Order Code RL34048
Federal Research and Development
Funding: FY2008
Updated July 26, 2007
Michael E. Davey (Coordinator)
Christine M. Matthews, John D. Moteff, Daniel Morgan,
Robert Esworthy, and Wendy H. Schacht
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Pamela W. Smith
Domestic Social Policy Division
Wayne A. Morrissey
Knowledge Services Group

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
Summary
The Bush Administration has requested $142.7 billion in federal research and
development (R&D) funding for FY2008.As in the recent past, the FY2008 proposed
increase over the FY2007 funding level is due to significant funding increases in the
Department of Defense (DOD); the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s
(NASA’s) space vehicles development program; and the continuation of the
American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). The President initiated the ACI in
FY2007 and continues to promote it in his FY2008 R&D budget.
While the ACI is likely to be well received by lawmakers, other administration
proposals for agency R&D funding are likely to encounter strong opposition in
Congress. For example, the administration’s proposed budget for the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) is $28.5 billion, a decrease of $529 million (1.8%) below
the estimated 2007 funding level. This proposed level represents the fifth year in a
row the administration has proposed cutting NIH’s budget.
While NASA’s R&D budget would increase in FY2008, the entire increase is
designated for two major initiatives: finishing the international space station and
developing the crew launch vehicle/crew exploration vehicle combination. However,
as a result of these priorities, funding for NASA’s basic and applied research
programs has declined 18% since FY2006.
Funding for the Department of Defense is proposed to increase by $765 million
to $79 billion in FY2008. DOD’s weapons development program would increase to
an all time high of $68.1 billion. However, DOD’s science and technology research
programs, which include medical research and technology development, would
decline 21.1% to $10.9 billion dollars, which would negate seven years of past
funding increases.
R&D funding for the U.S. Geological Survey, the lead science agency for the
Department of the Interior is proposed to decline 4% in FY2008. The Environmental
Protection Agency’s R&D budget is proposed to be cut 3.2% from its estimated
FY2007 funding level. As a result, according to the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, funding for EPA’s R&D budget would fall to its lowest
level in two decades, in constant FY2007 dollars.

---

Contents
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Department of Energy (DOE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Department of Defense (DOD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
National Institutes of Health (NIH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
National Science Foundation (NSF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Department of Agriculture (USDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Department of Commerce (DOC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) . . . . . . . . . . 26
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Department of Transportation (DOT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Department of the Interior (DOI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
List of Tables
Table 1. Department of Energy R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Department of Defense RDT&E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 3. Department of Defense RDT&E, FY2007 Emergency Supplemental . . 8
Table 4. NASA R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 5. National Institutes of Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 6. National Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 7. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 8. Department of Homeland Security R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 9. NOAA R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 10. NIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 11. Department of Transportation R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 12. Department of the Interior R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 13. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

---

Federal Research and Development
Funding: FY2008
Overview
Congress continues to have a strong interest in supporting federal research and
development (R&D) activities. The federal government has a history of playing an
important role in supporting efforts that have led to emerging technologies. These
include such things as cancer and AIDS research, the development of nuclear power,
and nanotechnology. Most of the research funded by the federal government is in
support of specific activities of the federal government as reflected by the different
missions of the funding agencies. The federal government has become the largest
supporter of long term fundamental basic research, primarily because the private
sector asserts it cannot recapture the full cost of long-term fundamental research.
Some of the major agencies funding basic research include the Department of
Defense (DOD), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science
Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Energy (DOE).
The Bush Administration has requested $142.7 billion in federal R&D funding
for FY2008.1 As in the recent past, the FY2008 proposed increase over the FY2007
funding level is due to significant funding increases in the DOD and in the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) space vehicles development
program, as well as the continuation of the American Competitiveness Initiative
(ACI).
The President proposed the ACI in response to growing concerns about
America’s ability to compete in the technological global market place. Between
FY2007 and FY2015, the $136 billion initiative would commit $50 billion for
research, science education, and the modernization of research infrastructure. The
remaining $86 billion would finance a revised Research and Experimental (R&E)
1 The present FY2008 R&D request was released before final passage of the Revised
Continuing Appropriations Resolution, hereafter CR, (P.L. 110-5, February 15, 2007,
H.J.Res. 20), which contains estimated agencies’ funding levels for FY2007. Actual FY2007
appropriations levels were not specified by the CR. Only two agencies, DOD and the
Department of Homeland Security have received enacted FY2007 appropriations bills. As
a result, agencies were directed by Congress to submit their FY2007 estimated funding
levels and operating plans to Congress by March 15, 2007. Estimated funding levels for
different agencies have become available as the agencies report their FY2007 operating
plans. Tables in this report reflect the agencies’ FY2007 estimates derived from the CR.
Actual agencies’ FY2007 R&D funding levels may not be available until the President’s
FY2009 budget is released. Unless otherwise indicated, all funding data are in current
dollars. The FY2006 R&D numbers reflect congressionally mandatory funding rescissions.

---

CRS-2
tax incentive over the next 10 years. The current R&E tax credit expires at the end
of 2007.2
As part of the $50 billion for research, the President, in February 2006, called
for doubling federal R&D funding over 10 years. That increase included the physical
sciences and engineering research in three agencies: the National Science Foundation
(NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST). According to the Administration, in FY2008,
ACI funding for NSF would increase $409 million, DOE Office of Science funding
would increase $296 million, and NIST’s core intramural research would increase
$59 million.3
Despite continued support for the ACI, total federal support for research (basic
and applied), would decrease 2% in FY2008. A decline in research funding at NIH,
the Department of Agriculture, NASA, DOD, and other agencies would offset
increases proposed for the ACI. According to the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS), the federal research portfolio would decline for
the fourth year in a row, a decrease of 7.5% since 2004.
Support for three federal multiagency research initiatives would vary. The
National Nanotechnology Initiative is proposed to increase 4% to $1.447 billion (see
CRS Report RS20589, Manipulating Molecules: Federal Support for
Nanotechnology Research, by Michael E. Davey). Funding for the Networking and
Information Technology R&D Initiative would essentially remain at the same level
with funding at $3.057 billion (see CRS Report RL33586, The Federal Networking
and Information Technology Research and Development Program: Funding Issues
and Activities, by Patricia Moloney Figliola). The administration is proposing $1.544
billion for the Climate Change and Science Program, a decrease of 7%, primarily
due to a decrease in NASA’s funding (see CRS Report RL33817, Climate Change:
Federal Expenditures, by Jane A. Leggett).
2 See Rising Above The Gathering Storm and Energizing and Employing America for a
Brighter Economic Future, The National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, The National Academies, 500 Fifth Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20001, 2005.
3 Based on P. L. 110-5, both the House and Senate FY2007 appropriations actions would
partially fund the President’s ACI request. Based on House and Senate actions, in FY2007
DOE’s Office of Science would receive $200 million of ACI funding, NSF an estimated
$217 million, and NIST an estimated $37 million of ACI funding.

---

CRS-3
Department of Energy (DOE)
The Department of Energy has requested $9.781 billion for R&D in FY2008,
including activities in three major categories: Science, National Security, and
Energy. (For details, see Table 1.) This request is 6.1% above the FY2007 level of
$9.220 billion. The House committee recommended $10.516 billion, or $734 million
more than the request.
Table 1. Department of Energy R&D
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Op. Plan
Request
H. Cmte.
S. Cmte.
Science
$3,797.3
$4,397.9
$4,514.1
$4,496.8
Basic Energy Sciences
1,250.2
1,498.5
1,498.5
1,512.3
High Energy Physics
751.8
782.2
782.2
782.2
Biological and Environmental Rsch.a
483.5
531.9
581.9
605.3
Nuclear Physics
422.8
471.3
471.3
471.3
Fusion Energy Sciences
319.0
427.8
427.8
427.8
Adv. Scientific Computing Research
283.4
340.2
340.2
334.9
Other
286.6
346.0
412.2
363.0
National Security
3,235.5
3,131.6
3,245.2
3,284.6
Weapons Activitiesb
2,161.9
2,036.7
1,882.5
2099.0
Naval Reactors
781.8
808.2
808.2
808.2
Nonprolifern. and Verification R&D
270.4
265.3
446.4
322.3
Defense Environmtl. Cleanup TD&D
21.4
21.4
108.1
55.1
Energy
2,186.9
2,251.8
2,756.3
2,784.7
Energy Effic. and Renewable Energyc
1,192.6
1,031.3
1558.9
1408.0
Fossil Energy R&D
592.6
566.8
708.8
808.1
Nuclear Energy R&D
302.6
567.7
402.6
470.6
Elec. Delivery & En. Reliability R&D
99.1
86.0
86.0
98.0
Total
9,219.7
9,781.3
10,515.6
10,566.1
Notes: FY2007 figures are from the DOE operating plan, which is online at [http://www.doe.gov/
media/FY2007OperatingPlanForDOE.pdf].
a. The House committee recommended splitting this item into two: Biological Research for $423.8
million and Climate Change Research for $158.1 million.
b. Includes Stockpile Services R&D Support, Stockpile Services R&D Certification and Safety,
Reliable Replacement Warhead, Science Campaigns, Engineering Campaigns except Enhanced
Surety and Enhanced Surveillance, Inertial Confinement Fusion, Advanced Simulation and
Computing, and a prorated share of Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities. Additional
R&D activities may take place in the subprograms of Directed Stockpile Work that are devoted
to specific weapon systems, but these funds are not included in the table because detailed
funding schedules for those subprograms are classified.
c. Excluding Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.
The requested funding for Science is $4.398 billion, a 16% increase from
FY2007. This increase reflects the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI),

---

CRS-4
which the President announced in February 2006 in his State of the Union address.
Over the next 10 years, the ACI would double R&D funding for the DOE Office of
Science and two other agencies. The requested increase relative to FY2007 is
enlarged because the FY2007 appropriation (under the year-long continuing
resolution, P.L. 110-5) was $304 million less than the FY2007 request, even though
the House and Senate regular appropriations bills for FY2007 would both have
provided more than the FY2007 request. In the Basic Energy Sciences program,
most of the requested $248 million increase in FY2008 would support increased
facility operating time as requested in FY2007 and supported by both the House and
the Senate in the regular FY2007 appropriations bills. In Fusion Energy Sciences,
almost all of the requested $109 million increase in FY2008 is for the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), whose estimated U.S. total cost
remains at $1.122 billion through FY2014, with operating costs thereafter now
estimated at $57 million per year. The House committee recommended a total of
$4.514 billion for Science, or $116 million more than the request. The increase
included $30 million for biological research, $20 million for climate change research,
$73 million for laboratory infrastructure (mostly at Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory), and a reduction of $7 million for program direction. The Senate
committee recommended $4.497 billion, or $99 million more than the request. The
largest change recommended by the Senate committee was an increase of $73 million
for biological and environmental research, of which $49 million would be devoted
to congressionally directed projects.
The requested funding for R&D in National Security is $3.132 billion, a 3.2%
decrease. Most of the reduction results from the scheduled completion of
construction projects, most notably the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory. The request for the Reliable Replacement Warhead
(RRW) program is $89 million, an increase of $53 million. The House Committee
recommended a total of $3.245 billion, including increases for nonproliferation and
verification R&D, environmental cleanup technology development, and inertial
confinement fusion, but no funding for RRW. The Senate committee recommended
$3.285 billion, including increases in the same areas and partial funding for RRW.
The Senate report noted that the committee was divided on RRW and called for a
bipartisan congressional commission “to evaluate and make recommendations on the
role of nuclear weapons in our future strategic posture.”
The requested funding for R&D in Energy is $2.252 billion, up 3.0% from
FY2007. Within this total, R&D on nuclear, hydrogen, biomass, and solar energy
would increase, while geothermal and natural gas and oil technology programs would
be terminated. The requested $267 million increase for Nuclear Energy R&D would
mostly go to the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, which is the main U.S. component
of an international partnership to develop nuclear energy technologies that minimize
waste and the threat of proliferation. The House committee recommended an overall
increase of $504 million, while the Senate committee recommended an overall
increase of $533 million. Both recommended smaller increases than requested in
nuclear energy, with less emphasis on the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, and both
recommended more than the request in energy efficiency and renewable energy,
including biomass and solar, and in fossil energy. (CRS Contact: Daniel Morgan.)

---

CRS-5
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 the DOD spends on RDT&E is appropriated in Title IV of the
defense appropriation bill (see Table 2). However, RDT&E funds are also requested
as part of the Defense Health Program and the Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction Program. The Defense Health Program supports the delivery of health
care to DOD personnel and family. Program funds are requested through the
Operations and Maintenance appropriation. The program’s RDT&E funds support
Congressionally directed research in such areas as breast, prostate, and ovarian cancer
and other medical conditions. The Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction
Program supports activities to destroy the U.S. inventory of lethal chemical agents
and munitions to avoid future risks and costs associated with storage. Funds for this
program are requested through the Army Procurement appropriation. Typically,
Congress has funded both of these programs in Title VI (Other Department of
Defense Programs) in the defense appropriations bill. More recently, RDT&E funds
have also been requested and appropriated as part of DOD’s separate funding to
support the Global War on Terror (GWOT). These appropriations have been located
in Title IX of the defense appropriations bill. The Joint Improvised Explosive Device
Defeat Fund, part of the GWOT funding, contains additional RDT&E monies. The
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office, which now administers the Fund,
tracks, but does not report, the amount of funding allocated to RDT&E.
For FY2008, the Bush Administration requested $75.1 billion for DOD’s
baseline Title IV RDT&E, roughly $800 million less than the total obligational
authority available for Title IV in FY2007. The FY2008 requests for RDT&E in the
Defense Health Program and the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction
program were $134 million and $221 million, respectively. This year’s request for
the Global War on Terror included both a FY2008 Title IX request and a FY2007
Title IX Supplemental request, with $2.9 billion and $1.4 billion being requested for
RDT&E, respectively.
Since FY2001, funding for RDT&E in Title IV has increased from $42 billion
to $76 billion in FY2007. In constant FY2008 dollars, the increase is roughly 58%.
Historically, RDT&E funding has reached its highest levels in constant dollars,
dating back to 1948.4 Congress has appropriated more for RDT&E than has been
requested, every year, since FY1996.
4 This historical data can be found in DOD’s National Defense Budget Estimates for the
FY2008 Budget (also known as the “Green Book”). Office of the Under Secretary for
Defense (Comptroller).March 2007.pp 62-67. See [http://www.defenselink.mil/
comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/fy2008_greenbook.pdf]. Last viewed May 10, 2007.

---

CRS-6
RDT&E funding can be broken out in a couple of ways. Each of the military
services request and receive their own RDT&E funding. So, too, do various DOD
agencies (e.g., the Missile Defense Agency and the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency), collectively aggregated within the Defensewide account. RDT&E
funding also can be characterized by budget activity (i.e. the type of RDT&E
supported).Those budget activities designated as 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 (basic research,
applied research, and advanced development) constitute what is called DOD’s
Science and Technology Program (S&T) and represents the more research-oriented
part of the RDT&E program. Budget activities 6.4 and 6.5 focus on the development
of specific weapon systems or components (e.g. the Joint Strike Fighter or missile
defense systems), for which an operational need has been determined and an
acquisition program established. Budget activity 6.7 supports system improvements
in existing operational systems. Budget activity 6.6 provides management support,
including support for test and evaluation facilities.
S&T funding is of particular interest to Congress since these funds support the
development of new technologies and the underlying science. Assuring adequate
support for S&T activities is seen by some in the defense community as imperative
to maintaining U.S. military superiority. This was of particular concern at a time
when defense budgets and RDT&E funding were falling at the end of the Cold War.
As part of its 2001 Quadrennial Review, DOD established a goal of stabilizing its
base S&T funding (i.e Title IV) at 3% of DOD’s overall funding. Congress has
embraced this goal. The FY2008 S&T funding request in Title IV is $10.8 billion,
about $2.5 billion less than what was available for S&T in Title IV in FY2007.
Furthermore, the S&T request for Title IV is approximately 2.2% of the overall
baseline DOD budget request (not counting funds for the Global War on Terror),
short of the 3% goal. The ability for the Administration to meet its 3% goal has been
strained in recent years as the overall Defense budget continues to rise. In last year’s
defense authorization bill (P.L. 109-364, Sec. 217), Congress reiterated its support
for the 3% goal, extended it to FY2012, and stipulated that, if the S&T budget
request does not meet this goal, DOD submit a prioritized list of S&T projects that
were not funded solely due to insufficient resources.
Within the S&T program, basic research (6.1) receives special attention,
particularly by the nation’s universities. DOD is not a large supporter of basic
research, when compared to the National Institute of Health or the National Science
Foundation. However, over half of DOD’s basic research budget is spent at
universities and represents the major contribution of funds in some areas of science
and technology (such as electrical engineering and material science). The FY2008
request for basic research ($1.4 billion) is roughly $140 million less than what was
available for Title IV basic research in FY2007.
In Congressional action to date, Congress approved, and the President signed,
the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 110-28). The bill contains emergency
supplemental funds, including additional FY2007 RDT&E funds in support of the
Global War on Terror. The act also provides additional FY2007 RDT&E funds for
the Defense Health Program to support additional trauma-related research. See
Table 3 below. (CRS Contact: John Moteff.)

---

CRS-7
Table 2. Department of Defense RDT&E
($ in millions )
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Actual
Estimated
Request
Title IV
By Account
Army
$11,682
$10,963
$10,590
Navy
18,970
18,880
17,076
Air Force
22,191
24,421
26,712
Defense Agencies
19,682
21,507
20,560
Dir. Test & Eval
166
184
180
Total Ob. Auth.a
72,691
75,955
75,118
By Budget Activity
6.1 Basic Research
1,457
1,564
1,428
6.2 Applied Res.
4,948
5,329
4,357
6.3 Advanced Dev.
6,866
6,432
4,987
6.4 Advanced Component Dev. and Prototypes
13,789
15,789
15,662
6.5 Systems Dev. and Demo
18,955
19,258
18,098
6.6 Management Supportb
5,263
4,216
4,129
6.7 Op. Systems Dev
21,412
23,367
26,455
Total Ob. Auth.a
72,691
75,955
75,117
Additional Appropriations - Global War On
Terror (GWOT)
see notec
see notec
2,857
Other Defense Programs
Defense Health Program
566
348
134
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction
67
231
221
Grand Total
73,324
76,534
78,329
Source: Except as mentioned below, figures are based on Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year
2008 RDT&E Programs (R-1), February 2007. FY2006 and FY2008 figures for Defense Health
Program based on Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2008, Operations and Maintenance
Programs (O-1), February 2007. The FY2007 figure is based on P.L. 110-5 (H.J.Res. 20). Figures
for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program based on Department of Defense Budget,
Fiscal Year 2008, Procurement Programs (P-1), February 2007. Figures for enacted FY2007
Supplemental based on P.L. 110-28, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Care, Katrina Recovery, and
Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Figures on Additional Appropriations for Global War
on Terror (GWOT) based on President’s Budget, Appendix, Additional 2007 and 2008 Proposals,
February 2007.
a. Numbers may not agree with Account Total Obligational Authority due to rounding.
b. Includes funds for Developmental and Operational Test and Evaluation.
c. DOD includes the RDT&E-related GWOT funding for these years in the Title IV figures.
d. Does not include the FY2007 Emergency Supplemental for the Global War on Terror. See table
below.

---

CRS-8
Table 3. Department of Defense RDT&E, FY2007 Emergency
Supplemental
($ in millions )
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Supple-
Supple-
Supple-
Supple-
mental
mental
mental
mental
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Additional Appropriations — Global War On Terror (GWOT)
By Account
Army
$116
$61
$126
$100
Navy
460
296
308
299
Air Force
221
133
234
187
Defense Agencies
651
546
523
513
Dir. Test & Eval
Total Ob. Auth.a
1,448
1,035
1,190
1,098
By Budget Activity
6.1 Basic Research
6.2 Applied Res.
6.3 Advanced Dev.
4
0
4
0
6.4 Advanced Component
Dev. and Prototypes
73
9
42
17
6.5 Systems Dev. and Demo
86
93
98
107
6.6 Management Supportb
16
0
10
2
6.7 Op. Systems Dev
1,269
934
1,037
973
Total Ob. Auth.a
1,448
1,036
1,191
1,099
Other Defense Programs
Defense Health Program
500
72
332
Grand Total
1,448
1,1536
1,263
1,431
Source: Figures for the FY2007 Supplemental Request are based on the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, Fiscal Year 2007 Emergency Supplemental Request, Exhibits for FY2007, pp. 13-14.
House, Senate and Enacted figures are taken from H.Rept. 110-107. Making Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 20, 2007, and Other Purpose. Conference
Report, to accompany H.R. 1591. H.R. 1591 was vetoed by the President. The House failed to
overturn the President’s veto. Both houses then passed and the President signed H.R. 2206 (U.S.
Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act,
2007 (P.L. 110-28)). There is, as yet, no report accompanying H.R. 2206. However, the figures
approved for each account (i.e. the Services and Defense Agencies) in H.R. 2206 agree with those
approved in H.R. 1591. The table assumes the breakdown of those accounts by budget activity
reported in H.Rept. 110-107 are valid for H.R. 2206.
a. Numbers may not agree with Account Total Obligational Authority due to rounding.
b. Includes funds for Developmental and Operational Test and Evaluation.

---

CRS-9
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA)
NASA has requested $12.722 billion for R&D in FY2008. (For details, see
Table 4.) This request is a 7.3% increase over FY2007, in a total NASA budget that
would increase by 6.4%. The Senate committee (S.Rept. 110-124 accompanying S.
1745) recommended $12.942 billion, minus an unspecified share of an agency-wide
general reduction of $70 million.
Budget priorities throughout NASA are being driven by the Vision for Space
Exploration. Announced by President Bush in January 2004 and endorsed by
Congress in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155), the Vision
includes returning the space shuttle to flight status (which has been accomplished)
then retiring it by 2010; completing the space station, but discontinuing its use by the
United States by 2017; returning humans to the moon by 2020; and then sending
humans to Mars and “worlds beyond.” The request for Constellation Systems, the
program responsible for developing the Orion spacecraft and Ares I launch vehicle
to return humans to the moon, is an increase of $518 million or 20.3% relative to
FY2007. The request for the International Space Station is an increase of $466
million or 26.3%. Meanwhile, among programs not focused on space exploration,
Science would increase by $145 million or 2.7%, and Aeronautics Research would
decrease by $163 million or 22.7%.
The FY2008 request was released before final passage of the full-year
continuing resolution that funded NASA for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5), and the continuing
resolution made several major changes to the FY2007 request. As a result, some of
the major shifts of funding in the FY2008 request, viewed relative to FY2007, reflect
the continuing resolution’s changes to the FY2007 baseline more than any change in
NASA’s own plans. Most notably, FY2007 funding for Constellation Systems is
$682 million less than was requested, so that the FY2008 request for Constellation
Systems (a 20.3% increase) is actually less than the FY2007 request was. NASA’s
top priority is maintaining the development schedule for Orion and Ares I, and an
initial operating capability (i.e., a first crewed flight) is now planned in early 2015.
Conversely, FY2007 funding for Aeronautics Research is $187 million more than
was requested, so that the FY2008 request (a 22.7% decrease) is actually more than
the FY2007 request was, and planned future funding for aeronautics has increased
by about $50 million per year through FY2011. On the other hand, the continuing
resolution provided only $10 million more than requested for the International Space
Station; the requested FY2008 increase for that program mostly reflects the
previously planned construction schedule.
Further complicating comparisons between FY2008 and previous years is a
change in how NASA accounts for overhead expenses. The new system,
implemented in September 2006 and known as “full cost simplification,” increases
the stated cost of some programs and decreases the stated cost of others, without
affecting actual program content. The increases and decreases exactly balance, so that
NASA’s total budget is unchanged, but for any particular program, amounts
expressed in the new accounting system are not directly comparable with amounts
expressed in the previous system.

---

CRS-10
The Senate committee recommended the requested amount for Aeronautics and
the International Space Station and $50 million more than the request for
Constellation Systems.
Table 4. NASA R&D
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
Operating Plan
Request
Senate Cmte.
Science
$5,371.4
$5,516.1
$5,655.1
Astrophysics
1,610.8
1,565.8
1,564.9
Earth Science
1,409.0
1,497.3
1,635.3
Heliophysics
1,011.9
1,057.2
1,088.5
Planetary Science
1,339.6
1,395.8
1,366.3
Exploration Systems
3,457.1
3,923.8
3,972.5
Constellation Systems
2,550.5
3,068.0
3,117.6
Advanced Capabilities
906.7
855.8
854.9
Aeronautics Research
716.7
554.0
554.0
Cross-Agency Support Programs
540.5
489.2
521.4
International Space Station
1,773.0
2,238.6
2,238.6
Subtotal R&D
11,858.7
12,721.7
12,941.6
Space Shuttle
3,977.4
4,007.5
4,007.8
Space and Flight Support
395.9
545.7
545.6
Inspector General
32.2
34.6
34.6
General Reduction
—
—
-70.0
Total NASA
16,264.3
17,309.4
17,459.6
Source: FY2008 amounts are from S. 1745, S.Rept. 110-124, and the FY2008 NASA budget request
[http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/]. FY2007 amounts are from NASA briefing charts based on the
March 2007 initial operating plan. The italicized rows are shown in the categories NASA uses for
FY2008, which are different from those it uses for FY2007. In those rows, some FY2007 amounts
have been calculated by CRS to make them comparable with the FY2008 request; the FY2007
amounts for Earth Science and Heliophysics are estimates. All amounts reflect “full cost
simplification.”
The effect of the Vision on science funding has been of particular congressional
interest. For example, the Senate report expressed concern that NASA science “is
being left behind rather than being nurtured and sustained.” In late 2006, responding
to concern in Congress and the scientific community about NASA support for earth
science, the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) created a separate Earth Science
Division. Although the FY2008 request includes increased funding for Earth Science
and projects further increases in FY2009 and FY2010 relative to previous plans, most
of the increases would go to cover cost growth and schedule delays in existing
missions. In SMD’s Astrophysics Division, the FY2008 request defers the Space

---

CRS-11
Interferometer mission beyond the budget horizon but reinstates funding for the
SOFIA airborne infrared telescope. The House and Senate appropriations reports for
FY2007 were supportive of SOFIA, for which no funding was requested in that year,
and the program is funded in the FY2007 operating plan. The Senate committee
recommended $139 million more than the request for Science, with the bulk of the
increase devoted to Earth Science. (CRS Contact: Daniel Morgan.)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
The President has requested a budget of $28.558 billion at the program level for
NIH for FY2008 (see Table 5). The FY2007 level, derived from the Revised
Continuing Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 110-5,) totaled $29.087 billion. (Actual
FY2007 appropriations levels were not specified by the CR; the amounts became
available as agencies reported their FY2007 operating plans. The final amount for
NIH for FY2007 was also affected by the FY2007 supplemental appropriations
legislation. Those changes are not yet reflected in the table.) The FY2008 request
represents a decrease of $529 million (1.8%) below the CR program level. The
FY2007 appropriation was some $662 million (2.3%) more than the FY2006
program level of $28.425 billion. Congressional action on FY2008 appropriations
will be discussed in the next update to this section of the report. The Senate
Appropriations Committee has reported its FY2008 Labor-HHS-Education bill (S.
1710, S.Rept. 110-107) and the House Appropriations Committee has ordered its bill
to be reported.
The bulk of NIH’s budget comes through the Labor-HHS-Education
appropriation. An additional small amount for environmental work related to
Superfund comes from the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriation. Those two sources constitute NIH’s discretionary budget authority.
In addition, NIH receives $150 million pre-appropriated in separate funding for
diabetes research, and $8.2 million from a transfer within the Public Health Service
(PHS). For the past several years, about $100 million of the annual NIH
appropriation has been transferred to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS,
Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The FY2008 budget request proposes to increase the
amount to $300 million, representing the entire U.S. contribution to the Global Fund.
The “NIH program level” cited in the Administration’s budget documents, however,
does not reflect that transfer.
FY2003 was the final year of the five-year effort to double the NIH budget from
its FY1998 base of $13.7 billion to the FY2003 level of $27.1 billion. The annual
increases for FY1999 through FY2003 were in the 14%-15% range each year. For
FY2004 and FY2005, faced with competing priorities and a changed economic
climate, Congress gave NIH increases of between 2% and 3%, levels which were
below the estimated 3.5% and 3.3% biomedical inflation index for those two years.
(The index has since been updated to show inflation of 3.7% for FY2004 and 3.9%
for FY2005.) The research advocacy community had originally urged that the NIH
budget grow by about 10% per year in the post-doubling years. They modified their
recommendation to 6% for FY2006 and to 5% for FY2007, maintaining that such
increases would be needed to keep up the momentum of scientific discovery made

---

CRS-12
possible by the increased resources of the doubling years. For FY2008, the
community is urging a 6.7% increase in the appropriation.
The biomedical inflation index was an estimated 4.5% for FY2006, while the
appropriation for that year declined 0.3%. The index is projected to be 3.7% for
FY2007 and FY2008. Taking inflation into account, the NIH budget has been losing
ground each year since the end of the doubling in FY2003. In constant 2003 dollars,
the NIH budget has declined from its peak level of $27.1 billion in FY2003, to $26.9
billion in FY2004, to $26.5 billion in FY2005, to $25.3 billion in FY2006, to $24.9
billion in FY2007, and the FY2008 request level represents $23.6 billion in constant
dollars. In inflation-adjusted terms, the FY2007 appropriation was 7.9% below the
FY2003 level, and the FY2008 request is 12.9% below the FY2003 level.
The agency’s organization consists of the Office of the NIH Director and 27
institutes and centers. The Office of the Director (OD) sets overall policy for NIH
and coordinates the programs and activities of all NIH components, particularly in
areas of research that involve multiple institutes. The individual institutes and centers
(ICs), each having a focus on particular diseases, areas of human health and
development, or aspects of research support, plan and manage their own research
programs in coordination with the Office of the Director. As shown in Table 4,
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.)
Within the FY2008 request, most of the institutes and centers would be
approximately level-funded from their FY2007 amounts. Several that were given
increases by Congress in the FY2007 CR are dropped back to levels closer to their
FY2006 funding. For example, the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR)
was given $34 million extra in FY2007 for one-year Shared Instrumentation Grants;
the FY2008 request decreases the NCRR budget by $31 million. The biggest
institute, the National Cancer Institute, would be cut by some $13 million (0.3%).
The second largest, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
(NIAID), would be increased by $226 million (5.2%) over FY2007, but only $25
million of that amount is for NIAID programs. The other $201 million of the
increase is for transfer to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and
Malaria, mentioned earlier.
The two biggest changes in the request are a 68% increase in the Buildings and
Facilities account, and a 53% 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 requests $136 million for Buildings and Facilities, an increase
of $55 million.
The $580 million drop in the OD account, from $1,097 million in FY2007 to
$517 million in the request, is largely because of the way Congress funded the NIH
Roadmap initiatives in FY2007. The NIH Roadmap for Medical Research is a set
of trans-NIH research activities designed to support high-risk/high-impact research

---

CRS-13
in emerging areas of science or public health priorities. The initiatives are funded
through a Common Fund that has been supported partially in the OD appropriation
and partially by contributions from each IC at a fixed percentage. The original
FY2007 Roadmap total of $443 million required $332 million from the institutes and
centers (a 1.2% tap on their budgets) and $111 million from the Director’s
Discretionary Fund. The FY2007 CR, however, appropriated $483 million and
placed the entire sum in OD, boosting that appropriation and allowing the ICs to use
all of their funding for their own programs without the Roadmap tap for trans-NIH
research. For FY2008, planned funding for the Roadmap/Common Fund totals $486
million, consisting of $365 million from the IC budgets (a 1.3% tap) plus $121
million from OD.
Also in the OD account for the first time in FY2007 was $69 million for the
National Children’s Study. This long-term (25+ year) environmental health study
was proposed for cancellation in the FY2007 request. The multi-agency study,
mandated by the Children’s Health Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-310), plans to examine the
effects of environmental influences on the health and development of more than
100,000 children across the United States, following them from before birth until age
21. The overall projected cost for the whole study is about $2.7 billion. For FY2007,
both appropriations committees directed NIH to continue with the study, and the CR
provided the $69 million. Nonetheless, the FY2008 request again contains no funding
for it.
The NIH’s two major concerns in the face of tight budgets are maintaining
support of investigator-initiated research through research project grants (RPGs), and
continuing to nourish the pipeline of new investigators. The FY2008 request
concentrates resources on supporting research grants, planning to fund 10,188
competing RPGs, one of the highest numbers ever. However, the expected “success
rate” of applications receiving funding will remain at about 20%. Scientists with
non-competing (continuation) grants will not receive inflationary increases for their
costs. Several efforts are focused on supporting new investigators, to encourage
young scientists to undertake careers in research despite the discouraging financial
climate, and to help them speed their transition from training to independent research.
The year-old Pathway to Independence Award is proposed for a funding increase to
$31 million. Regular training mechanisms such as the National Research Service
Awards are proposed for slight decreases, with level stipends. Clinical research
training and the new Clinical and Translational Science Awards are proposed for
increases, to a total funding level of $131 million. The biodefense research portfolio
is slated to increase slightly by cycling one-time extramural construction costs into
other research areas.
NIH and other Public Health Service agencies within HHS are subject to a
budget “tap” called the PHS Program Evaluation Transfer (Section 241 of the PHS
Act), which has the effect of redistributing appropriated funds among PHS agencies.
The FY2007 appropriation kept the tap at 2.4%, the same as in FY2006. NIH, with
the largest budget among the PHS agencies, becomes the largest “donor” of program
evaluation funds, and is a relatively minor recipient.
At the end of the 109th Congress, the House and Senate agreed on the first NIH
reauthorization statute enacted since 1993, the NIH Reform Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-

---

CRS-14
482). The law made managerial and organizational changes in NIH, focusing on
enhancing the authority and tools for the NIH Director to do strategic planning,
especially to facilitate and fund cross-institute research initiatives. It required
detailed tracking of the research portfolio and periodic review of NIH’s
organizational structure. The measure authorized, for the first time, overall funding
levels for NIH, although not for the individual ICs, and established a “common fund”
for trans-NIH research. For further information on NIH, see CRS Report RL33695,
The National Institutes of Health: Organization, Funding, and Congressional Issues,
by Pamela W. Smith. (CRS Contact: Pamela Smith.)
Table 5. National Institutes of Health
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
% change
Institutes and Centers (ICs)
actual a,b
CR a,c
request
FY08/07
Cancer (NCI)
$4,795.1
$4,795.5
$4,782.1
-0.3%
Heart/Lung/Blood (NHLBI)
2,915.9
2,920.0
2,925.4
0.2%
Dental/Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
388.7
389.4
389.7
0.1%
Diabetes/Digestive/Kidney (NIDDK)
1,703.1
1,705.2
1,708.0
0.2%
Neurological Disorders/Stroke (NINDS)
1,533.0
1,534.9
1,537.0
0.1%
Allergy/Infectious Diseases (NIAID) c
4,379.2
4,366.4
4,592.5
5.2%
General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
1,934.0
1,935.6
1,941.5
0.3%
Child Health/Human Development (NICHD)
1,263.5
1,254.1
1,264.9
0.9%
Eye (NEI)
665.8
666.7
667.8
0.2%
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
636.0
641.8
637.4
-0.7%
Aging (NIA)
1,045.2
1,046.5
1,047.1
0.1%
Arthritis/Musculoskeletal/Skin (NIAMS)
507.4
508.1
508.1
0.0%
Deafness/Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
393.1
393.5
393.7
0.0%
Nursing Research (NINR)
137.2
137.3
137.8
0.4%
Alcohol Abuse/Alcoholism (NIAAA)
435.5
436.1
436.5
0.1%
Drug Abuse (NIDA)
998.9
1,000.0
1,000.4
0.0%
Mental Health (NIMH)
1,401.8
1,403.6
1,405.4
0.1%
Human Genome Research (NHGRI)
485.7
486.4
484.4
-0.4%
Biomedical Imaging/Bioengineering (NIBIB)
298.1
298.4
300.5
0.7%
Research Resources (NCRR)
1,108.9
1,143.8
1,112.5
-2.7%
Complementary/Alternative Med (NCCAM)
121.1
121.4
121.7
0.3%
Minority Health/Health Disparities (NCMHD)
195.3
199.4
194.5
-2.5%
Fogarty International Center (FIC)
66.3
66.4
66.6
0.3%
Library of Medicine (NLM)
314.1
320.2
312.6
-2.4%
Office of Director (OD) d
478.3
1,097.0
517.1
-52.9%
Buildings & Facilities (B&F)
85.5
81.1
136.0
67.7%
Subtotal, Labor/HHS Appropriation
28,286.70
28,948.80
28,621.20
-1.1%
Superfund (Interior approp to NIEHS) e
79.1
79.1
78.4
-0.9%
Total, NIH discretionary budget authority
28,365.80
29,028.00
28,699.70
-1.1%

---

CRS-15
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
% change
Institutes and Centers (ICs)
actual a,b
CR a,c
request
FY08/07
Pre-appropriated Type 1 diabetes funds f
150.0
150.0
150.0
0.0%
NLM program evaluation g
8.2
8.2
8.2
0.0%
Total, NIH program level
28,524.00
29,186.20
28,857.90
-1.1%
Global Fund transfer (AIDS/TB/Malaria) c
-99.0
-99.0
-300.0
203.0%
Total, NIH program level after transfer
28,425.00
29,087.20
28,557.90
-1.8%
Source: Table from NIH Budget Office reflecting the final FY2007 funding levels provided by the
CR (H.J.Res. 20, P.L. 110-5, Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, February 15,
2007).
a. The FY2007 program level is an increase of $662.152m (2.3%) over FY2006. FY2006 and FY2007
reflect comparative transfers to HHS ($0.542m) and internal transfers among NIH ICs.
b. FY2006 reflects across-the-board rescission (1%), Interior reduction, and HHS transfer of
$19.462m to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Also reflects Director’s 1% transfer
of $4.480m from NIEHS to B&F and other adjustments to obligations totaling $6.897m
(including $4.467m NCI breast cancer stamp funds).
c. NIAID totals include funds for transfer to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria.
FY2006 includes $18.0m supplemental funding (P.L. 109-148) from Public Health and Social
Services Emergency Fund for pandemic flu (not included in FY2007 CR). FY2006 and FY2007
include a comparable transfer of $49.5m to HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and
Response for the Advanced Development of Medical Countermeasures program.
d. OD has Roadmap funds for distribution to ICs (FY2006, $82.170m; FY2007, $483.000m; FY2008,
$121.540m). In FY2007, all Roadmap/Common Fund money is in OD.
e. Separate account in the Interior/Related Agencies appropriation for NIEHS research activities
mandated in Superfund legislation (formerly in VA/HUD appropriation).
f. Funds available to NIDDK for diabetes research (P.L. 106-554 and P.L. 107-360).
g. Additional funds from program evaluation set-aside (§ 241 of Public Health Service Act), $8.2m
for NLM each year.
National Science Foundation (NSF)
The FY2008 request for the National Science Foundation (NSF) is $6.429
billion, an 8.6% increase ($511.8 million) over the FY2007 estimate of $5.917
billion. (See Table 6). President Bush’s ACI has proposed to double the NSF budget
over the next 10 years. The FY2008 request will be another installment toward that
doubling effort. The FY2008 request for NSF is designed to support several
interdependent priority areas: discovery research for innovation, preparing the
workforce of the 21st century, transformational facilities and infrastructure,
international polar year leadership, and stewardship. These particular areas of
investments, similar to the goals contained in the President’s proposed ACI, are
designed to promote research that will drive innovation and support the design and
development of world-class facilities, instrumentation, and infrastructure at the
frontiers of discovery. The priorities will support also a portfolio of programs
directed at strengthening and expanding the participation of underrepresented groups
and diverse institutions in the scientific and engineering enterprise.
The NSF asserts that international research partnerships are critical to the nation
in maintaining a competitive edge, addressing global issues, and capitalizing on
global economic opportunities. To address these particular needs, the Administration
requested $45.0 million for the Office of International Science and Engineering.

---

CRS-16
Also, in FY2008, NSF continues in its leadership role in planning U.S. participation
in observance of the International Polar Year, which spans 2007 and 2008. The
FY2008 request for addressing the challenges in polar research is $464.9 million. A
major focus of planned polar research will be in climate change and environmental
observations. Other proposed FY2008 highlights include funding for the National
Nanotechnology Initiative ($389.9 million), investments in Climate Change Science
Program ($208.3 million), continued support for homeland security ($375.4 million),
and funding for Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
($993.7 million).
Included in the FY2008 request is $5.131 billion for Research and Related
Activities (R&RA), a 7.6% increase ($363.0 million) above the FY2007 level of
$4.768 billion. R&RA funds research projects, research facilities, and education and
training activities. Partly in response to concerns in the scientific community about
the imbalance between support for the life sciences and the physical sciences, the
FY2008 request provides increased funding for the physical sciences. Research is
multidisciplinary and transformational in nature, and very often, discoveries in the
physical sciences often lead to advances in other disciplines. R&RA includes
Integrative Activities (IA) and is a source of funding for the acquisition and
development of research instrumentation at U.S. colleges and universities. IA also
funds Partnerships for Innovation, disaster research teams, and the Science and
Technology Policy Institute. The FY2008 request transfers support for the
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) from the
Education and Human Resources Directorate (EHR) to IA. It was determined that
placement in IA would allow the research focus and cross-directorate activities of
EPSCoR to be more fully integrated in the agency and give it more leverage for
improving and planning its research agendas. The FY2008 request provides $263
million for IA. Included in that amount is $107 million for EPSCoR. The EPSCoR
request will support a portfolio of four investment strategies. Approximately 62.6%
of the funding for EPSCoR will be for a combination of new and continuing awards.
The Office of Polar Programs (OPP) is funded in the R&RA. In FY2006,
responsibility for funding the costs of icebreakers that support scientific research in
polar regions was transferred from the U.S. Coast Guard to the NSF. While the NSF
does not own the ships, it is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and staffing
of the vessels. The OPP is funded at $464.9 million in the FY2008 request. Increases
in OPP for FY2008 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. The NSF also serves in a
leadership capacity for several international research partnerships in polar regions.
The NSF supports a variety of individual centers and center programs. The
FY2008 request provides $66.2 million for Science and Technology Centers, $59.2
million for Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers, $52.9 million for
Engineering Research Centers, $42.4 million for Nanoscale Science and Engineering
Centers, $27.0 million for Science of Learning Centers, and $11.5 million for Centers
for Analysis and Synthesis.
Additional priority areas in the FY2008 request include those of strengthening
core disciplinary research, and sustaining organizational excellence in NSF

---

CRS-17
management practices. NSF maintains that researchers need not only access to
cutting-edge tools to pursue the increasing complexity of research, but funding to
develop and design the tools critical to 21st century research and education. An
investment of $200.0 million in cyberinfrastructure will allow for funding of
modeling, simulation, visualization, and data storage and other communications
breakthroughs. NSF anticipates that this level of funding will make
cyberinfrastructure more powerful, stable, and accessible to researchers and educators
through widely shared research facilities. Increasing grant size and duration has been
a long-term priority for NSF. The funding rate for research grant applications was
21% in FY2006 and 20% in FY2007. NSF plans to return to the 21% funding rate in
FY2008. In addition, the average duration will lengthen and the average award size
will increase.
The FY2008 request for the EHR Directorate is $750.6 million, $55.9 million
(8%) below the FY2007 level. The EHR portfolio is focused on, among other things,
increasing the technological literacy of all citizens, preparing the next generation of
science, engineering, and mathematics professionals, and closing the achievement
gap in all scientific fields. Support at the various educational levels in the FY2008
request is as follows: research on learning in formal and informal settings (includes
precollege), $222.5 million; undergraduate, $210.2 million; and graduate, $169.5
million. Priorities at the precollege level include research and evaluation on
education in science and engineering ($42.0 million), informal science education
($66.0 million), and Discovery Research K-12 ($107.0 million). Discovery Research
is structured to combine the strengths of three existing programs and encourage
innovative thinking in K-12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education.
Programs at the undergraduate level are designed to “create leverage for
institutional change.” Priorities at the undergraduate level include the Robert Noyce
Scholarship Program ($10.0 million), Course, Curriculum and Laboratory
Improvement ($37.5 million), STEM Talent Expansion Program ($29.7 million),
Advanced Technological Education ($51.6 million), and Scholarship for Service
($12.1 million). The Math and Science Partnership Program (MSP), a crosscutting
program, is proposed at $46 million in the FY2008 request. The MSP in NSF
coordinates activities with the Department of Education and its state-funded MSP
sites. The MSP in NSF has made approximately 80 awards, with an overall funding
rate of about 9%. At the graduate level, priorities are those of Integrative Graduate
Education and Research Traineeship ($25.0 million), Graduate Research Fellowships
($97.5 million), and the Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education ($47.0
million). Added support is given to several programs directed at increasing the
number of underrepresented groups in science, mathematics, and engineering.
Among these targeted programs in the FY2008 request are the Historically Black
Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program ($30.0 million), Tribal Colleges
and Universities Program ($12.9 million), Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority
Participation ($40.0 million), and Centers of Research Excellence in Science and
Technology ($29.5 million).
The Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account
is funded at $244.7 million in the FY2008 request, a 28.1% increase ($53.8 million)
over the FY2007 estimate. The MREFC supports the acquisition and construction of

---

CRS-18
major research facilities and equipment that extend the boundaries of science,
engineering, and technology. Of all federal agencies, NSF is the primary supporter
of “forefront instrumentation and facilities for the academic research and education
communities.” First priority for funding is directed to ongoing projects. Second
priority is directed at projects that have been approved by the National Science Board
for new starts. NSF requires that in order for a project to receive support, it must have
“the potential to shift the paradigm in scientific understanding and/or infrastructure
technology.” NSF stated that the projects scheduled for support in the FY2008
request met that qualification. Six ongoing projects and one new start are proposed
for funding in the FY2008 request: Atacama Large Millimeter Array Construction
($102.1 million), Ice Cube Neutrino Observatory ($22.4 million), National
Ecological Observatory Network ($8.0 million), South Pole Station Modernization
project ($6.6 million), Alaskan Region Research Vessel ($42.0 million), Ocean
Observatories Initiative ($31.0 million), and Advanced Laser Interferometer
Gravitational Wave Observatory ($32.8 million).
On May 2, 2007, the House Committee on Science and Technology passed H.R.
1867 (H.Rept. 110-114), the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007.
The bill authorizes a total of $21.0 billion for the NSF for FY2008, FY2009, and
FY2010, including $16.4 billion for R&RA, $2.8 billion for EHR, and $787.0 million
for MREFC. Priorities to be addressed in the three-year authorization bill include
those of supporting successful K-12 science, mathematics, and engineering education
programs, promoting university-industry partnerships, balancing funding between
interdisciplinary and disciplinary research, and improving funding rates for new
investigators.
On June 29, 2007, the Senate reported S. 1745, Departments of Commerce and
Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY2008 (S.Rept. 110-
124). The bill would provide a total of $6.553 billion for the NSF in FY2008,
$124.4 million above the request and $636.2 million above the estimated FY2007
level. Included in the total is $5.156 billion for R&RA, $24.4 million above the
FY2008 request and $490.1 million above FY2007. The Senate would fund the EHR
at $850.6 million in FY2008, $100.0 million above the request and $53.9 million
above the FY2007 level. The MREFC would receive $244.7 million in FY2008,
level with the budget request and $53.9 million above FY2007. On July 12, the
House reported its version of the appropriations bill, H.R. 3093 (H.Rept. 110-240).
The House would provide $6.509 billion for the NSF in FY2008, $80 million above
the request, and $44 million below the Senate version. The House would fund the
R&RA at approximately $5.140 billion, $8 million above the request and $16.1
million below the Senate bill. For the MREFC and the EHR, the House would
provide $244.7 million and $822.6 million, respectively. (CRS Contact: Christine
Matthews.)

---

CRS-19
Table 6. National Science Foundation
($ in millions)
FY2007 FY2008 House Senate
FY2006
P.L.
Req.
FY2008 FY2008
110-5
Research & Related Activities
Biological Sciences
$580.9
$633.0
Computer & Inform. Sci. & Eng.
496.4
574.0
Engineering
585.5
683.3
Geosciences
704.0
792.0
Math & Physical Sci.
1,086.6
1,253.0
Social, Behav. & Econ. Sci.
201.2
222.0
Office of Cyberinfrastructure
127.1
200.0
Office of International Sci. & Eng.
42.6
45.0
U.S. Polar Programs
390.5
464.9
Integrative Activitiesa
233.3
263.0
U.S. Arctic Research Commission
1.2
1.5
Subtotal Res. & Rel. Act
4,351.0
4,768.0c 5,131.7 5,139.7c 5,156.1c
Ed. & Hum. Resr.
796.7
694.7
750.6
822.6
850.6
Major Res. Equip. & Facil. Constr.
233.8
190.9
244.7
244.7
244.7
Agency Operations & Award
Management
247.1
248.3
285.6
285.6
285.6
National Science Board
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Office of Inspector General
11.5
11.4
12.4
12.4
12.4
Total NSFb
5,645.8
5,917.2 6,429.0
6,509.0
6,553.4
a. Beginning in the FY2008 request, EPSCoR was transferred from the EHR
Directorate to Integrative Activities.
b. The totals do not include carry overs or retirement accruals. Totals may not add
due to rounding.
c. Specific funding allocations for each directorate or for individual programs and
activities have not been determined.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
The FY2008 request for research and education in the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) is $2.301 billion, a 9% decrease ($226.9 million) from the
FY2007 level. (The funding estimates presented for FY2007 are based on the
estimated full year amounts available under the Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2007, P.L.110-5, as amended). (See Table 7.) The Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) is USDA’s in-house basic and applied research agency, and operates
approximately 100 laboratories nationwide, including the world’s largest
multidisciplinary agricultural research center, located in Beltsville, Maryland. The

---

CRS-20
ARS laboratories focus on efficient food and fiber production, development of new
products and uses for agricultural commodities, development of effective biocontrols
for pest management, and support of USDA regulatory and technical assistance
programs. Included in the total support for USDA in FY2008 is $1.038 billion for
ARS, an 8.1% decrease ($91.4 million) from FY2007. The Administration has
proposed reductions of $141.0 million in funding add-ons designated by Congress
for research at specific locations. These amounts are to be redirected to high-priority
Administration initiatives that include livestock production, food safety, crop
protection, and human nutrition. Included in the request for ARS is $16.0 million for
buildings and facilities. The requested funding is for the planning and design of the
Biocontainment Laboratory and Consolidated Poultry Research Facility in Athens,
GA.
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
distributes funds to State Agricultural Experiment Stations, State Cooperative
Extension Systems, land-grant universities, and other institutions and organizations
that conduct agricultural research, education, and outreach. Included in these
partnerships is funding for research at 1862 institutions, 1890 historically black
colleges and universities, and 1994 tribal land-grant colleges. Funding is distributed
to the states through competitive awards, statutory formula funding, and special
grants. The FY2008 request for CSREES is $993.6 million, a decrease of $128.1
million from the FY2007 estimate. Funding for formula distribution in FY2008 to
the state Agricultural Experiment Stations is $273.2 million, $12.4 million below the
FY2007 estimate. Support for the 1890 formula programs is $38.3 million, slightly
below the FY2007 level of $40.7 million. The FY2008 request proposes, as in
previous years, to modify the Hatch formula program. It would expand the multistate
research programs from 25% to approximately 60% and distribute a portion of the
funds through competitively awarded grants. In previous years, Congress did not
accept the Administration’s proposed changes to the Hatch formula.
The FY2008 request funds the National Research Initiative (NRI) Competitive
Grants Program at $256.5 million, $66.3 million above the FY2007 level. The
increase will support initiatives in agricultural genomics, emerging issues in food and
agricultural security, the ecology and economics of biological invasions, plant
biotechnology, and water security. In addition to supporting fundamental and applied
science in agriculture, USDA maintains that the NRI makes a significant contribution
to developing the next generation of agricultural scientists. The FY2008 request also
includes funding for grants to educational institutions and community-based
organizations to benefit socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. These grants
are intended to encourage greater participation of black farmers, tribal groups, and
Hispanic and other minority groups in the USDA portfolio of commodity, loan,
education, and grant offerings. In addition, NRI funding will support projects
directed at developing alternate methods of biological and chemical conversion of
biomass, and research determining the impact of a renewable fuels industry on the
economic and social dynamics of rural communities.
The FY2008 request for USDA provides $82.5 million for the Economic
Research Service (ERS), $7.3 million above the FY2007 estimate; and $167.7
million for the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), approximately $20.4
million above the FY2007 estimate. The proposed increase for ERS will expand the

---

CRS-21
market analysis and outlook program and strengthen the coverage of increasingly
complex global markets for various agricultural products. The increase for NASS
will be in support of the 2007 Census of Agriculture. Funding will be available also
to obtain contract services for extensive data collection and processing activities
scheduled to occur in 2008.
On July 24, 2007, the House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 3161,
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY2008 (H.Rept. 110-258). H.R. 3161 would provide
$2.578 billion for research and education in USDA, $276.8 million above the
Administration’s request. The bill would fund CSREES at $1.135 billion,
approximately $141.7 million above the request. Other funding levels for programs
in the bill are $79.3 million for ERS, and $166.1 million for NASS, both below the
Administration’s request. Also, on July 24, the Senate reported its version of the bill,
S. 1859, S.Rept. 110-134. The Senate version of the bill would provide $2.611
billion for research and education activities. Included in that amount is $1.194 billion
for ARS, $156.8 million above the request, and $1.159 billion for CSREES, $165.5
million above the request. S. 1859 would provide $76.5 million for ERS and $167.7
million for NASS. (CRS Contact: Christine Matthews.)
Table 7. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2008
House
Senate
FY2006
P. L. 110-
Req.b
FY2008
FY2008
5a
Agric. Research Service (ARS)
Product Quality/Value Added
$105.3
$104.6
Livestock Production
85.0
70.7
Crop Production
201.1
168.9
Food Safety
104.4
103.2
Livestock Protection
82.5
108.3
Crop Protection
196.8
173.7
Human Nutrition
84.6
84.1
Environmental Stewardship
222.9
171.0
National Agricultural Library
23.8
20.4
Repair & Maintenance
17.6
16.6
Subtotal
1,150.0d
1,128.9
1,021.5
1,076.3
1,154.2
Buildings & Facilities
159.1
0.0
16.0
64.0
40.1
Total, ARS
1,309.1
1,128.9
1,037.5
1,140.3
1,194.3
Coop. St. Res. Ed. & Ext. (CSREES) Research and Education
Hatch Act Formula
177.0
322.6
164.4
195.8
214.9
Cooperative Forestry Research
22.0
30.0
20.5
23.3
30.0
Evans-Allen Formula (Payments
37.2
40.7
38.3
42.0
40.7
to 1890 Institutions)
Special Research Grants
126.9
14.7
18.1
110.2
67.7
NRI Competitive Grants
181.2
190.2
256.5
190.2
244.0

---

CRS-22
FY2007
FY2008
House
Senate
FY2006
P. L. 110-
Req.b
FY2008
FY2008
5a
Animal Health & Disease Res.
5.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
Federal Administration
50.0
10.3
10.0
44.4
20.8
Higher Educatione
55.0
37.6
40.5
36.5
38.4
Other Programs
31.9
50.7
44.3
24.0
39.3
Total, Coop. Res. & Educ.f
670.7
671.4
562.5
671.4
700.8
Extension Activities
Smith-Lever Sections 3b&c
273.0
285.6
273.2
281.4
285.8
Smith-Lever Sections 3d
62.0
94.5
91.5
100.9
95.5
Renewable Resources Extension
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.0
1890 Colleges, Tuskegee, & West
32.9
35.2
34.1
37.0
35.2
Virginia State University Colleges
Other Extension Prog. & Admin.
99.1
30.9
28.3
40.5
37.8
Total, Extension Activitiesf
527.4
450.3
431.1
463.9
458.3
Total, CSREESf
1,198.1
1,121.7
993.6
1,135.3
1,159.1
Economic Research Service
75.9
75.2
82.5
79.3
76.5
National Agricultural Statistics
140.7
147.3
167.7
166.1
167.7
Service
Integrated Activities
55.8
55.2
20.1
57.2
12.9
Total, Research, Education &
2,740.8
2,528.3
2,301.4
2,578.2
2,610.5
Economics
a. Funding levels for specific programs are not yet available.
b. Funding levels are contained in U.S. Department of Agriculture FY2008 Budget Summary and
other documents internal to the agency.
c. Totals may not add due to rounding. Research activities carried out in support of Homeland
Security are include in Food Safety, Livestock Protection, and Crop Protection portfolios.
d. Includes Hurricane Katrina Emergency Appropriations of $29.2 million.
e. Higher education includes payments to 1994 institutions and 1890 Capacity Building Grants
program, the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the Alaska Native and Native
Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Education Grants, and others.
f. Program totals may or may not include set-asides (non-add) or contingencies. The CSREES total
includes support for Integrated Activities, Community Food Projects, and the Organic
Agriculture Research and Education Initiative.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) R&D
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has requested $1.379 billion for
R&D in FY2008, a decrease of 6.3% from FY2007.5 The total includes $799 million
for the Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T), $562 million for the Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), and $18 million for Research, Development,
Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) in the U.S. Coast Guard. (For details, see Table 8.)
The request for DNDO is a 17% increase. The request for the S&T Directorate is an
5 The FY2007 appropriations bill rescinded $125 million in prior-year funds from the S&T
Directorate. If the FY2007 enacted total for DHS R&D is reduced by the amount of this
prior-year rescission, the FY2008 request is a 2.4% increase.

---

CRS-23
18% decrease, about half of which results from the transfer of some operational
programs out of S&T into other DHS organizations.6 The House provided a total of
$1.316 billion: $777 million for S&T, $516 million for DNDO, and $23 million for
Coast Guard RDT&E (H.R. 2638, H.Rept. 110-181). The Senate committee
recommended a total of $1.414 billion: $838 million for S&T, $550 million for
DNDO, and $26 million for Coast Guard RDT&E (S. 1644, S.Rept. 110-84).
Starting in late 2006, the S&T Directorate realigned its programs and
reorganized its management structure. The directorate’s program structure is now
as shown in Table 8. The directorate’s university centers of excellence are expected
to be aligned to match the new organization, with new centers being established for
some topics. The requested reduction of $41 million in the Explosives program is
due to the completion of efforts (known as Counter-MANPADS) to develop a
prototype system for protecting commercial aircraft against ground-to-air missiles.
The requested $51 million reduction in the Infrastructure and Geophysical program
largely reflects the elimination of funding for community and regional initiatives
previously established or funded at congressional direction. The operational
programs being transferred out of S&T are the BioWatch monitoring system, the
Biological Warning and Incident Characterization (BWIC) system, and the Rapidly
Deployable Chemical Detection System (RDCDS) from the Chemical and Biological
program and SAFECOM from the Command, Control, and Interoperability program.
The House, citing unfilled staff positions in the S&T Directorate, provided $12
million less than the request for Management and Administration. It rejected the $14
million request for procurement of third-generation BioWatch units in the Biological
and Chemical program. It provided $10 million more than the request for University
Programs and instructed the S&T Directorate to report by February 1, 2008, on how
it selects university centers of excellence, determines the research topics for centers,
and evaluates the quality of their work. Several other smaller changes added up to
a net decrease of $10 million in Research, Development, Acquisition, and
Operations.
The Senate committee recommended an increase of $41 million in Research,
Development, Acquisition, and Operations. Within this total, reductions relative to
the request included $13 million from the Biological and Chemical program and $14
million from Innovation. Increases included $18 million for Explosives to counter
car bombs and other improvised explosive devices, $40 million for Infrastructure and
Geophysical earmarked for the Southeast Region Research Initiative and the
Regional Technology Integration initiative, and $15 million for Laboratory Facilities
earmarked for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The committee recommended
a reduction of $2 million in Management and Administration.
During the FY2007 appropriations cycle, Congress and others were highly
critical of the S&T Directorate’s performance. The House Appropriations Committee
report for FY2007 (H.Rept. 109-476) referred to the directorate’s “lack of
6 If the FY2007 enacted funding for S&T is reduced by the amount of the prior-year
rescission, the FY2008 request for S&T is only a 5.8% decrease. See previous footnote.
If the FY2007 enacted amount is adjusted for both the rescission and the transfer of
programs out of the S&T Directorate, the FY2008 request for S&T is a 5.4% increase.

---

CRS-24
responsiveness” to its information requests, restricted the obligation of funds until
S&T provided budgetary information “with sufficient detail” and the Under Secretary
reported on progress in addressing financial management deficiencies, and objected
that the FY2007 budget justification contained “no details of how risk assessment
was used in its formulation or even which DHS agency was tasked with prioritizing
risks and assigning them resources.” The Senate Appropriations Committee report
for FY2007 (S.Rept. 109-273) described the S&T Directorate as “a rudderless ship
without a clear way to get back on course” and proposed transferring certain S&T
activities back to the Transportation Security Administration because “the Committee
has repeatedly requested a breakout of funding ... which S&T has failed to provide.”
Since the appointment of a new Under Secretary (Admiral Jay Cohen, sworn in on
August 10, 2006) criticism of the directorate has been more muted, and after several
years of criticism for failing to spend funds that were appropriated, the directorate
reports progress in more rapidly obligating its FY2007 funding. Nevertheless,
congressional attention is likely to remain focused on issues such as the directorate’s
mission, its organization, its priorities and how they are set, its financial
management, and the transparency of its operations.
In DNDO, the proposed $47 million increase in Research, Development, and
Operations would focus primarily on the Transformational R&D program, whose
goal is to identify, develop, and demonstrate technologies that fill major gaps in the
nuclear detection architecture. The proposed $30 million increase in Systems
Acquisition would be used to begin implementation of the Securing the Cities
initiative in the New York City area. Congressional attention has focused recently
on criticism of a cost-benefit analysis that DNDO conducted to support its
assessment of next-generation Advanced Spectroscopic Portal technology for
radiation portal monitors.7
The House provided $40 million less than the request for Systems Acquisition.
Half of this reduction was because DNDO has reduced the number of radiation portal
monitors it plans to acquire in FY2008. The other half would reduce the Securing
the Cities initiative to $10 million from the requested level of $30 million. The
House report cited delays in reaching agreements with New York and New Jersey
officials about the implementation of this initiative. The House also reduced
Management and Administration and Research, Development, and Operations by $3
million each. The House report directed DNDO not to procure Advanced
Spectroscopic Portal (ASP) systems until it certifies that they are more effective than
traditional radiation portal monitors.
The Senate committee recommended a reduction of $2 million in Management
and Administration for DNDO, an increase of $16 million in Research, Development,
and Operations, and a reduction of $26 million in Systems Acquisition. The largest
recommended change relative to the request was a shift of $29 million from Systems
Acquisition to Research, Development, and Operations. Of this amount, the
committee recommended spending $20 million on screening general aviation aircraft
7 See, for example, Government Accountability Office, Combating Nuclear Smuggling:
DHS’s Decision to Procure and Deploy the Next Generation of Radiation Detection
Equipment Is Not Supported by Its Cost-Benefit Analysis, GAO-07-581T, testimony before
the House Committee on Homeland Security, March 14, 2007.

---

CRS-25
for illicit nuclear materials. The committee recommended $25 million for the
Securing the Cities initiative in Systems Acquisition, along with $5 million in
Research, Development, and Operations. The committee recommended no funding
for full-scale procurement of ASP monitors until DHS provides the report and
certification called for by the FY2007 conference report (H.Rept. 109-699).
The FY2007 budget request marked the end of a period of consolidation for
DHS R&D programs and the beginning of its reversal; the FY2008 request would
further reverse the consolidation trend. In the FY2004 appropriations conference
report (H.Rept. 108-280), Congress directed the department to consolidate its R&D
activities into the S&T Directorate. This process began with several small programs
in FY2005, but a proposed move of the Coast Guard RDT&E program was rejected
by the Senate. In FY2006, the much larger R&D program of the Transportation
Security Administration was moved into S&T, but again the Senate rejected moving
the Coast Guard program. In FY2007 no further consolidations were proposed.
Conversely, R&D on radiological and nuclear countermeasures, previously funded
by S&T, was expanded and transferred to the newly created DNDO, an independent
organization with its own appropriations accounts. With DNDO funding increasing
and S&T funding decreasing in the FY2008 request, the relative roles of the two
organizations remain an issue of congressional interest. The S&T Directorate’s
requested share of DHS R&D funding would drop to 58%, which may raise questions
about the S&T Under Secretary’s statutory responsibility for “establishing and
administering the primary research and development activities of the Department”
and “coordinating and integrating all research, development, demonstration, testing,
and evaluation activities of the Department.”8 (CRS Contact: Daniel Morgan.)
Table 8. Department of Homeland Security R&D
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Enacted
Request
House
Sen. Cte.
Science and Technology Directorate
$848.1
$799.1
$777.1
$838.0
Management and Administration a
135.0
142.6
130.8
140.6
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
713.1
656.5
646.3
697.4
Borders and Maritime Security
33.4
25.9
25.9
25.5
Chemical and Biological a
313.6
228.9
215.1
216.0
Command, Control, and Interoperability b
62.6
63.6
61.1
61.8
Explosives
105.2
63.7
63.7
81.7
Human Factors
6.8
12.6
12.6
6.7
Infrastructure and Geophysical
74.8
24.0
24.0
64.0
Innovation
38.0
59.9
51.9
46.0
Laboratory Facilities
105.6
88.8
88.8
103.8
Test and Evaluation, Standards
25.4
25.5
28.5
24.2
Transition
24.0
24.7
26.0
23.9
University Programs
48.6
38.7
48.6
38.7
8 Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), Sec. 302, items 10 and 11.

---

CRS-26
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Enacted
Request
House
Sen. Cte.
Homeland Security Institute c
—
—
—
5.0
Rescission of Unobligated Prior-Year Funds
-125.0
—
—
—
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
481.0
561.9
516.1
550.0
Management and Administration
30.5
34.0
31.2
32.0
Research, Development, and Operations
272.5
319.9
316.9
336.0
Systems Acquisition
178.0
208.0
168.0
182.0
U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E
17.0
17.6
22.6
25.6
Total DHS R&D
1,346.1
1,378.6
1,315.8
1,413.6
Total (Excluding Prior-Year Rescission)
1,471.1
1,378.6
1,315.8
1,413.6
Notes: Programs in the S&T Directorate have been realigned since the enactment of the FY2007
appropriation. For comparability, the FY2007 column is shown here in the new structure. (Enacted
amounts for FY2007 are presented both ways, with a crosswalk between the two, in the FY2008
congressional budget justification.)
a. BioWatch and related programs will be transferred from the S&T Directorate to the Office of
Health Affairs in FY2008. The enacted FY2007 funding for these programs in S&T consisted
of $1.0 million in the Management and Administration account plus $84.1 million in the
Chemical and Biological program of the R&D, Acquisition, and Operations account.
b. SAFECOM will be transferred from the S&T Directorate to the National Protection and Programs
Directorate in FY2008. Its enacted FY2007 funding in S&T was $5.0 million in the Command,
Control, and Interoperability program of the R&D, Acquisition, and Operations account.
c. The Homeland Security Institute (HSI) currently receives funding from each of the S&T
Directorate divisions. The Senate committee report recommended breaking out this funding as
a separate item and stated that HSI’s total funding was $10 million in FY2007 and is the same
in the FY2008 request.
Department of Commerce (DOC)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The following information is taken from the Department of Commerce, NOAA
FY2008 Budget Summary, released February 8, 2007. NOAA R&D funding is 16%
of NOAA’s total budget request of $3.82 billion. The R&D budget is comprised of
86% research and 14% development funding. Seventy percent of R&D is intramural,
while 30% is extramural. NOAA Research “OAR” manages 60% of all R&D
conducted at NOAA.
The Administration has requested flat funding for NOAA’s R&D programs in
FY2008. However the Administration proposes to increase Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research by $19 million in FY2008, a 6.7% increase over FY2007 estimated funding
level. Nevertheless the Administration proposes to cut a number of other NOAA
programs, including a 46% reduction in the agencies’ National Ocean Service
Program.
The FY2008 appropriations bill reported from the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, S. 1745 (S.Rept. 110-124), would provide $628 million for NOAA
R&D, an 18% increase over FY2007 estimated funding level. The senate bill

---

CRS-27
criticizes NOAA for requesting steep cuts in key ocean programs in the past, and in
FY2008 for requesting modest increases in ocean programs only at the expense of
steep cuts in other areas. The Senate report points to the Joint Ocean Commissions’
January 2007 findings about poor progress toward a U.S. ocean policy as a driving
force behind its increase for ocean research and related NOAA R&D programs. The
Senate committee calls attention to nearly $32 million in new funding for
competitively awarded research grants programs in NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research (OAR). The Senate committee’s recommendations for OAR
R&D would increase almost 32% percent above FY2007 levels to $371 million. For
climate change research under OAR, the recommendation is $217 million, $24
million more than the request. Competitive research grants for climate change
research would total $140 million, up from FY2007 levels of $126 million.
For FY2008, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $585 million
for NOAA R&D, which is $43 million, or 7.4%, less than the Senate
recommendation, $57 million, or 10.8% more than the request and $5 million, or
9.9% more than the FY2007 level. OAR funding for climate change would increase
by $44 million more than the request to $236 million. Competitive research grants
for climate change total $172 million, $126 million more than the FY2007 level.
Total NOAA R&D would increase by 23% to $346 million. In addition, $6 million
is set aside for the National Academy of Sciences to establish a Climate Change
Study Committee to make recommendations for policy responses to climate change.
No specific references to a funding initiative to implement U.S. ocean policy/research
recommendations is mentioned. (CRS Contact: Wayne Morrissey.)
Table 9. NOAA R&D
($ in millions)
FY2007a
FY2008
Type of R&D
S. 1745
H.R. 3093
(Est.)
Request
National Ocean Service
65
36
51
37
National Marine Fisheries
42
42
45
41
Oceanic & Atmospheric
281
300
371
346
Research
National Weather Service
24
23
23
23
National Env. Satellite & Data
24
27
27
27
Info.
All other NOAA R&Db
95
100
111
110
Total Conduct of R&Dc
532
528
628
585
Source: Office of Management and Budget, R&D Bureau Report, February 1, 2007.
a. P.L. 110-5 (Reported as H.J.Res. 20)
b. Includes marine research data acquisition services.
c. Data from the American Association for the Advancement of Science

---

CRS-28
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a laboratory of
the Department of Commerce. It is mandated to increase the competitiveness of U.S.
companies through appropriate support for industrial development of precompetitive
generic technologies and the diffusion of government-developed technological
advances to users in all segments of the American economy. NIST research also
provides the measurement, calibration, and quality assurance techniques that
underpin U.S. commerce, technological progress, improved product reliability,
manufacturing processes, and public safety.
The President’s FY2008 budget requests $640.7 million for NIST, 5.1% below
the current fiscal year. Internal research and development under the Scientific and
Technology Research and Services (STRS) account would increase 15.2% to $500.5
million (including funding for the Baldrige National Quality Program). There would
be no funding for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and support for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership would be reduced 55.8% to $46.3 million.
Construction expenses increase 60% to $93.9 million. (See Table 10.)
The FY2008 appropriations bill reported from the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, S. 1745, would provide $863 million for NIST, an increase of 27.5%
over FY2007. Funding for the STRS account would total $502.1 million, 15.6%
above the current fiscal year. The Advanced Technology Program would be financed
at $100 million, an increase of 26.4%, recognizing that there is a possible revision
of the program in discussion at the conference over the competitiveness legislation.
Support for the Manufacturing Extension Program would increase 5.1% to $110
million. There is also a $10 million rescission to the Industrial Technology
Development account which is comprised of the ATP and MEP activities. The
committee report to accompany the appropriations bill recommends a new pilot
program for manufacturing technology development under MEP. The construction
budget would total $150.9 million, over two and one half times more than FY2007
funding.
The bill reported to the House from the House Committee on Appropriations,
H.R. 3093, provides $831.2 million for NIST, 22.8% above the current fiscal year.
Included in this total is $500.5 million for the STRS account (with the Baldrige
National Quality Program), an increase of 15.2% over FY2007. Support for ATP
would increase 17.7% to $93.1 million, while funding for MEP would increase 3.9%
to $108.8 million. The Committee Report to accompany the bill notes support for
House-passed legislation that reestablishes ATP as the Technology Innovation
Program while making some changes to the activity. The construction budget would
more than double from the current fiscal year to $128.9 million.9
The Administration’s FY2007 budget included $581.3 million for NIST, almost
22.7% below the previous fiscal year. Support for the STRS account would have
increased 18.3% to $467 million. There was no funding for the Advanced
Technology Program (ATP), and support for the Manufacturing Extension
9 The sum of these figures may not total $831.2 million because of rounding.

---

CRS-29
Partnership (MEP) would have declined 55.7% to $46.3 million. Construction
funding would have totaled $68 million, a 60.8% decrease from FY2006.
No final FY2007 appropriations legislation for NIST was enacted during the
109th Congress. A series of continuing resolutions funded the program at FY2006
levels through February 15, 2007. However, P.L. 110-5, passed in the 110th Congress,
provides $676.9 million in FY2007 support for NIST. Funding for the STRS account
increased 10% to $434.4 million while the construction budget decreased 66% to
$58.7 million. Financing for ATP at $79.1 million and support for MEP at $104.7
million reflect similar funding in FY2006.
As part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, the Administration stated
its intention to double over 10 years funding for “innovation-enabling research” done
at NIST through its “core” programs (defined as internal research in the STRS
account and the construction budget). To this end, the President’s FY2007 budget
requested an increase of 18.3% for intramural R&D at NIST; FY2007 appropriations
for these programs increased 9.6%. For FY2008, the Administration has again
recommended an increase in support for the STRS account, up 15.1% from the
current fiscal year, as does H.R. 3093, while S. 1745 includes a 15.6% increase. It
remains to be seen how support for this effort will evolve and how this might affect
financing of extramural efforts such as ATP and MEP.
Continued support for the Advanced Technology Program has been a major
funding issue. ATP provides “seed financing,” matched by private sector investment,
to businesses or consortia (including universities and government laboratories) for
development of generic technologies that have broad applications across industries.
Opponents of the program cite it as a prime example of “corporate welfare,” whereby
the federal government invests in applied research activities that, they argue, should
be conducted by the private sector. Others defend ATP, arguing that it helps
businesses (and small manufacturers) develop technologies that, while crucial to
industrial competitiveness, would not or could not be developed by the private sector
alone. While Congress has maintained support for the Advanced Technology
Program, the initial appropriation bills passed by the House since FY2002 provided
no funding for ATP. Although support was provided again in the FY2006
appropriations legislation, it was 41% below the earlier fiscal year. In the 109th
Congress, both the House-passed FY2007 appropriations bill and the version
reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations contained no funding for the
program. It remains to be seen how the 110th Congress will address this issue.
For additional information, see CRS Report 95-30, The National Institute of
Standards and Technology: An Appropriations Overview; CRS Report 95-36, The
Advanced Technology Program; and CRS Report 97-104, The Manufacturing
Extension Partnership Program: An Overview, all by Wendy H. Schacht. (CRS
Contact: Wendy H. Schacht.)

---

CRS-30
Table 10. NIST
($ in millions)
FY2008
S. 1745
H.R. 3093
NIST Program
FY2006a
FY2007
Request
(reported) (reported)
STRSb
$394.8
$434.4
$500.5
$502.1
500.5
ATP
79
79.1
0
100
93.1
MEP
104.6
104.7
46.3
110
108.8
Construction 173.6
58.7
93.9
150.9
128.9
NIST Total
$752
676.9
640.7
863
831.2
Note: Figures may not add up because of rounding.
a. Includes mandated rescissions (but not a $7 million rescission from unobligated balances in the
MEP account).
b. Includes funding for the Baldrige National Quality Program.
Department of Transportation (DOT)
The Bush Administration has requested $812 million for the Department of
Transportation’s (DOT’s) research and development budget in FY2008. (See Table
11.)
Funding for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) R&D is requested at
$430 million in FY2008. Highway research includes the Federal Highway
Administration’s transportation research and technology contract programs. These
research programs include the investigation of ways to improve safety, reduce
congestion, improve mobility, reduce lifecycle construction and maintenance costs,
improve the durability and longevity of highway pavements and structures, enhance
the cost-effectiveness of highway infrastructure investments and minimize negative
impacts on the natural and human environment.
The funding request for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is $140
million, including $63 million focused on the advancement of the Next Generation
Air Transportation System led by the Joint Planning Development Office. Funding
for the FAA is proposed to decline from $310 million in FY2006 to $140 million in
FY2008.
Finally, the Administration is proposing $12 million for the Research and
Innovation Technology Administration to coordinate and advance the pursuit of
transportation research that cuts across all modes of transportation, such as hydrogen
fuels, global positioning, and remote sensing. DOT also supports nanotechnology
research, the U. S. Climate Change Technology Program, and the President’s
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.
The House bill (H.R. 3874) would provide a total of $835 million for the
Department of Transportation, while the Senate bill (S. 1789) would provide $847
million, $12 million above the House bill. Both the House and Senate bills would

---

CRS-31
fund the Federal Highway Administration at $410 million in FY2008, a $49 million
increase over the FY2007 estimated funding level. The House bill would fund the
FAA $265 million, $38 million below the FY2007 estimated level. The Senate
approved $272 million for the FAA, $31 million below the FY2007 estimated
funding level.
The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) portfolio of innovative
technologies to improve traffic flow would also increase to $84 million in FY2008,
an estimated 31% increase over FY2007. The FHWA budget also includes state
highway R&D distributed to states and local governments to support their local R&D
efforts. Both the House and Senate have approved $172 million for this activity.
(CRS Contact: Mike Davey.)
Table 11. Department of Transportation R&D
($ in millions)
FY2007
Department of Transportation
FY2008
H.R. 3874
S. 1789
Estimate
Federal Highway Administration
$361
$430
$410
$410
Federal Aviation Administration
303
140
265
272
Othersa
130
242
160
165
Total
794
812
835
847
Note: “Others” includes Office of the Secretary, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
Federal Railroad Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and the
Research and Innovative Technology Administration.
Department of the Interior (DOI)
The Administration has requested $621 million for R&D in the Department of
the Interior (DOI), an estimated decline of 3% in FY2008. (See Table 12.)
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the primary supporter of R&D (almost
90 % of the total) within DOI. The three major USGS areas of research include
Geological Resources, Water Resources and Quality, and Biological Resources.
Funding for the USGS is proposed to decline 4% in FY2008.
Funding for the Geological Resources is proposed to decline 7.3%, to an
estimated $198 million for FY2008. The Geological Resources Program assesses the
availability and quality of the nation’s energy and mineral resources. The Geological
Resources Program researches, monitors, and assesses the landscape to understand
geological processes to help distinguish natural change from those resulting from
human activity. Within the earth sciences, the USGS plays a major role in important
geological hazards research, including research on earthquakes and volcanoes.
Enterprise Information conducts information science research to enhance the
National Map and National Spatial Data infrastructure.

---

CRS-32
Funding for Water Resources Research focuses on activities aimed at improving
the quality of U.S. groundwater. Water Resources Investigations R&D is proposed
to decline 6.2%, but as in the past, Congress may reject these cuts. This program
supports the collection of basic hydrologic data, studies of specific water-resources
problems, and hydrologic research through USGS partnerships with state
governments and other entities.
Funding for USGS Biological Research is basically unchanged at $181million
in FY2008. This research program develops and distributes information needed in the
conservation and management of the nation’s biological resources. The program
serves as DOI’s research arm, utilizing the capabilities of 17 research centers and 40
Cooperative Research Units that support research on fish, wildlife, and natural
habitats. Major research initiatives are carried out by USGS scientists who collect
scientific information through research, inventory, and monitoring investigations.
These activities develop new methods and techniques to identify, observe, and
manage fish and wildlife, including invasive species and their habitats. Nearly 90%
of USGS research is performed within Interior labs to address the science needs of
DOI and other agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of
Land Management.
On June 7, 2007, the House Appropriations Committee approved funding for
its version of the Interior-Environmental appropriations bill (H.R. 2643) which
provides $602 million for R&D, a 6.6% increase over the FY2007 estimated funding
level. (See Table 12.) The Geologic Hazards Resource and Processes Division would
see its R&D funding increase 5%, rather than a decrease of 7% as requested in the
President’s budget. Funding for the Water Resources Division is proposed to increase
$2 million, to $128 million. The House Appropriations Committee would also
increase funding for Biological Research by an additional $6 million. The House bill
also includes $10 million for the USGS, specifically for research efforts related to
various aspects of global climate change. It is anticipated that $10 million will be
distributed evenly among USGS’s four research divisions. (CRS Contact: Mike
Davey.)
Table 12. Department of the Interior R&D
($ in millions)
FY2007
DOI
FY2008 H.R.
2643
Estimate
National Mapping
$44
$42
$47
Geological Resources
214
198
225
Water Resources
126
119
128
Biological Research
180
181
187
Climate Change Research
0
0
10
Enterprise Information
5
7
6
USGS totala
570
547
602
Other agenciesb
70
74
76
Total 639
621
679

---

CRS-33
a. USGS R&D estimates are from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, USGS
budget office, and USGS FY2008 Budget Justification documents. Total may not add due to
rounding.
b. “Other agencies” includes the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management, the
Minerals Management Service, and the National Park Service.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
H.R. 2643 (H.Rept. 110-187) as passed in the House June 27, 2007, included
$809.4 million, and S. 1696 (S.Rept. 110-91) as reported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee on June 26, 2007, included $798.6 million for FY2008
for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Science and Technology account,
which reflects most of the Agency’s R&D funding. Both amounts are an increase
above the President’s FY2008 request, and the FY2007 level. (See Table 13). The
House also approved $50.0 million within a new EPA appropriations account
primarily to be distributed across multiple federal agencies for federal climate change
adaptation and mitigation research. The Senate committee did not include this
provision.
EPA, the regulatory agency responsible for carrying out a number of
environmental laws, funds a broad portfolio of R&D activities to provide the
necessary scientific tools and knowledge to support decisions relating to preventing,
regulating, and abating environmental pollution. As is the case for several federal
agencies, funding for EPA’s individual R&D activities generally is not identified
separately from applied science and technology line items in the agency’s budget
request or appropriations, but rather are typically included within general program
funds. Although the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reports10 historical
and projected budget authority amounts for R&D at EPA (and other federal
agencies), how these amounts explicitly relate to the requested and appropriated
funding amounts within EPA accounts for specific program activities is not clear.
R&D at EPA headquarters and laboratories around the country, as well as
external R&D, is primarily managed by EPA’s Office of Research and Development
(ORD). EPA’s annual appropriations are requested, considered, and enacted
according to eight line-item appropriations accounts, which were established by
Congress during the FY1996 appropriations process. EPA’s R&D activities managed
by ORD, including the agency’s research laboratories and research grants, as well as
the agency’s applied science and technology activities conducted through the its
program offices, are funded within the agency’s Science and Technology (S&T)
appropriations account. Many of the programs implemented by EPA have a research
10 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reports R&D budget authority amounts
in its Analytical Perspectives accompanying the annual President’s budget, but amounts for
specific programs are not included. The budget authority amounts reported by OMB are
typically significantly less than amounts appropriated/requested for the S&T account, but
the differences are not explicitly defined. For example, OMB reported actual budget
authority of $622 million for FY2006, and estimated amounts of $567 million for FY2007
and $562 million for FY2008. See OMB, Fiscal Year 2008 Budget of the United States:
Analytical Perspectives — Cross Cutting Programs, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
budget/fy2008/].

---

CRS-34
component, but the research is not necessarily the primary focus of the program. The
S&T account incorporates elements of the former EPA Research and Development
account, as well as a portion of the former Salaries and Expenses and Research and
Program Operations accounts, which had been in place until FY1996. The S&T
account is funded by a base appropriation and a transfer of appropriated funds from
the Superfund account. These transferred funds are dedicated to research on more
effective methods to clean up contaminated sites.
On June 27, 2007, the House passed H.R. 2643 (H.Rept. 110-187), the FY2008
appropriations bill for the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, that includes
EPA. H.R. 2643 would provide $8.09 billion for EPA for FY2008.11 Including the
transfer from Superfund, the House bill would provide $809.4 million for the S&T
account, an increase of 4% above the President’s FY2008 request of $780.6 million,
and 7% above the FY2007 appropriation of $763.6 million. In its bill, S. 1696,
reported on June 26, 2007, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$7.77 billion for EPA. The Senate reported bill would provide $798.6 million
(including transfers) for the S&T account, 2% above the President’s FY2008 request
and less than 5% above the FY2007 level.
Although the House approved an increase in funding for most of the line item
programs within the S&T account, the largest increase is reflected in the total $33.3
million proposed for global change research in FY2008. The amount would be
roughly twice the amount requested for FY2008 and included in the FY2007
appropriation. The Senate Committee proposed $18.6 million for this research
activity. The largest increase recommended by the Senate Committee was $14.0
million for extramural research grants which was not included in the FY2008 request
or in the FY2007 appropriations. The extramural grants would be in the form of
competitive grants for “high-priority” air ($10.0 million) and water ($4.0 million)
quality research in addition to that included in the FY2008 request.
Although most of the appropriations within the S&T account funds “actual”
research activities, certain facility operations and administration expenses, such as
rent, utilities, and security, are also funded within this account. The House and the
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the same amount as the President
requested for facility operations and administration within the S&T account,12 but
each added more funds to the account to provide a net increase for actual research.
The President’s requested increase for the S&T account as a whole was mainly
attributed to a continued shift from the Environmental Programs and Management
account, which had been funding these activities. When comparing funding for
research alone, the President’s budget would provide roughly $20 million less in
11 For more information regarding EPA’s FY2008 appropriations see CRS Report RL34011,
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations, coordinated by Carol
Hardy Vincent.
12 An amendment agreed to during the House floor debate would reduce, then increase, the
S&T account by $3.9 million. In the floor debate the sponsoring Member of the amendment
stated the amount would reduce funding for the operations and administration in the S&T
account by $3.9 million, and increase funding for homeland water security initiative within
this account to bring the total amount up to the requested level of $21.9 million (p. H7126
in the June 26, 2007 Congressional Record).

---

CRS-35
FY2008 than in FY2007, while the House proposal would be an overall net increase
of $33.8 million above the FY2008 request and $14.0 million above the FY2007
appropriations. The Senate Committee recommended amount would be roughly $2.0
million less than the FY2007 level, but $18.0 million above the FY2008 request.
In addition to S&T appropriations, for FY2008 the House approved the creation
of a new EPA appropriations account, the “Commission on Climate Change
Adaption and Mitigation.” The House bill included $50.0 million for this account
for FY2008. Of the total, $5 million would be for the establishment and operations
of a temporary (two-year) multi-agency commission to analyze science questions
related to climate change adaptation and mitigation and to recommend research
priorities. The President of the National Academy of Sciences would serve as the
Chairman of the new, temporary Commission. The remaining $45.0 million within
this account would be distributed to support federal agency climate change adaptation
and mitigation research efforts based on the commission’s recommendations. The
Senate committee did not include a new account or provide similar funding for
purposes of a climate change commission.
Some Members of Congress and an array of stakeholders have raised concerns
about the adequacy of funding for scientific research at EPA. A number of the
scientific organizations, including EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB)13 and the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), analyzed the
FY2008 request, identified potential shortfalls and provided their recommendations
for funding increases above those proposed for certain research activities. In
particular, the EPA SAB expressed its concerns about the “decreased trends in the
funding of ecosystems research, decreased funding of the Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) extramural and fellowship programs, and the elimination of the economics
and decision sciences research program within ORD.” According to the AAAS
estimates, the FY2008 requested EPA R&D funding would be the lowest in more
than two decades, in real, inflated adjusted dollars. Consistent with budgetary
procedures, the House Committee on Science and Technology submitted its views
and estimates of the FY2008 budget to the House Budget Committee.14 In its April
2007 views and estimates, the Committee noted the EPA SAB’s opinions regarding
the inadequacies of EPA’s R&D resources, and agreed that a more robust investment
is needed to maintain a healthy environment and economy.
In testimony on the FY2008 request before Congress, EPA acknowledged
reductions in certain research areas but contended that the FY2008 proposed budget
addresses the highest priority environmental research needs, given available
resources and interest in reducing the federal deficit.15 For example, although overall
13 Comments on EPA’s Strategic Research Directions and Research Budget for FY2008, An
Advisory Report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board
(EPA-SAB-07-004) [http://www.epa.gov/science1/pdf/sab-07-004.pdf].
14 See the House Committee on Science and Technology website at
[http://science.house.gov/randd/views_estimates.htm].
15 See March 14, 2007, testimony of George Gray, EPA Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development and Science Advisor, before the House Subcommittee on Energy
(continued...)

---

CRS-36
funding requested for human health research would have decreased compared to
FY2007, human health risk assessment research, within that broader category, would
have increased from $38.3 million in FY2007 to $42.8 million in FY2008. Other
priority areas receiving increased funding noted by EPA included clean air research
and research regarding fate, transport and other issues associated with nanomaterials.
The FY2008 request also proposed combining line item funding for certain research
activities to allow for flexibility and a “more holistic approach” for addressing
science challenges. For example, the FY2008 request proposed combining funding
for air toxics research and funding for National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) research into an integrated air research program.
Debate regarding funding for scientific research administered by EPA (and other
federal agencies) often has focused on the question of whether the agency’s actions
are based on “sound science,” and how scientific research is applied in developing
federal policy. Although EPA contends the recent fiscal budget requests are adequate
to support the agency’s priorities, the question of sound science continues to be of
concern as evidenced by recent EPA actions. For example, the debate regarding too
much or not enough science and how EPA used the science in its decision making,
has been an issue surrounding EPA’s recent review of air quality standards or
NAAQS.16 The adequacy of resources necessary to ensure the sufficiency of
scientific support for EPA’s implementation of the many environmental requirements
remains an issue of concern. (CRS Contact: Robert Esworthy).
Table 13. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account
($ in millions)
H.R. 2643
S. 1696
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Environmental Protection Agency
House-
S. Comm.
Enacted a Enacted
Request
Passed
Reported
Science and Technology Appropriations Account
— Base Appropriations
$730.8
$733.4
$754.5
$783.3
$772.5
— Transfer in from Superfund
Account
30.2
30.2
26.1
26.1
26.1
Science and Technology Total
761.0
763.6
780.6
809.4
798.6
— (Operations and Administration)
(8.5)
(33.0)
(73.9)
(73.9)
(73.9)
Net Science and Technology
752.5
730.6
706.7
735.5
724.7
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using information provided by the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
a. Committee amounts for FY2006 in the above table reflect a 0.476% across-the-board rescission,
and a 1% government-wide rescission, applicable to that year.
15 (...continued)
and Environment, Committee on Sciences and Technology [http://science.house.gov/
publications/Testimony.aspx?TID=5177].
16 See CRS Report RL33807, Air Quality Standards and Sound Science: What Role for
CASAC? by James E. McCarthy.

---