the Common Fund, an increase of $46 million (9.2%). The other major increase in the request for OD was an additional $19 million (19.9%) for research on medical countermeasures against nuclear, radiological, and chemical threats, increasing that program to $113 million from $94 million in FY2008. That was the only significant increase for NIH’s biodefense portfolio, which totaled $1,748 million in the FY2009 request (up 1.2%). The House subcommittee included $100 million for countermeasures research, the Senate committee did not discuss it, and the explanatory statement accompanying the omnibus bill indicated the research was funded at $97 million. NIH has two major concerns in the face of the tight budgets it has experienced for several years: maintaining support of investigator-initiated research through research project grants, and expanding the supply of new investigators. Total funding for research project grants (RPGs), at $15.5 billion in the FY2009 request, represents about 53% of NIH’s budget. The FY2009 request proposed to support an estimated 38,257 awards, about the same number as projected in FY2008 before the supplemental. Within that total, 9,757 awards would have been competing RPGs, 14 fewer than in FY2008. (“Competing” awards means new grants plus competing renewals of existing grants.) The Senate committee estimated that its funding level would have supported 10,471 competing RPGs, while the House subcommittee level would have supported 10,812. The explanatory statement on the omnibus offered no comparable estimates. The request proposed that no inflationary increases be paid for noncompeting (continuation) RPGs, and that the average annual cost of competing RPGs remain at the FY2008 level, about $361,000. The House subcommittee and the omnibus explanatory statement included an average 2% increase for both new and continuing grants; the Senate report did not specify average costs. Under the request, the expected “success rate” of applications receiving funding would have declined to about 18% from the estimated rate of 19% for FY2008 (pre-supplemental). Estimated success rates for the various ICs would have ranged from 8% to 26%. The appropriators did not comment on expectations for success rates. Funding from the stimulus should allow an improvement in the rates, but much of that funding will be concentrated on short-term projects. Several NIH efforts are focused on supporting new investigators to encourage young scientists to undertake careers in research and to help them speed their transition from training to independent research. The request proposed that the Pathway to Independence program support approximately 500 awardees, including 170 new awards, for a total of $71 million. The request proposed an increase of $5 million (0.6%) to $786 million for regular training mechanisms such as the National Research Service Awards, including stipend increases of 1% for both pre- and postdoctoral fellows. Clinical research training, including the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs), would have been funded at a total of $475 million. The request proposed to support about 25 New Innovator Awards for a total of $56 million in the Common Fund. The NIH Director’s Bridge Award is a program that can give short-term funding to established, meritorious investigators who have just missed the funding cutoff for a renewal application and who have little other support, giving them time to resubmit without disrupting the operation of their laboratory. The request included $91 million for 244 awards, an increase of $1.6 million. In 110th Congress action, both the Senate committee and the House subcommittee specifically mentioned support for most of these initiatives, as well as others; both included funding increases beyond the request for the New Innovator Awards. The explanatory statement on the omnibus appropriations mentioned the following specific amounts: $35 million for Transformative Research Project Grants, $80 million through the Common Fund for New Innovators Awards, $41 million through the Common Fund for the Director’s Pioneer Awards, and $24 million for the rare and neglected Congressional Research Service 24 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 diseases initiative. The CTSA program received $475 million, $53 million from the Common Fund, and $422 million from NCRR. Changes proposed in the request for other funding mechanisms within the NIH budget included increased support for research centers, up $20 million to $2,963 million; a $33 million increase to $3,275 million for R&D contracts, including $5 million additional for the Global HIV/AIDS Fund; $50 million more for the NIH intramural research program, for a total of $3,119 million; an increase of $20 million to a total of $1,361 million for research management and support; and a decrease of $23 million for other research grants totaling $1,786 million. NIH and three of the other Public Health Service agencies within HHS are subject to a budget “tap” called the PHS Program Evaluation Set-Aside. Section 241 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. § 238j) authorizes the Secretary to use a portion of eligible appropriations to assess the effectiveness of federal health programs and to identify ways to improve them. The tap has the effect of redistributing appropriated funds among PHS and other HHS agencies. The FY2009 appropriation kept the tap at 2.4%, the same as in FY2008. NIH, with the largest budget among the PHS agencies, becomes the largest “donor” of program evaluation funds, and is a relatively minor recipient. By convention, budget tables such as Table 10 do not subtract the amount of the evaluation tap, or of other taps within HHS, from the agencies’ appropriations. For further information on the Evaluation Set-Aside, see CRS Report RL34098, Public Health Service (PHS) Agencies: Background and Funding, coordinated by (name redacted). As mentioned earlier, in addition to the FY2009 regular appropriations, the 111th Congress provided emergency FY2009 supplemental appropriations for NIH in the economic stimulus legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The appropriations will be available for spending over two years and thus will supplement NIH’s regular appropriations for FY2009 and FY2010. NIH says that it expects to spend as much as possible in FY2009. Table 11 compares the NIH-related funding provided in the ARRA conference report (H.Rept. 111-16) with the recommendations in the House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 1. ARRA added significant funding to several NIH accounts for biomedical research and research facilities, providing a total of $10 billion. In addition, the law appropriated funds to the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research (AHRQ) for comparative effectiveness research, of which $400 million was designated for transfer to NIH. Of the $10 billion, the law provided $8.2 billion to the Office of the Director for support of NIH extramural and intramural research. Most of that funding, $7.4 billion, is for transfer to the ICs and the Common Fund in proportion to their regular appropriations. The remaining $800 million is available for use at the Director’s discretion, with an emphasis on short-term (two-year) projects, including $400 million that may be used under the Director’s flexible research authority to implement Roadmap projects. Also included in the $10 billion total was $1 billion to the National Centers for Research Resources for grants to construct and renovate university research facilities, as well as $300 million to NCRR for grants for shared instrumentation and other capital research equipment at extramural research facilities. Finally, ARRA added $500 million to the B&F account to construct, repair, and improve NIH intramural facilities. Congressional Research Service 25 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 NIH’s plans for the ARRA funding are being tracked on the NIH Recovery website.26 On a page about current grant funding opportunities, NIH says: “While NIH Institutes and Centers have broad flexibility to invest in many types of grant programs, they will follow the spirit of the ARRA by funding projects that will stimulate the economy, create or retain jobs, and have the potential for making scientific progress in 2 years.”27 They expect to focus activities on funding new and recently peer reviewed, highly meritorious research grant applications that can be accomplished in two years or less; giving targeted supplemental awards to current grants to push research forward; and supporting a new initiative called the NIH Challenge Grants in Health and Science Research (at least $200 million to fund 200 or more grants) for research on specific topics that would benefit from significant two-year jumpstart funds. Announcements soliciting applications for the NCRR construction/renovation grants and the instrumentation grants have also been posted. At the end of the 109th Congress, the House and Senate agreed on the first NIH reauthorization statute enacted since 1993, the NIH Reform Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-482). The law made managerial and organizational changes in NIH, focusing on enhancing the authority and tools for the NIH Director to do strategic planning, especially to facilitate and fund cross-institute research initiatives. 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. The authorization expires at the end of FY2009. Oversight hearings on the implementation of the Reform Act are anticipated. For further information on NIH, see CRS Report RL33695, The National Institutes of Health (NIH): Organization, Funding, and Congressional Issues, by (name r edacted). (CRS Contact: Pamela Smith.) Table 10. National Institutes of Health (in millions of dollars) FY2008 comparablea FY2009 request FY2009 House Subcomm. FY2009 Senate Comm. FY2009 Omnibus (P.L. 111-8) Cancer (NCI) 4,828 4,810 4,975 4,959 4,969 Heart, Lung, and Blood (NHLBI) 2,937 2,925 3,026 3,006 3,016 392 391 404 401 403 Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) 1,713 1,708 1,767 1,756 1,761 Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) 1,550 1,545 1,599 1,588 1,593 Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)b 4,581 4,569 4,716 4,689 4,703 General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) 1,943 1,938 2,004 1,992 1,998 Child Health and Human 1,259 1,256 1,299 1,291 1,295 Institutes and Centers (ICs) Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) 26 NIH and the ARRA, http://www.nih.gov/recovery/. Grant Funding Opportunities Supported by the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), http://grants.nih.gov/recovery/. 27 Congressional Research Service 26 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 FY2008 comparablea FY2009 request FY2009 House Subcomm. FY2009 Senate Comm. FY2009 Omnibus (P.L. 111-8) Eye (NEI) 670 668 691 687 688 Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) 652 643 665 661 663 1,051 1,048 1,084 1,077 1,081 Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) 510 509 527 523 525 Deafness and Communication Disorders (NIDCD) 396 395 409 406 407 Nursing Research (NINR) 138 138 142 141 142 Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) 438 437 452 449 450 Drug Abuse (NIDA) 1,007 1,002 1,036 1,030 1,033 Mental Health (NIMH)c 1,415 1,407 1,455 1,446 1,450 Human Genome Research (NHGRI) 505 488 505 501 502 Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) 300 300 311 307 308 Research Resources (NCRR) 1,154 1,160 1,200 1,193 1,226 Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) 122 122 126 125 125 Minority Health and Health Disparities (NCMHD) 200 200 207 205 206 Fogarty International Center (FIC) 67 67 69 69 69 National Library of Medicine (NLM) 323 323 332 330 331 Office of Director (OD) 1,112 1,057 1,255 1,275 1,247 Common Fund (non-add) (496) (534) (544) (568) (541) Buildings & Facilities (B&F) 119 126 126 147 126 Subtotal, Labor/HHS Appropriation 29,380 29,230 30,380 30,255 30,317 Superfund (Interior appropriation to NIEHS)d 78 78 78d 78d 78 29,457 29,307 30,458e 30,333e 30,395 Pre-appropriated Type 1 diabetes fundsf 150 150 150 150 150 PHS Evaluation Tap fundingg 8 8 8 8 8 -295 -300 -300 -300 -300 Institutes and Centers (ICs) Development (NICHD) Aging (NIA) Total, NIH discretionary budget authority Global Fund transfer (AIDS/TB/Malaria)b Congressional Research Service 27 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 Institutes and Centers (ICs) FY2008 comparablea FY2009 request FY2009 House Subcomm. FY2009 Senate Comm. FY2009 Omnibus (P.L. 111-8) Total, NIH program level 29,321 29,165 30,316e 30,191e 30,253 Sources: Adapted by CRS from congressional tables. FY2008, FY2009 request, and FY2009 Omnibus amounts are from the tables in the Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (see Congressional Record, Feb. 23, 2009, pp. H2379-H2381 for the Labor/HHS table and p. H2158 for the Interior/Environment table). FY2009 House and Senate amounts are from a House Appropriations Committee table dated June 23, 2008, reflecting Labor/HHS subcommittee action on the draft bill, and S.Rept. 110-410 reflecting the committee-reported bill (S. 3230). Details may not add to totals due to rounding. a. FY2008 appropriations were provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161, Division G, enacted December 26, 2007), with an additional $150 million from the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252, June 30, 2008). Reflects transfers among ICs. b. NIAID totals include funds for transfer to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria. c. FY2008 NIMH includes $0.983 million from Office of the Secretary to administer the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. d. Separate account in the Interior/Environment appropriations for NIEHS research activities related to Superfund. In the 110th Congress, neither the Senate nor the House Appropriations Committees took action on the FY2009 Interior/Environment bills. The $78 million figure is an estimated amount based on previous years. e. These totals include the estimated $78 million for Superfund-related activities. f. Funds available to NIDDK for diabetes research under PHS Act § 330B (authorized by P.L. 106-554, P.L. 107-360, and P.L. 110-173). g. Additional funds for NLM from PHS Evaluation Set-Aside (§ 241 of PHS Act). Table 11. Funding for NIH in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (in millions of dollars) Purpose Biomedical Research (appropriated to Office of the NIH Director) House Senate Enacted 1,500 9,200 8,200 Congressional Research Service Description The conference agreement provides $8.2 billion to the Office of the Director for support of additional scientific research (extramural and intramural). The funds are not subject to small business set-aside requirements. Of the total, $7.4 billion is to be transferred to the Institutes and Centers of NIH and to the Common Fund in proportion to regular appropriations (certain accounts are not eligible for these funds). The remaining $800 million is available at the Director’s discretion, with an emphasis on shortterm (2-year) projects, including $400 million that may be used under the Director's flexible research authority. The House bill provided $1.5 billion, all for transfer proportionally to the Institutes, Centers, and Common Fund, with half for FY2009 and half for FY2010. The Senate version provided $9.2 billion, with $7.85 billion for proportional transfer and $1.35 billion for the Director's discretionary use. 28 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 Purpose House Senate Enacted Description Biomedical/Behavioral Research Facilities (Extramural) (appropriated to National Center for Research Resources) 1,500 300 1,300 The conference agreement provides $1.3 billion to NCRR, of which $1 billion is for competitive grants and contracts under PHS Act Sec. 481A to construct, renovate, or repair existing non-federal research facilities. It waives various requirements for matching funds, support of primate research centers, and required time for future use of the research facility. It also permits use of $300 million for shared instrumentation and other capital research equipment. The House bill provided $1.5 billion for awards to renovate or repair existing facilities, and permitted use of funds for shared instrumentation and other capital research equipment. The Senate version provided funds only for shared instrumentation and other capital research equipment. NIH Buildings and Facilities (Intramural) 500 500 500 The conference agreement provides $500 million for high-priority repair, construction, and improvement projects for NIH facilities on the Bethesda, MD campus and other agency locations, as provided in the Senate bill. The House and Senate bills both provided the same amount, but the House bill allowed funding only for repair and improvement projects. Total to NIH accounts 3,500 10,000 10,000 Comparative Effectiveness Research (transfer from AHRQ) (400) (400) (400) The conference agreement provides $700 million to AHRQ for comparative effectiveness research, of which $400 million is to be transferred to NIH for the same purpose. Funds transferred to NIH may be allocated to the Institutes, Centers, and Common Fund. The House and Senate bills both provided the same amount of funding. Sources: Adapted from CRS Report R40181, Selected Health Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, coordinated by (name redacted). Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service, using (i) the text of H.R. 1, as passed by the House on January 28, 2009, (ii) the text of S.Amdt. 570 to H.R. 1, as passed by the Senate on February 10, 2009, and (iii) the text of the conference report (H.Rept. 111-16). Department of Energy (DOE) The Bush Administration requested $10.535 billion for Department of Energy (DOE) R&D in FY2009, including activities in three major categories: science, national security, and energy. This request was 6% above the FY2008 appropriation. The House committee recommended $10.903 billion. The Senate committee recommended $11.010 billion. The final appropriation was $10.905 billion. See Table 12 for details. The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A of P.L. 110-329) provided funding for continuing DOE activities at the FY2008 rate through March 6, 2009; this was extended to March 11, 2009, by P.L. 111-6. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included at least an additional $6.4 billion for R&D and related programs as passed by the House, at least an additional $7.578 billion as passed by the Senate, and at least an additional $7.9 billion as enacted. See Table 13 for details. Congressional Research Service 29 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 The request for the DOE Office of Science was $4.722 billion, a 19% increase from FY2008. This unusually large 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. 28 Congress set even faster growth targets in the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69), establishing authorization levels that would double R&D funding for these agencies in seven years. The percentage increase in the Bush Administration’s FY2009 request for the Office of Science was higher than what would be required on an annual basis to reach the ACI doubling target. This was also the case in FY2007 and FY2008, but although the House and Senate bills for those years would have provided increases even relative to the request, the final appropriations were lower than the ACI amount. For FY2009, the House committee recommended $140 million more than the request, while the Senate committee recommended $82 million less than the request. The final appropriation was $4.758 billion, plus $15 million for the organizationally separate Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E). 29 Within the Office of Science, the request for basic energy sciences included increases of $153 million for a new program of Energy Frontier Research Centers, $66 million for construction of the National Synchrotron Light Source II, and $73 million to increase operating time at existing facilities. The Senate committee recommended reducing basic energy sciences by $153 million below the request; $59 million of that amount represented solar energy R&D activities transferred to another account; the remainder of the reduction was not specified. The requested 17% increase for high energy physics was mostly for programs cut in the final FY2008 appropriation that were funded in the House and Senate bills for that year.30 The requested 72% increase for fusion energy sciences was to fund the U.S. contribution to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), which was eliminated in the final FY2008 appropriation, again despite support in the House and Senate bills for that year. The estimated cost of ITER is between $1.45 and $2.2 billion with a completion date between FY2014 and FY2017.31 The House and Senate committees recommended the requested amount for ITER. The final appropriation for fusion energy sciences included $90 million less than the request for ITER and no funding for National Compact Stellarator Experiment (NCSX) project, which is currently under construction at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. The final appropriation for biological and environmental research included increases of $23 million for climate change research and $10 million for nuclear medicine. The requested funding for DOE national security R&D was $3.132 billion, a 2% decrease. Proposed increases included $53 million for the naval reactors program, mostly to support processing and storage of spent nuclear fuel, and $10 million for the reliable replacement 28 The February 2006 White House document American Competitiveness Initiative: Leading the World in Innovation states that “ACI doubles total research fund; individual agency allocations remain to be determined.” The three ACI agencies may individually receive more or less than the amount required to double their separate FY2006 levels. 29 ARPA-E was authorized by the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) but has not previously been funded. For more information see CRS Report RL34497, Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E): Background, Status, and Selected Issues for Congress, by (name redacted). 30 In response to these cuts, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252) provided $62.5 million in supplemental FY2008 funding for the DOE Office of Science. 31 Some press reports suggest that the cost of ITER may be higher than previously expected because of recent design changes and the increased cost of raw materials. See, for example, Ian Sample, “ITER: Flagship Fusion Reactor Could Cost Twice as Much as Budgeted,” The Guardian, January 29, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/29/ nuclear-fusion-power-iter-funding. Congressional Research Service 30 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 warhead program, which Congress zeroed in the FY2008 appropriation. The major proposed decrease was $79 million for proliferation detection R&D, a program that Congress increased in FY2008. The House committee recommended a total of $3.052 billion, while the Senate committee recommended $3.252 billion. Neither committee recommended any funding for the reliable replacement warhead program, and the Senate committee recommended restoring $75 million of the requested decrease for nonproliferation and verification R&D. In the Weapons Activities account, the House committee recommended an increase of $87 million for inertial confinement fusion and a decrease of $66 million for advanced simulation and computing. The final appropriation of $3.209 billion included no funds for the reliable replacement warhead program, $89 million more than the request for nonproliferation and verification R&D, $16 million more than the request for inertial confinement fusion, and $4 million less than the request for advanced simulation and computing. The request for DOE energy R&D was $2.681 billion, down 2% from FY2008. Within this total, R&D on nuclear energy and coal was to increase, while hydrogen R&D was to decrease and gas and oil technology programs were to be terminated (as also proposed, unsuccessfully, in other recent years). Most of the requested 17% decrease for energy efficiency and renewable energy resulted from the omission of $186 million in FY2008 congressionally directed projects. The requested 44% increase for nuclear energy R&D was mostly for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI). The House and Senate committees and the final bill all recommended substantial increases in energy R&D, particularly in energy efficiency and renewable energy, but decreases in nuclear energy. They all recommended funding the gas and oil technology programs at approximately the FY2008 level and provided less than the request for the AFCI. Table 12. Department of Energy R&D and Related Programs (Regular Appropriations) (in millions of dollars) FY2008 FY2009 Request FY2009 H. Cte. FY2009 S. Cte. FY2009 Final (P.L. 111-8) $3,973 $4,722 $4,862 $4,640 $4,773 Basic Energy Sciences 1,270 1,568 1,600 1,415 1,572 High Energy Physics 689 805 805 805 796 Biological and Environmental Research 544 569 579 599 602 Nuclear Physics 433 510 517 510 512 Fusion Energy Sciences 287 493 499 493 403 Advanced Scientific Computing Research 351 369 379 369 369 Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy — — 15 — 15 Other 399 408 468 449 504 3,199 3,132 3,052 3,252 3,209 2,016 1,996 1,916 2,051 1,985 Naval Reactors 775 828 828 828 828 Nonproliferation and Verification R&D 387 275 276 350 364 Defense Environmental Cleanup TD&D 21 32 32 22 32 Science National Security Weapons Activitiesa Congressional Research Service 31 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 FY2008 FY2009 Request FY2009 H. Cte. FY2009 S. Cte. FY2009 Final (P.L. 111-8) 2,730 2,681 2,989 3,118 2,923 1,440 1,197 1,567 1,542 1,447 Fossil Energy R&D 743 754 854 877 876 Nuclear Energy R&Dc 438 630 464 566 515 Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability R&D 110 100 105 133 85 9,903 10,535 10,903 11,010 10,905 Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energyb Total Sources: DOE FY2009 congressional budget justification; H.R. 7324 (110th Congress) as reported and H.Rept. 110-921; S. 3258 (110th Congress) as reported and S.Rept. 110-416; P.L. 111-8 and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, February 23, 2009. a. Includes Stockpile Services R&D Support, Stockpile Services R&D Certification and Safety, Reliable Replacement Warhead, Science Campaigns, Engineering Campaigns except Enhanced Surety and Enhanced Surveillance, Inertial Confinement Fusion, Advanced Simulation and Computing, and a prorated share of Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities. Additional R&D activities may take place in the subprograms of Directed Stockpile Work that are devoted to specific weapon systems, but these funds are not included in the table because detailed funding schedules for those subprograms are classified. b. Excludes Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities. c. Includes Integrated University Program, Nuclear Power 2010, Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative, Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, and Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI). Note that AFCI funding appears in the Fuel Cycle Research and Facilities line item in FY2008 and the FY2009 House report, but in the Research and Development line item in the FY2009 request, the FY2009 Senate report, and the FY2009 final explanatory statement. The House-passed version of H.R. 1 included at least an additional $6.4 billion for DOE R&D and related programs: $2 billion for Science, of which not less than $100 million was for advanced scientific computing research and not less than $400 million was for ARPA-E; $2 billion for R&D on energy efficiency and renewable energy, of which not less than $800 million was for biomass energy and not less than $400 million was for geothermal energy; and $2.4 billion for fossil energy projects demonstrating carbon capture and sequestration. The Senatepassed version included at least an additional $7.578 billion: $330 million for the Office of Science; $2.648 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D; and $4.6 billion for fossil energy R&D. The enacted version included $400 million for ARPA-E; $1.6 billion for the Office of Science programs; $2.5 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy, of which $800 million was for biomass energy and $400 million was for geothermal energy; and $3.4 billion for fossil energy R&D. Funding provided for weapons activities, defense environmental cleanup, and electricity delivery and energy reliability may also include an unspecified amount of R&D. A significant portion of the fossil energy funding is likely to be allocated to demonstration activities that not all observers would consider R&D.32 (CRS Contact: (name redacted).) 32 The joint explanatory statement designated $1 billion of the enacted $3.4 billion for the Fossil Energy R&D program as being specifically for research and development. The House and Senate bills did not specify the R&D portion of the funds they provided under this heading. Congressional Research Service 32 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 Table 13. Department of Energy R&D and Related Programs (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) (in millions of dollars) H.R. 1 (House) H.R. 1 (Senate) P.L. 111-5 $2,000 $330 $2,000 Advanced Scientific Computing Research ≥ 100 — — Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy ≥ 400 — 400 4,400 7,248 5,900 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 2,000 2,648 2,500 Fossil Energy R&D (see footnote 32) 2,400 4,600 3,400 6,400 7,578 7,900 Science Energy Total Sources: H.R. 1 as passed by the House, as passed by the Senate, and as enacted. The symbol ≥ indicates “not less than.” National Science Foundation (NSF) The FY2009 request for the National Science Foundation (NSF) was $6.854 billion, a 13.0% increase ($789.1 million) over the FY2008 estimate of $6.065 billion (see Table 14). President Bush proposed doubling the NSF budget over 10 years, from FY2007 to FY2016, as part of his American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). The FY2009 request represented another installment toward that doubling effort. In August 2008, Congress passed the America COMPETES Act which authorizes funding for NSF for FY2008 through FY2010 at a pace that would more than double the agency’s funding in seven years. NSF identified several strategies in the FY2009 budget request: to maintain a portfolio with “powerful momentum” across all disciplines; to build a world-class science and engineering workforce; to perform effectively with the highest standards of accountability; and to support potentially transformative research. The NSF Director describes transformative research as “a range of endeavors, which promise extraordinary outcomes; such as, revolutionizing entire disciplines, creating entirely new fields, or disrupting accepted theories and perspective.”33 Several reports have recommended that funds be allocated specifically for this type of research. NSF contends that in the global environment of science and engineering, support for transformative, high-risk, high-reward research is critical to U.S. competitiveness. These strategies paralleled some of the goals contained in President Bush’s ACI, and are designed to promote research that will drive innovation and support the design and development of world-class facilities, instrumentation, and infrastructure. Included in the FY2009 request was $5.594 billion for Research and Related Activities (R&RA), a 16.0% increase ($772.5 million) above the FY2008 estimate of $4.822 billion. R&RA funds research projects, research facilities, and education and training activities. The scientific and academic communities have voiced concerns about the imbalance between support for the life sciences and the physical sciences. Research is multidisciplinary and transformational in nature, 33 Bement, Jr., Arden L., Director, National Science Foundation, “Transformative Research: The Artistry and Alchemy of the 21st Century,” remarks, Texas Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science Fourth Annual Conference, Austin, Texas, January 4, 2007. http://www.nsf.gov/news/speeches/bement/07/alb070104_texas.jsp. Congressional Research Service 33 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 and very often, discoveries in the physical sciences lead to advances in other disciplines. The America COMPETES ACT authorizes increased federal research support in the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering. The FY2009 request provided a 20.2% increase for the Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) directorate. The MPS portfolio supports investments in fundamental research, facilities, and instruments, and provides approximately 44.0% of the federal funding for basic research in mathematics and physical sciences conducted at colleges and universities. R&RA includes Integrative Activities (IA), a cross-disciplinary research and education program, and is a source of funding for the acquisition and development of research instrumentation at institutions. The FY2009 request provided $276.0 million for IA. The IA also funds Partnerships for Innovation, disaster research teams, and the Science and Technology Policy Institute. In FY2008, support for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) was transferred from the Education and Human Resources Directorate (EHR) to IA. NSF’s FY2009 request for EPSCoR was $113.5 million, which is a part of the total IA funding request. The FY2009 request would support a portfolio of three complementary strategies—research infrastructure, co-funding, and outreach—for the 27 EPSCoR jurisdictions. Approximately 67.0% of the funding for EPSCoR would be used for a combination of new awards and research infrastructure improvement grants. The balance of funding would support co-funding (31.7%) and outreach activities (1.7%). 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. The Administration had requested $47.4 million for the Office of International Science and Engineering (OISE). The OISE manages NSF’s offices in Beijing, Paris, and Tokyo that report on and analyze in-country and regional science and technology policies and developments. The OISE serves as a liaison with research institutes and foreign agencies, and facilitates coordination and implementation of NSF research and education efforts. The Office of Polar Programs (OPP) is funded in the R&RA. The FY2009 request for addressing the challenges in polar research was $491.0 million. NSF continues in its leadership role in planning U.S. participation in observance of the International Polar Year, 2007-2009.34 The NSF also serves in a leadership capacity for several international research partnerships in the Arctic and Antarctic. Increases in OPP in FY2009 are 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. In FY2006, responsibility for funding the operational costs of three icebreakers that support scientific research in the polar regions was transferred from the U.S. Coast Guard to the NSF.35 NSF is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and staffing of the vessels. Beginning in FY2009, one of the icebreakers was to be in drydock. To meet the need for back-up icebreaking services, the FY2009 request included an additional $9.0 million for contracting of other vessels. NSF supported several interagency R&D priorities in the FY2009 request. It is a lead agency in the U.S. nanotechnology research effort, accounting for $396.8 million of the National Nanotechnology Initiative’s $1.53 billion FY2009 request. Funding would support research in emerging areas of nanoscale science and technology such as new drug delivery systems, 34 International Polar Year runs from March 2007 through March 2009. Sponsors say that a two-year period was selected to provide equal coverage of both the Arctic and Antarctic. 35 For expanded discussion of the icebreakers see for example CRS Report RL34391, Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke. Congressional Research Service 34 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009 advanced materials, more powerful computer chips. Support would be directed also at research and education in the environmental, health, and safety impacts of nanotechnology. NSF’s other interagency priorities included funding for the Climate Change Science Program ($220.6 million), Homeland Security ($379.2 million), Networking and Information Technology R&D ($1,090.3 million), and Climate Change Technology Program ($23.5 million). The NSF supports a variety of individual centers and center programs. The FY2009 request provided $76.0 million for Science and Technology Centers, $53.6 million for Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers, $53.6 million for Engineering Research Centers, $44.6 million for Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers, $15.0 million for Science of Learning Centers, $20.0 million for Centers for Chemical Innovation, and $18.4 million for Centers for Analysis and Synthesis. The FY2009 request for the EHR Directorate was $790.4 million, $64.8 million (8.9%) above the FY2008 estimate. The EHR portfolio is focused on, among other things, increasing the technological literacy of all citizens; preparing the next generation of science, engineering, and mathematics professionals; and closing the achievement gap of underrepresented groups in all scientific fields. Support at the various educational levels in the FY2009 request was as follows: research on learning in formal and informal settings (including precollege), $226.5 million; undergraduate, $219.8 million; and graduate, $190.7 million. Priorities at the precollege level included research and evaluation on education in science and engineering ($42.0 million), informal science education ($66.0 million), and Discovery Research K-12 ($108.5 million). Discovery Research is structured to combine the strengths of three existing programs and encourage innovative thinking in K-12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. According to NSF, programs at the undergraduate level are designed to “create leverage for institutional change.” Priorities at the undergraduate level included the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program ($11.6 million); Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement ($39.2 million); STEM Talent Expansion Program ($29. [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL34448. Public record. Not legal advice.