Federal Research and Development Funding:
FY2009
John F. Sargent Jr., Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
March 17, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34448
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Summary
In February 2008, President Bush proposed total research and development (R&D) funding of
$147.0 billion in his FY2009 budget request to Congress, a $3.9 billion (2.7%) increase over the
estimated FY2008 level of $143.1 billion. President Bush’s request included $29.3 billion for
basic research, up $847 million (3.0%) from FY2008; $27.1 billion for applied research, down
$1.0 billion (-3.6%); $84.0 billion for development, up 1.6 billion (1.9%); and $6.5 billion for
R&D facilities and equipment, up $2.5 billion (61.7%).
In the absence of final action on the regular FY2009 appropriations bills, Congress passed H.R.
2638 (110th Congress), the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-329) which President Bush signed on September 30, 2008.
This act provides FY2009 appropriations for the Department of Defense, Department of
Homeland Security, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; continued funding for
agencies not covered under these provisions at their FY2008 funding levels through March 6,
2009; and supplemental funding for disaster relief. The uncompleted regular appropriations bills
considered by the 110th Congress expired with the beginning of the 111th Congress.
On February 23, 2009, H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8), which
provides specific FY2009 appropriations for the agencies covered under the continuing
appropriations provisions of P.L. 110-329, was introduced in the House and passed two days later.
With the Omnibus bill under consideration in the Senate, on March 6 Congress passed and
President Obama signed H.J.Res. 38 (P.L. 111-6), extending the continuing appropriations
provisions of P.L. 110-329 through March 11, 2009. On March 10, the Senate passed H.R. 1105
without amendment. President Obama signed the act on March 11.
Additional funding for research and development was provided under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1), often referred to informally as “the stimulus bill.” H.R. 1 was
passed by the House and Senate on February 13, and signed into law (P.L. 111-5) by President
Obama on February 17. The act includes approximately $22.7 billion for R&D, facilities,
equipment and related activities.
For the past two fiscal years, federal R&D funding and execution has been affected by
mechanisms used to complete the annual appropriations process—the year-long continuing
resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5) and the combining of 11 appropriations bills into the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161). For example, FY2008 R&D
funding for some agencies and programs was below the level requested by President Bush and
passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate. Completion of appropriations after the
beginning of each fiscal year also resulted in delays or cancellation of planned R&D and
equipment acquisition.
While the annual budget requests of incumbent Presidents are usually delivered to Congress in
early February for the next fiscal year, the change of presidential administrations delayed the
initial release of President Obama’s FY2010 budget until February 26, 2009. The director of the
White House Office of Management and Budget, Peter R. Orzag, has testified that a more
detailed version of the budget will be released in the spring.

Congressional Research Service

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Contents
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 1
Federal R&D Funding Perspectives....................................................................................... 2
Agency Perspective......................................................................................................... 2
Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment Perspective ............................................... 3
Combined Perspective..................................................................................................... 4
Multi-Agency Initiatives Perspective............................................................................... 5
FY2009 Federal R&D Appropriations Status......................................................................... 6
Regular Appropriations ................................................................................................... 6
Appropriations Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ................. 7
Supplemental Appropriations for FY2008 ............................................................................. 9
Effect of FY2007-FY2008 Appropriations Process on R&D.................................................. 9
Multiagency R&D Initiatives ...................................................................................................... 9
Department of Defense (DOD).................................................................................................. 10
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ................................................................................. 16
National Institutes of Health (NIH) ........................................................................................... 20
Department of Energy (DOE).................................................................................................... 28
National Science Foundation (NSF) .......................................................................................... 32
Department of Commerce (DOC).............................................................................................. 37
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) ....................................................... 37
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ............................................... 40
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)........................................................... 44
Department of Agriculture (USDA)........................................................................................... 47
Department of the Interior (DOI)............................................................................................... 51
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)................................................................................... 53
Department of Transportation (DOT) ........................................................................................ 56

Tables
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2008-FY2009 .................... 2
Table 2. Federal Research and Development Funding by Character of Work, Facilities
and Equipment, FY2008-FY2009............................................................................................. 3
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities and Equipment,
FY2008-FY2009...................................................................................................................... 4
Table 4. Funding for ACI Agencies in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Table 5. Research, Development and Related Funding in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 ........................................................................................................ 7
Table 6. Department of Defense RDT&E .................................................................................. 13
Congressional Research Service

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Table 7. Department of Defense RDT&E Associated with the Global War on Terror
Funding ................................................................................................................................. 15
Table 8. Department of Defense RDT&E Funding in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 ...................................................................................................... 16
Table 9. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs ................................... 19
Table 10. National Institutes of Health....................................................................................... 25
Table 11. Funding for NIH in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ................ 27
Table 12. Department of Energy R&D and Related Programs (Regular Appropriations)............ 30
Table 13. Department of Energy R&D and Related Programs (American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act).................................................................................................................. 32
Table 14. National Science Foundation...................................................................................... 36
Table 15. Funding for NSF R&D and Related Activities in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 ...................................................................................................... 37
Table 16. NIST.......................................................................................................................... 39
Table 17. Funding for NIST in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 .............. 40
Table 18. NOAA R&D .............................................................................................................. 43
Table 19. NASA R&D (Regular Appropriations) ....................................................................... 45
Table 20. NASA R&D (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) ............................. 46
Table 21. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D......................................................................... 49
Table 22. Funding for USDA R&D and Related Activities in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 ...................................................................................................... 50
Table 23. Department of the Interior R&D................................................................................. 52
Table 24. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account ........................................................ 55
Table 25. Department of Transportation R&D ........................................................................... 57

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 58

Congressional Research Service

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Overview
The 111th Congress continues to take a strong interest in the health of the U.S. research and
development (R&D) enterprise and in providing sustained support for federal R&D activities.
The United States government supports a broad range of scientific and engineering research and
development. Its purposes include addressing specific concerns such as national defense, health,
safety, the environment, and energy security; advancing knowledge generally; developing the
scientific and engineering workforce; and strengthening U.S. innovation and competitiveness in
the global economy. Most of the research funded by the federal government is in support of
specific activities of the federal government as reflected in the unique missions of the funding
agencies. The federal government has played an important role in supporting R&D efforts that
have led to scientific breakthroughs and new technologies, from jet aircraft and the Internet to
communications satellites and defenses against disease.
In February 2008, President Bush requested $147.0 billion for R&D in FY2009, a 2.7% increase
over FY2008 R&D funding which was estimated to be $143.1 billion.1 The FY2009 proposed
R&D increase over the FY2008 funding level was due primarily to funding for the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and an advance appropriation to the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) for acquisition under Project BioShield of medical countermeasures, such as
vaccines, against biological terror attacks.2 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
classified $2.175 billion of the DHS advance appropriation as R&D facilities construction in
FY2009. Some have questioned the appropriateness of classifying these funds as R&D facilities
and equipment since the funds appear to be intended for product acquisition rather than research,
development, or facilities construction. This advance appropriation accounted for more than half
of the net increase in R&D funding in President Bush’s FY2009 budget request.
Analysis of federal R&D funding is complicated by several factors, including the Bush
Administration’s omission of Congressionally directed spending from the FY2009 budget
request, inconsistency among agencies in the reporting of R&D, and the apparent mis-
categorization of some funding in President Bush’s request. As a result of these and other factors,
the R&D agency figures reported by OMB (and shown in Table 1) may differ somewhat from
those agency budget analyses that appear later in this report.
Another complicating factor for FY2009 is the inclusion of funding for R&D, facilities, and
equipment, and related activities in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L.
111-5) in addition to funding provided to agencies in P.L. 110-329 and P.L. 111-8. The House bill
(H.R. 1), which includes approximately $13.2 billion for R&D, facilities, and equipment, has
passed the House; the Senate version of H.R. 1 includes approximately $22.6 billion for these
purposes.

1 Funding levels included in this document are in current dollars unless otherwise noted. Inflation diminishes the
purchasing power of federal R&D funds, so an increase that does not equal or exceed the inflation rate may reduce real
purchasing power. For example, a key measure of inflation, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), rose 3.8% in 2008,
indicating that President Bush’s R&D funding request for FY2009 may represent a decline in real purchasing power.
2 The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-90), provided funding under Title III,
Preparedness and Recovery, in the amount of $5.593 billion to remain available through FY2013. The act restricts DHS
from spending more than $3.418 billion in fiscal years 2004 through 2008. The balance, $2.175 billion, became
available for use by DHS in FY2009.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Federal R&D Funding Perspectives
Federal R&D funding can be analyzed from a variety of perspectives that provide unique insights.
Agency Perspective
The authorization and appropriations process views federal R&D funding primarily from agency
and program perspectives. Table 1 provides data on R&D by agency for FY2007 (actual),
FY2008 (estimate), and FY2009 (request) as reported by OMB. Under President Bush’s FY2009
budget request, five federal agencies would have received 92.8% of total federal R&D funding:
the Department of Defense (DOD), 54.8%; the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
(primarily the National Institutes of Health), 20.1%; the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), 7.3%; the Department of Energy (DOE), 7.2%; and the National Science
Foundation (NSF), 3.5%. This report provides an analysis of the R&D budget requests for these
agencies, as well as for the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Commerce (DOC), Homeland
Security, Interior (DOI), and Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). In total these departments and agencies accounted for more than 98% of current and
requested federal R&D funding.
The Bush Administration had requested significantly larger percentage increases for the three
agencies that were part of its American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI): DOE’s Office of
Science (up 19% above the estimated FY2008 level), the National Science Foundation (up 14%),
and DOC’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (up 5%). In 2007, Congress
authorized substantial R&D increases for these agencies under the America COMPETES Act
(P.L. 110-69).3,4 President Bush’s budget would have reduced R&D funding for four agencies: the
Department of Agriculture, down $357 million (-15.5%); the Department of Veterans Affairs,
down $76 million (-7.9%); the Department of the Interior, down $59 million (-8.7%); and the
Environmental Protection Agency, down $7 million (-1.3%).
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2008-FY2009
(Budget authority, dollar amount in millions)
Department/Agency
FY2008
Percent Change,
Estimatea
FY2009 Request
Dollar Change,
2008 to 2009
2008 to 2009
Agriculture 2,309
1,952
-357
-15.5
Commerce 1,113
1,157
44
4.0
Defense 80,192
80,494
302
0.4
Energy 9,739
10,558
819
8.4
Environmental Protection
Agency 557
550
-7
-1.3
Health and Human Services
29,475
29,480
5
0.0

3 For additional information, see CRS Report RL34328, America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected
Issues, by Deborah D. Stine.
4 H.R. 1, as passed by the House of Representatives, includes an additional $5.4 billion in R&D and related activities
for these agencies; S. 1, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, includes an additional $2.4 billion.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

FY2008
Dollar Change,
Percent Change,
Department/Agency
Estimatea
FY2009 Request
2008 to 2009
2008 to 2009
Homeland Security
1,143
3,287
2,144
187.6
Interior 676
617
-59
-8.7
NASA 10,436
10,737
301
2.9
National Science Foundation
4,500
5,201
701
15.6
Transportation 823
901
78
9.5
Veterans Affairs
960
884
-76
-7.9
Other 1,140
1,145
5
0.4
TOTAL 143,063
146,963
3,900
2.7
Source: Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009, Office of
Management and Budget, The White House, February 2008.
a. The FY2008 figures in this table do not include supplemental funding for R&D for FY2008 provided under
the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252).
Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment Perspective
Federal R&D funding can also be examined by the character of work (basic research, applied
research, and development) it supports, and funding provided for facilities and acquisition of
R&D major equipment (see Table 2). President Bush’s FY2009 request included $29.3 billion for
basic research, up $847 million (3.0%) from FY2008; $27.1 billion for applied research, down
$1.0 billion (-3.6%); $84.0 billion for development, up $1.6 billion (1.9%); and $6.5 billion for
facilities and equipment, up $2.5 billion (61.7%).
Table 2. Federal Research and Development Funding by Character of Work,
Facilities and Equipment, FY2008-FY2009
(Budget authority, dollar amount in millions)

FY2008 Estimate
FY2009 Request
Dollar Change,
Percent Change,
2008 to 2009
2008 to 2009
Basic research
28,472
29,319
847
3.0
Applied research
28,112
27,087
-1,025
-3.6
Development 82,432 84,013 1,581 1.9
Facilities and
equipment 4,047
6,544
2,497
61.7
TOTAL 143,063
146,963
3,900
2.7
Source: Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009, Office of
Management and Budget, The White House, February 2008.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Combined Perspective
Combining these perspectives, federal R&D funding can be viewed in terms of each agency’s
contribution to basic research, applied research, development, and facilities and equipment (see
Table 3). The federal government is the nation’s largest supporter of basic research (funding an
estimated 58.8% of U.S. basic research in 2006),5 primarily because the private sector asserts it
cannot capture an adequate return on long-term fundamental research investments. The
Department of Health and Human Services (primarily HHS’s National Institutes of Health (NIH))
accounts for more than half of all federal funding for basic research.
In contrast to basic research, industry is the primary funder of applied research in the United
States, accounting for an estimated 58.9% in 2006, while the federal government accounted for an
estimated 33.3%.6 Among federal agencies, HHS is the largest funder of applied research,
accounting for nearly half of all federally funded applied research.
Industry also provides the vast majority of funding for development, accounting for an estimated
82.5% in 2006, while the federal government provided an estimated 16.2%.7 DOD is the primary
federal agency development funder, accounting for 88.5% of total federal development funding in
the FY2009 request.
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities and Equipment,
FY2008-FY2009
(Budget authority, dollar amount in millions)

FY2008 Estimate
FY2009 Request
Dollar Change,
Percent Change,
2008 to 2009
2008 to 2009
Basic Research
Health and Human
Services 15,897
15,884
-13
0.0
National Science
Foundation 3,689
4,336 647
17.5
Energy 3,232
3,556
324
10.0
Applied Research
Health and Human
Services 13,414
13,424
10
0
Defense 5,058
4,245
-813
-16.1
Energy 3,513
3,474
-39
-1.1
Development
Defense 73,358
74,393
1,035
1.4
NASA 5,436
5,731
295
5.1

5 Science and Engineering Indicators 2008,Volume 2: Appendix Tables, National Science Foundation, 2008.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Dollar Change,
Percent Change,

FY2008 Estimate
FY2009 Request
2008 to 2009
2008 to 2009
Energy 2,232
2,472
240
10.7
Facilities and equipment
Homeland Security
147
2,250
2,102
1420.3
NASA 1,922
2,175
253
13.2
Energy 762
1,056
294
38.6
Source: Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009, Office of
Management and Budget, The White House, February 2008.
Note: Top funding agencies based on FY2009 request.
Multi-Agency Initiatives Perspective
Federal R&D funding can also be viewed in terms of multi-agency efforts, such as the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (see “Multiagency R&D Initiatives” section), and other initiatives,
such as the Bush Administration’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). Similarly,
President Obama has stated that he will seek to double funding for basic research over 10 years.
The ACI was proposed by President Bush in February 2006 as a response to growing concerns
about America’s ability to compete in the global marketplace. The $136 billion ACI proposal
included $50 billion for additional research, science education, and the modernization of research
infrastructure from FY2007 through FY2016. These funds were intended to double physical
sciences and engineering research in three agencies—NSF, DOE’s Office of Science, and NIST—
over ten years.8 Congress established authorization levels for FY2008-2010 in the America
COMPETES Act that would put funding for research at these agencies on track to double in
approximately seven years. However, FY2008 research funding provided in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) for these agencies fell below these doubling targets.
Estimated FY2008 funding for ACI research totaled $10.61 billion, an increase of approximately
$350 million (3.5%) over the FY2007 ACI funding level.
For FY2009, President Bush requested $12.21 billion in funding for ACI research at NSF, DOE’s
Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (including its core
research program and facilities), an increase of $1.6 billion (15.1%) above the estimated FY2008
level of $10.61 billion.9 The NSF funding request for FY2009 was $6.85 billion, an increase of
$821 million (13.6%) above the estimated FY2008 level of $6.03 billion.10 The FY2009 request
for the DOE Office of Science was $4.72 billion, $749 million (18.9%) more than the estimated
FY2008 level of $3.97 billion.11 FY2009 proposed funding for NIST’s core research program and

8 The ACI proposes to double “innovation-enabling physical science and engineering research” at the three agencies
over ten years, and states that “individual agency allocations remain to be determined.” (The American Competitiveness
Initiative: Leading the World in Innovation, Office of Science and Technology Policy/Domestic Policy Council, The
White House, February 2006.)
9 American Competitiveness Initiative Research fact sheet, FY2009 request, Office of Science and Technology Policy,
The White House, February 2008.
10 Office of Management and Budget website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/nsf.html
11 Office of Management and Budget website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/energy.html
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

facilities totaled $634 million, an increase of $33 million (4.5%) above the estimated FY2008
level of $610 million.12
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) includes funding for each of
the three ACI agencies totaling approximately $5.2 billion (in addition to the enacted levels in
P.L. 110-329) (see Table 4).
Table 4. Funding for ACI Agencies in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009
(in millions of dollars)
H.R. 1
H.R. 1
Agency
(House)
(Senate)
P.L. 111-5
National Science Foundation
3,002
1,202
3,002
Department of Energy/Office of Science
2,000
330
1,600a
National Institute of Standards and Technology/core researchb,c 100 168 220
National Institute of Standards and Technology/facilities 300
307
360
Sources: H.R. 1 (House, Senate, and enacted), House Rept. 111-016, and the Joint Explanatory Statement of the
Committee on Conference.
a. The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee on Conference states that “after taking into account the
additional $400,000,000 provided for Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) in a separate
account, the funding level for Science is the same as proposed by the House.”
b. NIST core research activities are those performed under the Scientific and Technical Research and Services
account.
c. The final act (as well as the House and Senate versions of H.R. 1) also provides for a transfer of $20 million
from the Department of Health and Human Services to support the creation and testing of standards
related to health security and interoperability.
FY2009 Federal R&D Appropriations Status
Regular Appropriations
On September 30, 2008, President Bush signed into law H.R. 2638 (110th Congress), the
Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-
329). This act provides FY2009 appropriations for the Department of Defense, Department of
Homeland Security, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, as well as supplemental
funding for disaster relief. In addition, Division A of the act provides continuing appropriations
for FY2009 at their original FY2008 levels13 to agencies not otherwise addressed in the act
through March 6, 2009, or until the enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or
activity provided for in the act, or the enactment into law of the applicable appropriations act for
FY2009 without any provision for such project or activity, whichever occurs first.

12 Office of Management and Budget website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/commerce.html
13 The original FY2008 funding levels do not include R&D funding provided under the Supplemental Appropriations
Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252).
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Previously, only one of the FY2009 regular appropriations bills, the Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs Appropriation, FY2009 (H.R. 6599, 110th Congress) had passed the House; none
had passed the Senate. Each of these bills expired at the end of the 110th Congress.
On February 23, 2009, H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8) was
introduced in the House, and passed two days later, providing specific appropriations for the
agencies covered under the continuing appropriations provisions of P.L. 110-329. With the
Omnibus bill under consideration in the Senate, on March 6, Congress passed and President
Obama signed H.J.Res. 38 (P.L. 111-6), extending the continuing appropriations provisions of
P.L. 110-329 through March 11, 2009. On March 10, the Senate passed H.R. 1105 without
amendment. President Obama signed the act on March 11.
Appropriations Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
On February 13, 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(P.L. 111-5), and President Obama signed it into law on February 17. The act includes funding for
R&D, facilities, equipment and related activities in addition to the enacted levels in P.L. 110-329.
The final version of the act includes approximately $22.7 billion for R&D, facilities, and
equipment and related activities. Greater detail on these funds are provided in Table 5. No
attempt is made in this table to differentiate among the specific uses (i.e., R&D, facilities,
equipment, related activities) as in several cases there is insufficient detail in the act and in the
Joint Explanatory Statement of the Conference Committee.
Table 5. Research, Development and Related Funding in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009
(in millions of dollars)
H.R. 1
H.R. 1
Agency
(House)
(Senate)
P.L. 111-5
Department of Agriculture



Office of the Secretary
—
200
—
Agricultural Research Service (buildings and facilities)
209
—
176
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Economic Service
—
50
—
Department of Commerce



National Institute of Standards and Technology
—Scientific and Technical Research and Services
100
168
220
—Technology Innovation Program
70
—
—
—Manufacturing Extension Partnership
30
—
—
—Construction of Research Facilities 300
307
360
—Health information technology (transfer from HHS)
20
20
20
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



—Operations, Research, and Facilities 400
377
230
—Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction
600
645
600
Department of Defense
350 200 300
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

H.R. 1
H.R. 1
Agency
(House)
(Senate)
P.L. 111-5
Department of Energya



—Science 2,000
330
1,600
—Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy


400
—Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
2,000
2,648
2,500
—Fossil Energyb 2,400
4,600
1,030
Department of the Interior



U.S. Geological Survey
200
135
140
Department of Health and Human Services



Office of the Secretary



—Comparative effectiveness research
400
400
400
—Biomedical Advanced R&D Authority
430
—
—
—Prepare for/respond to potential influenza pandemic
420
—
—
National Institutes of Health



—Office of the Director
1,500
9,200
8,200
—Office of the Directorc 400
400
400
—National Center for Research Resources
1,500
300
1,300
—Buildings and Facilities 500
500
500
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
462 412 —
(buildings and facilities)
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
300
300
300
National Aeronautics and Space Administration



—Science 400
450
400
—Aeronautics 150
200
150
—Cross Agency Support Programs
—
200
50
—Exploration —
450
400
National Science Foundation



—Research and Related Activities
2,500
1,000
2,500
—Education and Human Resources
100
50
100
—Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction 400
150
400
—Office of the Inspector General
2
2
2
Sources: H.R. 1 (House, Senate, and enacted), House Rept. 111-016, and the Joint Explanatory Statement of the
Committee on Conference.
a. Funding in the Senate bill for weapons activities and electricity delivery and energy reliability may also
include an unspecified amount of R&D.
b. An indeterminate amount of funds provided for Fossil Energy R&D will be used to fund research and
development. In both bills, a significant portion of the fossil energy funding is likely to be allocated to
demonstration activities that not al observers would consider R&D.
c. Transfer from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to conduct or support comparative clinical
effectiveness research.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Supplemental Appropriations for FY2008
On June 30, 2008, President Bush signed into law H.R. 2642 (110th Congress), the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252). Among its provisions, the act provides additional
funding for FY2008 of $1.75 billion to the Department of Defense for research, development,
test, and evaluation (RDT&E) activities; $365 million to the Department of Defense, Defense
Health Program RDT&E; and $338 million to other agencies for science-related activities. Of
these funds, the National Institutes of Health received $150 million; NASA received $62.5
million for its Return to Flight activity; NSF received $62.5 million; and the Department of
Energy received $62.5 million for its non-defense energy programs. In addition, the act provides
$62.5 million to the Department of Energy for defense environmental cleanup.
Effect of FY2007-FY2008 Appropriations Process on R&D
For the past two fiscal years, federal R&D funding levels and execution have been affected by the
mechanisms used to complete the annual appropriations process—the year-long continuing
resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5) and the combining of 11 appropriations bills into the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161). For example, FY2008 R&D
funding for some agencies and programs was below the level requested by President Bush, and
originally passed by House and Senate appropriations committees.14 The Department of Energy
estimated that cuts in its FY2008 R&D budget for its Office of Science would result in layoffs of
525 personnel at the Stanford Linear Accelerator, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
Argonne National Laboratory, and other laboratories and universities.15 Completion of the
appropriations process after the beginning of the fiscal year may also result in delay, reduction, or
cancellation of planned R&D, equipment acquisition, and facilities construction, and may impede
the ability of agencies to fully obligate funds ultimately appropriated (see CRS Report RS22774,
Federal Research and Development Funding: Possible Impacts of Operating under a Continuing
Resolution, by Dana A. Shea and Daniel Morgan).
The following sections provide analyses of President Bush’s FY2009 R&D and related funding
requests for selected Federal agencies and multiagency R&D initiatives. These sections also
include information on appropriations actions taken by Congress.
Multiagency R&D Initiatives
President Bush’s FY2009 budget requests increased funding for three multiagency R&D
initiatives. Funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) was requested in the
amount of $1.53 billion for FY2009, an increase of 2.4% over the estimated FY2008 level of
$1.50 billion (see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview,
Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by John F. Sargent Jr.).16 Under President Bush’s

14 Letter from Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman to Sen. Jeff Bingaman, Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, February 4, 2008. http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/
SignedlettertoSenBingamanrequest0.pdf. Subsequent to this letter, additional funds were provided under P.L. 110-252.
15 Ibid.
16 National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Funding in the President’s FY2009 Budget, fact
sheet, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House, February 2008; National Nanotechnology Initiative
website. http://www.nano.gov/html/about/funding.html.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

FY2009 budget, the NNI would have increased its efforts in fundamental phenomena and
processes by $19.2 million (3.6%); instrument research, metrology, and standards by $21.1
million (34.9%); environmental, health, and safety by $17.8 million (30.4%); and
nanomanufacturing by $11.9 million (23.7%). Smaller increases would have support major
research facilities and instrumentation acquisition (up $6.9 million, 4.5%) and efforts in education
and societal dimensions (up $1.7 million, 4.4%). Funding would have fallen by $27.5 million
(-10.8%) for nanomaterials research and by $15.3 million (-4.5%) for nanoscale devices and
systems.
President Bush requested $3.57 billion in FY2009 funding for the Networking and Information
Technology R&D (NITRD) program, an increase of 5.8% above the estimated FY2008 level of
$3.37 billion. The requested NITRD increase was due primarily to requested funding increases
for NSF (up $159 million, 17.1%) and DOE (up $58 million, 13.3%).17 For additional
information, see CRS Report RL33586, The Federal Networking and Information Technology
Research and Development Program: Funding Issues and Activities, by Patricia Moloney
Figliola.
The Bush Administration proposed $2.01 billion for the Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP), an increase of 9.6% over the estimated FY2008 level of $1.84 billion.18 (See CRS Report
RL33817, Climate Change: Federal Program Funding and Tax Incentives, by Jane A. Leggett.)
Four agencies accounted for most of the FY2009 CCSP requested funding increase: NASA (up
$126 million, 11.7%), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (up $20
million, 8.3%), DOE (up $18 million, 14.1%), and NSF (up $16 million, 7.8%).
Department of Defense (DOD)
Congress supports research and development in the Department of Defense (DOD) through its
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) appropriation. The appropriation
primarily supports the development of the nation’s future military hardware and software and the
technology base upon which those products rely.
Nearly all of what DOD spends on RDT&E is appropriated in Title IV of the defense
appropriation bill (see Table 6). However, RDT&E funds are also requested as part of the
Defense Health Program and the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program. The
Defense Health Program supports the delivery of health care to DOD personnel and their
families. Program funds are requested through the Operations and Maintenance appropriation.
The program’s RDT&E funds support Congressionally directed research in such areas as breast,
prostate, and ovarian cancer and other medical conditions. The Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction Program supports activities to destroy the U.S. inventory of lethal chemical agents
and munitions to avoid future risks and costs associated with storage. Funds for this program are
requested through the Army Procurement appropriation. The Joint Improvised Explosive Device

17 Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009, Office of Management and
Budget, The White House, 2008. The NITRD data in OMB’s Analytical Perspectives include the DOD Defense
Information Systems Agency (DISA). According to the NITRD National Coordination Office, DISA’s contribution is
not included in the FY2009 Networking and Information Technology Research and Development: Supplement to the
President’s Budget report.
18 Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009, Office of Management and
Budget, The White House, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Defeat Fund also contains additional RDT&E monies. However, the fund does not contain an
RDT&E line item as do the two programs mentioned above. The Joint Improvised Explosive
Device Defeat Office, which now administers the fund, tracks (but does not report) the amount of
funding allocated to RDT&E. Typically, Congress has funded each of these programs in Title VI
(Other Department of Defense Programs) of the defense appropriations bill.
RDT&E funds have also been requested and appropriated as part of DOD’s separate funding to
support what the Bush Administration terms the Global War on Terror (GWOT). Congress has
appropriated these funds in response to emergency supplemental requests and under a separate
GWOT request. GWOT-related requests/appropriations often include funds for a number of
transfer funds. These include the Iraqi Freedom Fund (IFF), the Iraqi Security Forces Fund, the
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, and the Mine Resistant and Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund
(MRAPVF). Congress typically makes a single appropriation into each of these funds, and
authorizes the Secretary to make transfers to other baseline accounts, including RDT&E, at his
discretion. GWOT-related RDT&E funding is shown in Table 7. Note that while these GWOT-
related appropriations may be distributed to baseline program elements, they are accounted for
separately.
For FY2009, the Bush Administration requested $79.6 billion for DOD’s baseline Title IV
RDT&E, roughly $2.5 billion more than Congress appropriated for Title IV in FY2008. The
FY2009 requests for RDT&E in the Defense Health Program and the Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction program were $194 million and $269 million, respectively. The Bush
Administration also submitted an FY2008 Global War on Terror Pending request (i.e., a
supplemental request), which included $2.9 billion for RDT&E. During the FY2008
appropriations deliberations, Congress only approved a portion of the Bush Administration’s
FY2008 GWOT request. The Bush Administration requested the FY2008 GWOT Pending
supplemental in hopes of receiving the balance of that earlier request. The Bush Administration
also made a FY2009 GWOT “Bridge” request in March. This additional request included $379
million in classified RDT&E. By requesting bridge funding, the administration hopes to have
ready GWOT-related emergency funds at the beginning of the fiscal year (in October) should the
passage of the baseline defense appropriations be delayed.
Since FY2001, funding for RDT&E in Title IV has increased from $42 billion to $80 billion in
FY2009. In constant FY2009 dollars, the increase is roughly 60%. Historically, RDT&E funding
has reached its highest levels in constant dollars, dating back to 1948.19 Congress has
appropriated more for RDT&E than has been requested, every year, since FY1996.
RDT&E funding can be broken out in a couple of ways. Each of the military departments request
and receive their own RDT&E funding. So, too, do various DOD agencies (e.g., the Missile
Defense Agency and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), collectively aggregated
within the Defensewide account. RDT&E funding also can be characterized by budget activity
(i.e., the type of RDT&E supported).Those budget activities designated as 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 (basic
research, applied research, and advanced development) constitute what is called DOD’s Science
and Technology Program (S&T) and represents the more research-oriented part of the RDT&E
program. Budget activities 6.4 and 6.5 focus on the development of specific weapon systems or

19 This historical data can be found in DOD’s National Defense Budget Estimates for the FY2009 Budget (also known
as the “Green Book”). Office of the Under Secretary for Defense (Comptroller).March 2008.pp 62-67. See
http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2009/fy2009_greenbook.pdf. Last viewed January 28, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

components (e.g., the Joint Strike Fighter or missile defense systems), for which an operational
need has been determined and an acquisition program established. Budget activity 6.7 supports
system improvements in existing operational systems. Budget activity 6.6 provides management
support, including support for test and evaluation facilities.
Congress is particularly interested in S&T funding since these funds support the development of
new technologies and the underlying science. Assuring adequate support for S&T activities is
seen by some in the defense community as imperative to maintaining U.S. military superiority.
This was of particular concern at a time when defense budgets and RDT&E funding were falling
at the end of the Cold War. As part of its 2001 Quadrennial Review, DOD established a goal of
stabilizing its baseline S&T funding (i.e., Title IV) at 3% of DOD’s overall funding. Congress has
embraced this goal. The FY2009 S&T funding request in Title IV was $11.5 billion, about $1.3
billion less than what Congress appropriated for S&T in Title IV in FY2008 (not counting S&T
funding requested as part of the GWOT request or S&T’s share of the general reduction made to
Title IV in the FY2008 appropriations bill). Furthermore, the S&T request for Title IV was
approximately 2.2% of the overall baseline DOD budget request (not counting funds for the
Global War on Terror), short of the 3% goal. The ability of DOD to meet its 3% goal has been
strained in recent years as the overall Defense budget continues to rise. In the FY2007 defense
authorization bill (P.L. 109-364, Sec. 217), Congress reiterated its support for the 3% goal,
extended it to FY2012, and stipulated that, if the S&T budget request does not meet this goal,
DOD submit a prioritized list of S&T projects that were not funded solely due to insufficient
resources.
Within the S&T program, basic research (6.1) receives special attention, particularly by the
nation’s universities. DOD is not a large supporter of basic research, when compared to the
National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation. However, over half of DOD’s
basic research budget is spent at universities and represents the major contribution of funds in
some areas of science and technology (such as electrical engineering and material science). The
FY2009 request for basic research ($1.7 billion) was roughly $65 million more than what
Congress appropriated for Title IV basic research in FY2008.
Congress passed the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252) on June 30, 2008.
Title IX of the act provided supplemental funding for the Department of Defense and the Global
War on Terror. See Table 7. Chapter 1 of Title IX addressed the GWOT Pending request and
Chapter 2 of Title IX addressed the FY2009 GWOT Bridge request. Congress did not provide all
the RDT&E funding requested in the FY2008 GWOT Pending request for the departments and
defense agencies, but added RDT&E funds for the Defense Health Program. In addition,
Congress directed a general reduction of the RDT&E funds provided. Congress provided the
requested level of RDT&E in the Bridge request, plus $9 million more for the Air Force. The act
also provided a $2.5 billion for the Iraqi Security Forces Fund, $2 billion for the Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Fund, and $1.7 billion for the Mine Resistant and Ambush Protected
Vehicle Fund, from which the Secretary may transfer funds into RDT&E.
Congress passed a FY2009 defense appropriations as part of the Consolidated Security, Disaster
Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 101-329, Division C). The bill
provided $80.5 billion for Title IV RDT&E. This included $13.5 billion for S&T, of which $1.8
billion was for basic research (i.e. approximately $100 million more for basic research than was
requested). Section 8101 reduced Title IV funding by $218 million to account for revised
economic assumptions. In addition, Congress provided $903 million for RDT&E within the
Defense Health Program (including $150 million and $80 million for peer-reviewed breast and
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

prostate cancer research, respectively) and $289 million for RDT&E within the Chemical Agents
and Munitions Destruction Program.
On February 13, 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(P.L. 111-5). The House version of H.R. 1 provided DOD $350 million to support RDT&E
directed at improving energy generation, transmission, regulation, use and storage, for military
installations, military vehicles, and other military equipment. The House bill did not specify
which programs should be funded. The Senate version of H.R. 1, per S.Amdt. 570, provided $200
million within the Defensewide RDT&E account. S.Rept. 111-3, the report accompanying the
earlier Senate version (S. 336), stipulated that the $200 million go to the Manufacturing
Technology Program to help transition and demonstrate energy efficient technologies including
fuel cells and solar cells. The Senate bill appeared directed at the program element 0603680D8Z,
which in FY2009 received $18 million. The Senate bill would have appropriated an order of
magnitude more for this program than what it already received in FY2009, raising the issue of
whether such an increase could have been accommodated efficiently. The final version of the bill
P.L. 111-5 followed the House version, but reduced the funding to $300 million. The bill requires
the Secretary of Defense to report on how the funds were used and the progress made in
achieving the goals of the funding.
Part of the debate over the stimulus bill was whether the funds provided should focus on near-
term job retention or formation or whether they can also be used as a down payment in a longer
term transition toward a more energy independent, efficient, and green economy. It would appear
that the appropriations provided here are in keeping with the latter. (CRS Contact: John
Moteff.)
Table 6. Department of Defense RDT&E
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
Final

Enacteda
Request
(P.L. 110-329)
Title IV - By Account
Army 12,127
10,524

12,060
Navy 17,919
19,337

19,764
Air Force
26,255
28,067
27,084
Defensewide 20,791
21,499

21,423
Dir. Test & Eval
180
189
189

Adjustments
improved economic assumptions
(367)b

(218)
Total Title IV - By Accountc 76,905
79,616

80,303
Title IV - By Budget Activity
6.1 Basic Research
1,634
1,699
1,842
6.2 Applied Research
5,096
4,245
5,113
6.3 Advanced Development
6,039
5,532
6,532
6.4 Advanced Component Development and
15,817
Prototypes 15,745
15,774

Congressional Research Service
13

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
Final

Enacteda
Request
(P.L. 110-329)
6.5 Systems Dev. and Demo
18,321
19,537
18,654
6.6 Management Supportd 4,274
4,369

4,543
6.7 Op. Systems Deve 26,163
28,461

28,020
Adjustments
improved economic assumptions
(367)b

(218)
Total Title IV - by Budget Activityc 76,905
79,617

80,303
Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund
150

Title VI - Other Defense Programs
Defense Health Program
536
194
903
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction
313
269
289
Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-92) and Consolidated
Appropriations Act 2008 (P.L. 110-161)
926f


Grand Total
78,830
80,080
81,495
Sources: Title IV figures for the FY2009 request were taken from RDT&E Programs (R-1) Exhibits, Department
of Defense Budget FY2009. The FY2009 RDT&E request for the Defense Health Program was taken from the
Operations and Maintenance Exhibit (O-1), Department of Defense Budget FY2009. The FY2009 RDT&E
request for the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program was taken from the Procurement Exhibit
(P-1), Department of Defense Budget FY2009. The FY2009 enacted figures were taken from P.L. 110-329 and
the Congressional Record version of the DOD explanatory statement, Sept. 24, 2008.
a. Does not include subsequent rescissions or transfers, unless noted.
b. Sec. 8104 of the FY2008 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-116) required a general reduction to
account for improved economic assumptions. RDT&E’s designated share was $367 million. Sec. 8097 of this
act also required a general reduction of $507 million to be taken proportionately from Operations and
Maintenance (Title II), Procurement (Title III), and RDT&E (Title IV) to account for contractor efficiencies.
The RDT&E’s share of this reduction is not counted in this table.
c. Total Budget Authority for Account and Budget Activity may not agree due to rounding.
d. Includes funds for Developmental and Operational Test and Evaluation.
e. Includes funding for classified programs.
f.
Congress addressed some of the Administration’s FY2008 GWOT request in one of the continuing
resolutions (P.L. 110-92) which supported government operations in early FY2008 and in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161). The continuing resolution provided additional funds for the
MRAPVF. The Consolidated Appropriations Act provided funds to the IFF, some of which were transferred
to RDT&E.

Congressional Research Service
14

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Table 7. Department of Defense RDT&E Associated with the Global War on Terror
Funding
(in millions of dollars)
P.L. 110-252
Supplemental Appropriations Act,
2008 Title IX
Enacted
FY2009 GWOT
FY2008 GWOT
(Bridge Request)
FY2008
FY2009 Bridge

Pending Request
Request
Supplemental
Funding
GWOT-Related Title IV
By Account
Army 163

163

Navy 611
113
366
113
Air Force
1,487
72
400
72
Defensewide 684
194
816
203
Dir. Test & Eval




Total Budget Auth.a 2,945
379
1,745
388
By Budget Activity
6.1 Basic Research




6.2 Applied Research
6



6.3 Advanced
Development 25

6.4 Advanced Component
Dev. and Prototypes
228



6.5 Sys. Dev. and Demo
514



6.6 Management Supportb 54




6.7 Op. Systems Dev
2,121
379

388d
Sec. 8003 general
reduction

?c

Total Budget Auth.a 2,948

379

388
GWOT-Related Other Defense Programs
Defense Health Program


365

Grand Total
2,948
379
<2,110
388
Sources: The figures for the Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-92) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act
2008 (P.L. 110-161) and the FY2008 GWOT Pending Request were taken from the Office of Secretary of
Defense, FY2008 Global War on Terror Pending Request, Exhibits for FY2008, February 2008.
a. Account vs. Budget Activity Total Obligational Authority numbers may not agree due to rounding.
b. Includes funds for Developmental and Operational Test and Evaluation.
c. Section 8003 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 included a general reduction of $3.6 billion to
be applied proportionately to each of the following accounts: Procurement, RDT&E, and Defense Working
Capital. RDT&E’s share is not calculated here.
d. P.L. 110-252 does not designate which budget activity was supported. The table presumes the enacted
amounts were for the same budget activity as requested.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Table 8. Department of Defense RDT&E Funding in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009
(in millions of dollars)
H.R. 1
H.R. 1

(House)
(Senate)
P.L. 111-5
Title IV by Account



Army 87.5

75.0
Navy 87.5

75.0
Air Force
87.5

75.0
Defensewide 87.5
200..0
75.0
Dir. of Test and Eval.



Total Title IV by Account
350.0
200.0
300.0
Title IV by Budget Activity



6.1
Basic
Research

6.2
Applied
Research

6.3 Advanced Development

200.0

6.4 Advanced Component



Development and Prototypes
6.5 Systems Dev. and Demo.



6.6
Management
Support

6.7 Op. Systems Dev.



Total Tile IV by Budget Activity
350.0
200.0
300.0
Sources: H.R. 1, S.Amdt. 570, S.Rept. 111-3, and H.Rept. 111-16.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested $1.449 billion for R&D and related
programs in FY2009, an 8% increase from FY2008. This total included $869 million for the
Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T), $564 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO), and $16 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) in
the U.S. Coast Guard. The House committee recommended a total of $1.447 billion.20 The Senate
committee recommended a total of $1.476 billion.21 The final appropriation was a total of $1.465
billion.22 For details, see Table 9. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L.
111-5) included no additional funding for R&D in DHS.23

20 CRS analysis of H.R. 6947 (110th Congress) as reported and H.Rept. 110-862.
21 CRS analysis of S. 3181 (110th Congress) as reported and S.Rept. 110-396.
22 CRS analysis of P.L. 110-329, Division D, and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, September 24, 2008,
pp. H9806-H9807.
23 The Senate bill as reported (S. 336) included $14 million for cyber security research.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

The Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) is the primary DHS R&D organization.
Headed by the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, the directorate performs R&D in
several laboratories of its own and funds R&D performed by the national laboratories, industry,
universities, and other government agencies. The FY2009 request for the S&T Directorate was
5% above the FY2008 appropriation. A proposed increase of $18 million for the Explosives
program was to fund R&D on countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs), with an emphasis
on basic research to complement shorter-term R&D being conducted by other agencies. A
proposed increase of $43 million for the Laboratory Facilities program included $29 million for
startup costs at the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) as well
as $14 million for laboratory employee salaries previously budgeted in the Management and
Administration account. A proposed $27 million reduction in the Infrastructure and Geophysical
program was largely the result of reducing funding for local and regional initiatives previously
established or funded at congressional direction.
The House committee recommended a total of $887 million for S&T. Increases relative to the
request included $11 million for the Infrastructure and Geophysical program to support the
National Institute for Hometown Security; $5 million for Laboratory Facilities to accelerate
ongoing construction activities at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL); $4 million
to help develop an operational test and evaluation program for first responder technologies; $2
million for a pilot program to improve the productivity and efficiency of the homeland security
industrial base; and $7 million for University Programs to support university centers of
excellence and maintain the fellowship program at the FY2008 level. Decreases included $5
million for new maritime technologies “more appropriately handled by the Coast Guard” and $6
million for the Innovation program “due to a lack of budgetary details.” The committee directed
DHS to provide a report on issues related to the S&T Directorate’s unobligated balances.
The Senate committee recommended a total of $919 million for S&T. Increases relative to the
request included $25 million for cyber security research in the Command, Control, and
Interoperability program; $27 million for the Infrastructure and Geophysical program to continue
the Southeast Region Research Initiative; and $15 million for the ongoing construction at PNNL.
Decreases included $12 million for Innovation (because of the need for “sound business plans”
based on “operational requirements”) and $4 million for Human Factors. The committee
recommended that $5 million for the Homeland Security Institute be provided as a separate item,
as it was in FY2008, rather than as part of the Transition program as the Administration
requested.
The final appropriation for S&T was $933 million. Relative to the request, this total included
increases of $10 million for cyber security research, $11 million for the National Institute for
Hometown Security, $27 million for the Southeast Region Research Initiative, $15 million for the
ongoing construction at PNNL, and $6 million for University Programs. Decreases included $12
million from Innovation, because the DHS Inspector General “raised concerns about how projects
were selected and managed” and because S&T took nine months to inform the committee how
FY2008 funding would be spent. Funding for the Homeland Security Institute was provided as a
separate line item.
Among the issues facing Congress are the S&T Directorate’s priorities and how they are set, its
relationships with other federal R&D organizations, its budgeting and financial management, and
the allocation of its R&D resources to national laboratories, industry, and universities. The
directorate announced five new university centers of excellence in February 2008. Some existing
centers are expected to be terminated or merged over the next few years to align with the
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

directorate’s division structure. For more information, see CRS Report RL34356, The DHS
Directorate of Science and Technology: Key Issues for Congress, by Dana A. Shea and Daniel
Morgan.
The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) is the primary DHS organization for combating
the threat of nuclear attack. It is responsible for all DHS nuclear detection research, development,
testing, evaluation, acquisition, and operational support. The FY2009 request for DNDO was a
16% increase from FY2008. Most of the growth was in the Systems Acquisition account, where
an increase of $68 million for procurement of Advanced Spectroscopic Portals (ASPs) was partly
offset by a decrease of $10 million for the Securing the Cities initiative in the New York City
area.
The House committee recommended a total of $544 million for DNDO. Changes relative to the
request included reductions of $3 million for new headquarters employees, $1 million for a
proposed fellowship program at the National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center, and $15 million
for the Radiation Portal Monitoring Program. The House bill continued the prohibition on full-
scale procurement of ASPs until the Secretary certifies their performance and would prohibit
DNDO from engaging in high-risk concurrent development and production of mutually
dependent software and hardware. The draft House report directed DNDO to conduct a risk
assessment for radiological dispersal devices.
The Senate committee recommended a total of $541 million for DNDO. The only change relative
to the Administration request was a reduction of $23 million in the Radiation Portal Monitoring
Program because of delays in the required certification of ASP performance. Like the House bill,
the Senate bill continued the prohibition on full-scale procurement of ASPs and prohibit high-risk
concurrent development and production. The Senate committee report urged DNDO to prioritize
its programs based on risk and directed it to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (or
another independent organization) to develop a conceptual framework for prioritizing defensive
efforts relative to mitigation measures.
The final appropriation for DNDO was $514 million. Reductions relative to the request included
$10 million from new initiatives in Transformational R&D and $38 million from the Radiation
Portal Monitoring Program due to development delays. Like the House and Senate bills, the final
bill continued the prohibition on full-scale procurement of ASPs and prohibited high-risk
concurrent development and production.
Congressional attention has focused on the testing and analysis DNDO conducted to support its
decision to purchase and deploy ASPs, a type of next-generation radiation portal monitor. The
requirement for secretarial certification before full-scale ASP procurement has been included in
each appropriations act since FY2007. The expected date for certification has been postponed
several times; it is currently expected in mid-2009. For more information on the ASP program,
see CRS Report RL34750, The Advanced Spectroscopic Portal Program: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Dana A. Shea, John D. Moteff, and Daniel Morgan. The global nuclear detection
architecture overseen by DNDO and the relative roles of DNDO and the S&T Directorate in
research, development, testing, and evaluation also remain issues of congressional interest. For
more information on the global nuclear detection architecture, see CRS Report RL34574, The
Global Nuclear Detection Architecture: Issues for Congress, by Dana A. Shea. (CRS Contact:
Daniel Morgan.)
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Table 9. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
Final
FY2008
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
(P.L. 110-

Enacted
Request
H. Cte.
S. Cte.
329)
Directorate of Science and
Technology
830 869 887 919 933
Management and
Administrationa 139
132
132
132
132
R&D, Acquisition, and
Operations 692
737
755
787
800
Border and Maritime
25
35
30
35
33
Chemical and Biological
208
200
200
200
200
Command, Control, and
Interoperability 57
62
62
87
75
Explosives 78
96
96
96
96
Human Factors
14
12
12
8
12
Infrastructure and Geophysical
64
38
49
65
76
Innovation 33
45
39
33
33
Laboratory Facilitiesa 104
147
152
162
162
Test and Evaluation, Standards
29
25
29
25
29
Transitionb 25
32
34
27
29
University Programs
49
44
51
44
50
Homeland Security Instituteb 5 — — 5 5
Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office
485
564
544
541
514
Management and Administration
32
39
35
39
38
Research, Development, and
Operations 324
334
333
334
323
Systems Engineering and
Architecture 22
25
25
25
25
Systems Development
118
108
108
108
108
Transformational R&D
96
113
113
113
103
Assessments 38
32
32
32
32
Operations Support
34
38
38
38
38
National Technical Nuclear
Forensics Center
15
18
17
18
17
Systems Acquisition
130
191
176
168
153
Radiation Portal Monitoring
Program 90
158
143
135
120
Securing the Cities
30
20
20
20
20
Human Portable Radiation
10 13 13 13 13
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

FY2009
Final
FY2008
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
(P.L. 110-

Enacted
Request
H. Cte.
S. Cte.
329)
Detection Systems
U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E
25
16
16
16
18
TOTAL 1,340
1,449
1,447
1,476
1,465
Source: DHS FY2009 congressional budget justification; H.R. 6947 (100th Congress) as reported and H.Rept.
110-862; S. 3181 (110th Congress) as reported and S.Rept. 110-396; P.L. 110-329, Division D, and explanatory
statement, Congressional Record, September 24, 2008, pp. H9806-H9807.
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
a. Funding for the salaries of DHS laboratory employees ($14 million in FY2008) was transferred from
Management and Administration to Laboratory Facilities in the FY2009 request.
b. For FY2008, Congress appropriated $5 million for the Homeland Security Institute as a separate line item.
The FY2009 budget justification incorporated this amount into Transition. The FY2009 request for
Transition included $5 million for the Homeland Security Institute.
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
The 111th Congress completed action on two pieces of legislation that provided FY2009 funding
to NIH. The regular appropriations for the agency are part of Division F of the Omnibus
Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 1105, P.L. 111-8, March 11, 2009). Funding in the omnibus act
for NIH totals $30.253 billion at the program level, which is $933 million (3.2%) above the
comparable level for FY2008 (see Table 10). The increase is the largest NIH has received in the
last six years. Emergency supplemental appropriations were provided in Division A of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), also called the economic stimulus
bill (H.R. 1, P.L. 111-5, February 17, 2009). ARRA provided an additional $10.0 billion directly
to NIH plus $400 million more through a transfer (see Table 11 and further discussion of the
stimulus funding later in this section). The total funding from both laws for FY2009 amounts to
$40.653 billion, an increase of $11.333 billion (38.7%) over FY2008. Unlike regular annual
appropriations, ARRA funds are available for two years, through the end of FY2010.
Regular appropriations are discussed first. President George W. Bush’s FY2009 request for
$29.165 billion for NIH was about level with the original FY2008 amount. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161, December 26, 2007) had provided a total of $29.171
billion. Later, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252, enacted June 30, 2008)
gave NIH an additional $150 million, bringing the FY2008 program level total to $29.321 billion,
1.0% above FY2007. The FY2009 request was $155 million below the FY2008 enacted program
level (-0.5%). In Table 10, FY2008 amounts are shown with the supplemental appropriations. In
the discussion below, however, most references are to FY2008 funding levels prior to the
supplemental appropriations, since the FY2009 request and committee actions by the 110th
Congress were based on the original FY2008 amounts.
NIH’s funding comes primarily from the annual appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (Labor/HHS), with an
additional amount for Superfund-related activities from the appropriations bill for the Department
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (Interior/Environment). Those two bills
provide NIH’s discretionary budget authority. In addition, NIH receives $150 million annually
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

from separate legislation funding diabetes research, and $8.2 million from a transfer within the
Public Health Service (PHS). NIH loses part of its appropriation to a transfer to the Global Fund
to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The transfer was about $100 million for several
years, then increased to about $300 million in FY2008 and FY2009. In Table 10, the total
funding available for NIH activities, taking account of add-ons and transfers, is called the
program level.24
In congressional action by the 110th Congress on the FY2009 request, the Senate Appropriations
Committee reported S. 3230 (S.Rept. 110-410) on July 8, 2008, recommending a program level
total of $30.113 billion for NIH within the Labor/HHS appropriations bill. Although the
committee did not take action on the FY2009 Interior/ Environment bill, funding of
approximately $78 million for the NIH Superfund account might have been projected based on
previous years. The NIH program level total recommended by the Senate committee would then
have been about $30.191 billion, some $1.02 billion (3.5%) over the original FY2008 amount and
$870 million (3.0%) over the revised FY2008 level.
During the 110th Congress, the full House Appropriations Committee did not take final action on
either its FY2009 Labor/HHS bill or its FY2009 Interior/Environment bill. On June 19, 2008, the
House Labor/HHS subcommittee reported a draft bill to the full committee that recommended
program level funding of $30.238 billion for NIH, $125 million more than the Senate committee
amount. The total NIH program level, again assuming $78 million for the Superfund account,
might have been projected at approximately $30.316 billion, some $1.145 billion (3.9%) over the
original FY2008 total amount and $995 million (3.4%) over the revised FY2008 level.
In this decade, the peak of NIH’s purchasing power was in FY2003, when Congress completed a
five-year doubling of the NIH budget. Congress provided NIH with annual increases in the range
of 14%-15% each year from FY1999 through FY2003. From FY2004 to FY2008, increases were
between 1%-3% each year, except that the FY2006 total was a 0.3% decrease. In February 2008,
President Bush requested no increase for NIH for FY2009, while the advocates in the research
community recommended a 6.5% increase. The projected inflation rate for medical research
prices was 3.5% for both FY2008 and FY2009 at that time. In inflation-adjusted terms
(converting all amounts to constant 2008 dollars), the FY2008 funding level represented an
estimated 10.7% decrease in purchasing power from the FY2003 peak, and the FY2009 request
level was 14.1% below FY2003. Applying the same calculations to final FY2009 funding levels,
the regular NIH appropriations provided in the omnibus act were 10.9% below the FY2003 level,
and the total FY2009 funding level from the omnibus plus the stimulus represented a 19.7%
increase over the FY2003 level.25
The agency’s organization consists of the Office of the NIH Director and 27 institutes and
centers. The Office of the Director (OD) sets overall policy for NIH and coordinates the programs
and activities of all NIH components, particularly in areas of research that involve multiple
institutes. The institutes and centers (collectively called ICs) focus on particular diseases, areas of
human health and development, or aspects of research support. Each IC plans and manages its

24 The “NIH program level” cited in the Bush Administration’s FY2009 budget documents does not reflect the Global
Fund transfer.
25 Updated estimates for the medical research inflation rate have since been provided by NIH, with the figure for
FY2008 now estimated at 4.4% and the projection for FY2009 at 3.8%. See National Institutes of Health, Biomedical
Research and Development Price Index: Fiscal Year 2008 Update and Projections for FY 2009-FY 2014, Bethesda,
MD, February 3, 2009. http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/UI/2009/BRDPI_Proj_Feb_2009_final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

own research programs in coordination with the Office of the Director. As shown in Table 10,
Congress provides a separate appropriation to 24 of the 27 ICs, to OD, and to a buildings and
facilities account. (The other three centers, not included in the table, are funded through the NIH
Management Fund, financed by taps on other NIH appropriations.)
President Bush’s FY2009 budget proposal gave most of the institutes and centers approximately
level funding from their original FY2008 amounts, requesting increases of 0.1% or 0.2%.
President Bush requested increases greater than 0.5% only for the National Center for Research
Resources (NCRR, 1.0%) and the National Library of Medicine (NLM, 0.8%). The Senate
Appropriations Committee and the House Labor/HHS Appropriations Subcommittee
recommended increases of about 3% and 3.5%, respectively, for most of the ICs compared to the
original FY2008 levels. Funding in the omnibus act provided increases of nearly 3% for most of
the ICs, with some exceptions. NCRR received a $72 million (6.3%) increase, mostly for clinical
research training. NLM was increased 2.4%, the environmental health institute increased 1.7%,
and the genome research institute decreased by 0.6%.
The two biggest changes proposed in the request were a 5.6% increase in the Buildings and
Facilities (B&F) account, and a 4.7% drop in funding for the Office of the Director. Many of the
laboratories, animal facilities, and office buildings on the NIH campus are aging, and are in need
of upgrading to stay compliant with health and safety guidelines and to provide the proper
infrastructure for the Intramural Research program. The budget requested $126 million for
Buildings and Facilities, an increase of $7 million. The House subcommittee agreed with that
amount, while the Senate committee recommended $147 million, an increase of $28 million
(23%). Final funding in the omnibus was at the requested level of $126 million, a 5.6% increase
over FY2008. As discussed later, however, the stimulus bill provided supplemental funding of
$500 million for NIH B&F activities.
In the request, the net $52 million drop in the OD account, from $1,109 million in FY2008 to
$1,057 million, represented the proposed cancellation of a study combined with increases for
several other OD activities. The National Children’s Study was funded at $111 million in
FY2008. It is a long-term (25+ year), multi-agency environmental health study that was mandated
by the Children’s Health Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-310). The overall projected cost for the whole
study is about $2.7 billion. Starting with the FY2007 request, when the study moved from the
planning phase to the more costly implementation phase, the Bush Administration proposed each
year to end its funding. Congress has continued to support the study. Both committees and the
final language in the omnibus appropriations act included FY2009 funding of up to $192 million
for the study, an increase of $81 million (73%).
President Bush proposed increases within the OD account totaling $59 million, including a $38
million increase (7.7%) for the NIH Roadmap initiatives funded through the Common Fund. The
NIH Roadmap for Medical Research is a set of trans-NIH research activities designed to support
high-risk/high-impact research in emerging areas of science or public health priorities. For
FY2009, President Bush requested $534 million for the Roadmap/Common Fund, up from $496
million in FY2008. In S. 3230, the Senate committee recommended $568 million for the
Common Fund (a $73 million increase), and boosted overall funding for the OD account to
$1,275 million, an increase of $166 million (15%). In its draft bill, the House subcommittee
recommended $544 million for the Common Fund (a $49 million increase) within overall funding
of $1,255 million for the OD account, an increase of $146 million (13%). The final amounts in
the omnibus were higher than the request but lower than either committee allowance: $1,247
Congressional Research Service
22

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

million for OD overall, an increase of $135 million (12.2%), and $541 million for the Common
Fund, an increase of $46 million (9.2%).
The other major increase in the request for OD was an additional $19 million (19.9%) for
research on medical countermeasures against nuclear, radiological, and chemical threats,
increasing that program to $113 million from $94 million in FY2008. That was the only
significant increase for NIH’s biodefense portfolio, which totaled $1,748 million in the FY2009
request (up 1.2%). The House subcommittee included $100 million for countermeasures research,
the Senate committee did not discuss it, and the explanatory statement accompanying the
omnibus bill indicated the research was funded at $97 million.
NIH has two major concerns in the face of the tight budgets it has experienced for several years:
maintaining support of investigator-initiated research through research project grants, and
expanding the supply of new investigators. Total funding for research project grants (RPGs), at
$15.5 billion in the FY2009 request, represents about 53% of NIH’s budget. The FY2009 request
proposed to support an estimated 38,257 awards, about the same number as projected in FY2008
before the supplemental. Within that total, 9,757 awards would have been competing RPGs, 14
fewer than in FY2008. (“Competing” awards means new grants plus competing renewals of
existing grants.) The Senate committee estimated that its funding level would have supported
10,471 competing RPGs, while the House subcommittee level would have supported 10,812. The
explanatory statement on the omnibus offered no comparable estimates. The request proposed
that no inflationary increases be paid for noncompeting (continuation) RPGs, and that the average
annual cost of competing RPGs remain at the FY2008 level, about $361,000. The House
subcommittee and the omnibus explanatory statement included an average 2% increase for both
new and continuing grants; the Senate report did not specify average costs. Under the request, the
expected “success rate” of applications receiving funding would have declined to about 18% from
the estimated rate of 19% for FY2008 (pre-supplemental). Estimated success rates for the various
ICs would have ranged from 8% to 26%. The appropriators did not comment on expectations for
success rates. Funding from the stimulus should allow an improvement in the rates, but much of
that funding will be concentrated on short-term projects.
Several NIH efforts are focused on supporting new investigators to encourage young scientists to
undertake careers in research and to help them speed their transition from training to independent
research. The request proposed that the Pathway to Independence program support approximately
500 awardees, including 170 new awards, for a total of $71 million. The request proposed an
increase of $5 million (0.6%) to $786 million for regular training mechanisms such as the
National Research Service Awards, including stipend increases of 1% for both pre- and post-
doctoral fellows. Clinical research training, including the Clinical and Translational Science
Awards (CTSAs), would have been funded at a total of $475 million. The request proposed to
support about 25 New Innovator Awards for a total of $56 million in the Common Fund. The NIH
Director’s Bridge Award is a program that can give short-term funding to established, meritorious
investigators who have just missed the funding cutoff for a renewal application and who have
little other support, giving them time to resubmit without disrupting the operation of their
laboratory. The request included $91 million for 244 awards, an increase of $1.6 million. In 110th
Congress action, both the Senate committee and the House subcommittee specifically mentioned
support for most of these initiatives, as well as others; both included funding increases beyond the
request for the New Innovator Awards. The explanatory statement on the omnibus appropriations
mentioned the following specific amounts: $35 million for Transformative Research Project
Grants, $80 million through the Common Fund for New Innovators Awards, $41 million through
the Common Fund for the Director's Pioneer Awards, and $24 million for the rare and neglected
Congressional Research Service
23

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

diseases initiative. The CTSA program received $475 million, $53 million from the Common
Fund and $422 million from NCRR.
Changes proposed in the request for other funding mechanisms within the NIH budget included
increased support for research centers, up $20 million to $2,963 million; a $33 million increase to
$3,275 million for R&D contracts, including $5 million additional for the Global HIV/AIDS
Fund; $50 million more for the NIH intramural research program, for a total of $3,119 million; an
increase of $20 million to a total of $1,361 million for research management and support; and a
decrease of $23 million for other research grants totaling $1,786 million.
NIH and three of the other Public Health Service agencies within HHS are subject to a budget
“tap” called the PHS Program Evaluation Set-Aside. Section 241 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. §
238j) authorizes the Secretary to use a portion of eligible appropriations to assess the
effectiveness of federal health programs and to identify ways to improve them. The tap has the
effect of redistributing appropriated funds among PHS and other HHS agencies. The FY2009
appropriation kept the tap at 2.4%, the same as in FY2008. NIH, with the largest budget among
the PHS agencies, becomes the largest “donor” of program evaluation funds, and is a relatively
minor recipient. By convention, budget tables such as Table 10 do not subtract the amount of the
evaluation tap, or of other taps within HHS, from the agencies’ appropriations. For further
information on the Evaluation Set-Aside, see CRS Report RL34098, Public Health Service (PHS)
Agencies: Background and Funding, coordinated by Pamela W. Smith.
As mentioned earlier, in addition to the FY2009 regular appropriations, the 111th Congress
provided emergency FY2009 supplemental appropriations for NIH in the economic stimulus
legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The
appropriations will be available for spending over two years and thus will supplement NIH’s
regular appropriations for FY2009 and FY2010. NIH says it expects to spend as much as possible
in FY2009. Table 11 compares the NIH-related funding provided in the ARRA conference report
(H.Rept. 111-16) with the recommendations in the House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 1.
ARRA added significant funding to several NIH accounts for biomedical research and research
facilities, providing a total of $10 billion. In addition, the law appropriated funds to the Agency
for Healthcare Quality and Research (AHRQ) for comparative effectiveness research, of which
$400 million was designated for transfer to NIH. Of the $10 billion, the law provided $8.2 billion
to the Office of the Director for support of NIH extramural and intramural research. Most of that
funding, $7.4 billion, is for transfer to the ICs and the Common Fund in proportion to their
regular appropriations. The remaining $800 million is available for use at the Director’s
discretion, with an emphasis on short-term (two-year) projects, including $400 million that may
be used under the Director's flexible research authority to implement Roadmap projects. Also
included in the $10 billion total was $1 billion to the National Centers for Research Resources for
grants to construct and renovate university research facilities, as well as $300 million to NCRR
for grants for shared instrumentation and other capital research equipment at extramural research
facilities. Finally, ARRA added $500 million to the B&F account to construct, repair, and
improve NIH intramural facilities.
NIH’s plans for the ARRA funding are being tracked on the NIH Recovery website.26 On a page
about current grant funding opportunities, NIH says: “While NIH Institutes and Centers have

26 NIH and the ARRA, http://www.nih.gov/recovery/.
Congressional Research Service
24

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

broad flexibility to invest in many types of grant programs, they will follow the spirit of the
ARRA by funding projects that will stimulate the economy, create or retain jobs, and have the
potential for making scientific progress in 2 years.”27 They expect to focus activities on funding
new and recently peer reviewed, highly meritorious research grant applications that can be
accomplished in two years or less; giving targeted supplemental awards to current grants to push
research forward; and supporting a new initiative called the NIH Challenge Grants in Health and
Science Research (at least $200 million to fund 200 or more grants) for research on specific
topics that would benefit from significant two-year jumpstart funds. Announcements soliciting
applications for the NCRR construction/renovation grants and the instrumentation grants have
also been posted.
At the end of the 109th Congress, the House and Senate agreed on the first NIH reauthorization
statute enacted since 1993, the NIH Reform Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-482). The law made
managerial and organizational changes in NIH, focusing on enhancing the authority and tools for
the NIH Director to do strategic planning, especially to facilitate and fund cross-institute research
initiatives. The measure authorized, for the first time, overall funding levels for NIH, although not
for the individual ICs, and established a “common fund” for trans-NIH research. The
authorization expires at the end of FY2009. Oversight hearings on the implementation of the
Reform Act are anticipated. For further information on NIH, see CRS Report RL33695, The
National Institutes of Health (NIH): Organization, Funding, and Congressional Issues, by Pamela
W. Smith. (CRS Contact: Pamela Smith.)
Table 10. National Institutes of Health
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
House
Senate
Omnibus
Institutes and Centers (ICs)
comparablea
request
Subcomm.
Comm.
(P.L. 111-8)
Cancer
(NCI)
4,828 4,810 4,975 4,959 4,969
Heart, Lung, and Blood (NHLBI)
2,937
2,925
3,026
3,006
3,016
Dental and Craniofacial
Research (NIDCR)
392 391 404 401 403
Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney
Diseases (NIDDK)
1,713 1,708 1,767 1,756 1,761
Neurological Disorders and
Stroke (NINDS)
1,550 1,545 1,599 1,588 1,593
Allergy and Infectious Diseases
(NIAID)b
4,581 4,569 4,716 4,689 4,703
General Medical Sciences
(NIGMS)
1,943 1,938 2,004 1,992 1,998
Child Health and Human
Development (NICHD)
1,259 1,256 1,299 1,291 1,295
Eye
(NEI)
670 668 691 687 688
Environmental
Health
Sciences
652 643 665 661 663

27 Grant Funding Opportunities Supported by the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA),
http://grants.nih.gov/recovery/.
Congressional Research Service
25

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
House
Senate
Omnibus
Institutes and Centers (ICs)
comparablea
request
Subcomm.
Comm.
(P.L. 111-8)
(NIEHS)
Aging
(NIA)
1,051 1,048 1,084 1,077 1,081
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and
Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
510 509 527 523 525
Deafness and Communication
Disorders (NIDCD)
396 395 409 406 407
Nursing
Research
(NINR) 138 138 142 141 142
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
(NIAAA)
438 437 452 449 450
Drug Abuse (NIDA)
1,007
1,002
1,036
1,030
1,033
Mental Health (NIMH)c
1,415 1,407 1,455 1,446 1,450
Human Genome Research
(NHGRI)
505 488 505 501 502
Biomedical Imaging and
Bioengineering (NIBIB)
300 300 311 307 308
Research Resources (NCRR)
1,154
1,160
1,200
1,193
1,226
Complementary and Alternative
Medicine (NCCAM)
122 122 126 125 125
Minority Health and Health
Disparities (NCMHD)
200 200 207 205 206
Fogarty International Center
(FIC)
67 67 69 69 69
National Library of Medicine
(NLM)
323 323 332 330 331
Office of Director (OD)
1,112
1,057
1,255
1,275
1,247
Common
Fund
(non-add)
(496) (534) (544) (568) (541)
Buildings & Facilities
(B&F) 119 126 126 147 126
Subtotal, Labor/HHS
Appropriation
29,380 29,230 30,380 30,255 30,317
Superfund (Interior
appropriation to NIEHS)d
78 78
78d 78d 78
Total, NIH discretionary
budget authority
29,457 29,307 30,458e 30,333e 30,395
Pre-appropriated Type 1
diabetes fundsf
150 150 150 150 150
PHS Evaluation Tap fundingg 8 8 8 8 8
Global Fund transfer
(AIDS/TB/Malaria)b
-295 -300 -300 -300 -300
Total, NIH program level
29,321
29,165
30,316e 30,191e 30,253
Sources: Adapted by CRS from congressional tables. FY2008, FY2009 request, and FY2009 Omnibus amounts
are from the tables in the Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
(see Congressional Record, Feb. 23, 2009, pp. H2379-H2381 for the Labor/HHS table and p. H2158 for the
Congressional Research Service
26

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Interior/Environment table). FY2009 House and Senate amounts are from a House Appropriations Committee
table dated June 23, 2008, reflecting Labor/HHS subcommittee action on the draft bill, and S.Rept. 110-410
reflecting the committee-reported bill (S. 3230). Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
a. FY2008 appropriations were provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161, Division
G, enacted December 26, 2007), with an additional $150 million from the Supplemental Appropriations Act,
2008 (P.L. 110-252, June 30, 2008). Reflects transfers among ICs.
b. NIAID totals include funds for transfer to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria.
c. FY2008 NIMH includes $0.983 million from Office of the Secretary to administer the Interagency Autism
Coordinating Committee.
d. Separate account in the Interior/Environment appropriations for NIEHS research activities related to
Superfund. In the 110th Congress, neither the Senate nor the House Appropriations Committees took
action on the FY2009 Interior/Environment bills. The $78 million figure is an estimated amount based on
previous years.
e. These totals include the estimated $78 million for Superfund-related activities.
f.
Funds available to NIDDK for diabetes research under PHS Act § 330B (authorized by P.L. 106-554, P.L.
107-360, and P.L. 110-173).
g. Additional funds for NLM from PHS Evaluation Set-Aside (§ 241 of PHS Act).

Table 11. Funding for NIH in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(in millions of dollars)
Purpose House
Senate
Enacted Description
Biomedical Research
1,500 9,200 8,200
The
conference
agreement provides $8.2 billion
(appropriated to Office of
to the Office of the Director for support of
the NIH Director)
additional scientific research (extramural and
intramural). The funds are not subject to smal
business set-aside requirements. Of the total, $7.4
billion is to be transferred to the Institutes and
Centers of NIH and to the Common Fund in
proportion to regular appropriations (certain
accounts are not eligible for these funds). The
remaining $800 million is available at the
Director’s discretion, with an emphasis on short-
term (2-year) projects, including $400 million that
may be used under the Director's flexible
research authority. The House bill provided $1.5
billion, all for transfer proportionally to the
Institutes, Centers, and Common Fund, with half
for FY2009 and half for FY2010. The Senate
version provided $9.2 billion, with $7.85 billion
for proportional transfer and $1.35 billion for the
Director's discretionary use.
Congressional Research Service
27

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Purpose House
Senate
Enacted Description
Biomedical/Behavioral
1,500 300 1,300
The
conference
agreement provides $1.3 billion
Research Facilities
to NCRR, of which $1 billion is for competitive
(Extramural) (appropriated
grants and contracts under PHS Act Sec. 481A to
to National Center for
construct, renovate, or repair existing non-federal
Research Resources)
research facilities. It waives various requirements
for matching funds, support of primate research
centers, and required time for future use of the
research facility. It also permits use of $300
million for shared instrumentation and other
capital research equipment. The House bill
provided $1.5 billion for awards to renovate or
repair existing facilities, and permitted use of
funds for shared instrumentation and other capital
research equipment. The Senate version provided
funds only for shared instrumentation and other
capital research equipment.
NIH Buildings and Facilities
500 500 500
The
conference
agreement provides $500 million
(Intramural)
for high-priority repair, construction, and
improvement projects for NIH facilities on the
Bethesda, MD campus and other agency locations,
as provided in the Senate bill. The House and
Senate bills both provided the same amount, but
the House bill allowed funding only for repair and
improvement projects.
Total to NIH accounts
3,500
10,000
10,000
Comparative Effectiveness
(400) (400)
(400) The
conference
agreement provides $700 million
Research (transfer from
to AHRQ for comparative effectiveness research,
AHRQ)
of which $400 million is to be transferred to NIH
for the same purpose. Funds transferred to NIH
may be al ocated to the Institutes, Centers, and
Common Fund. The House and Senate bills both
provided the same amount of funding.
Sources: Adapted from CRS Report R40181, Selected Health Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009, coordinated by C. Stephen Redhead. Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service, using
(i) the text of H.R. 1, as passed by the House on January 28, 2009, (i ) the text of S.Amdt. 570 to H.R. 1, as
passed by the Senate on February 10, 2009, and (iii) the text of the conference report (H.Rept. 111-16).
Department of Energy (DOE)
The Bush Administration requested $10.535 billion for Department of Energy (DOE) R&D in
FY2009, including activities in three major categories: science, national security, and energy. This
request was 6% above the FY2008 appropriation. The House committee recommended $10.903
billion. The Senate committee recommended $11.010 billion. The final appropriation was
$10.905 billion. See Table 12 for details. The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009
(Division A of P.L. 110-329) provided funding for continuing DOE activities at the FY2008 rate
through March 6, 2009; this was extended to March 11, 2009, by P.L. 111-6. The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included at least an additional $6.4 billion for R&D and
related programs as passed by the House, at least an additional $7.578 billion as passed by the
Senate, and at least an additional $7.9 billion as enacted. See Table 13 for details.
Congressional Research Service
28

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

The request for the DOE Office of Science was $4.722 billion, a 19% increase from FY2008.
This unusually large increase reflected the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which
President Bush announced in the 2006 state of the union address. Over 10 years, the ACI would
double R&D funding for the Office of Science and two other agencies.28 Congress set even faster
growth targets in the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69), establishing authorization levels
that would double R&D funding for these agencies in seven years. The percentage increase in the
Bush Administration’s FY2009 request for the Office of Science was higher than what would be
required on an annual basis to reach the ACI doubling target. This was also the case in FY2007
and FY2008, but although the House and Senate bills for those years would have provided
increases even relative to the request, the final appropriations were lower than the ACI amount.
For FY2009, the House committee recommended $140 million more than the request, while the
Senate committee recommended $82 million less than the request. The final appropriation was
$4.758 billion, plus $15 million for the organizationally separate Advanced Research Projects
Agency – Energy (ARPA-E).29
Within the Office of Science, the request for basic energy sciences included increases of $153
million for a new program of Energy Frontier Research Centers, $66 million for construction of
the National Synchrotron Light Source II, and $73 million to increase operating time at existing
facilities. The Senate committee recommended reducing basic energy sciences by $153 million
below the request; $59 million of that amount represented solar energy R&D activities transferred
to another account; the remainder of the reduction was not specified. The requested 17% increase
for high energy physics was mostly for programs cut in the final FY2008 appropriation that were
funded in the House and Senate bills for that year.30 The requested 72% increase for fusion energy
sciences was to fund the U.S. contribution to the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor (ITER), which was eliminated in the final FY2008 appropriation, again despite support in
the House and Senate bills for that year. The estimated cost of ITER is between $1.45 and $2.2
billion with a completion date between FY2014 and FY2017.31 The House and Senate
committees recommended the requested amount for ITER. The final appropriation for fusion
energy sciences included $90 million less than the request for ITER and no funding for National
Compact Stellarator Experiment (NCSX) project, which is currently under construction at
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. The final appropriation for biological and environmental
research included increases of $23 million for climate change research and $10 million for
nuclear medicine.
The requested funding for DOE national security R&D was $3.132 billion, a 2% decrease.
Proposed increases included $53 million for the naval reactors program, mostly to support
processing and storage of spent nuclear fuel, and $10 million for the reliable replacement

28 The February 2006 White House document American Competitiveness Initiative: Leading the World in Innovation
states that “ACI doubles total research fund; individual agency allocations remain to be determined.” The three ACI
agencies may individually receive more or less than the amount required to double their separate FY2006 levels.
29 ARPA-E was authorized by the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) but has not previously been funded. For
more information see CRS Report RL34497, Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E): Background,
Status, and Selected Issues for Congress, by Deborah D. Stine.
30 In response to these cuts, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252) provided $62.5 million in
supplemental FY2008 funding for the DOE Office of Science.
31 Some press reports suggest that the cost of ITER may be higher than previously expected because of recent design
changes and the increased cost of raw materials. See, for example, Ian Sample, “ITER: Flagship Fusion Reactor Could
Cost Twice as Much as Budgeted,” The Guardian, January 29, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/29/
nuclear-fusion-power-iter-funding.
Congressional Research Service
29

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

warhead program, which Congress zeroed in the FY2008 appropriation. The major proposed
decrease was $79 million for proliferation detection R&D, a program that Congress increased in
FY2008. The House committee recommended a total of $3.052 billion, while the Senate
committee recommended $3.252 billion. Neither committee recommended any funding for the
reliable replacement warhead program, and the Senate committee recommended restoring $75
million of the requested decrease for nonproliferation and verification R&D. In the Weapons
Activities account, the House committee recommended an increase of $87 million for inertial
confinement fusion and a decrease of $66 million for advanced simulation and computing. The
final appropriation of $3.209 billion included no funds for the reliable replacement warhead
program, $89 million more than the request for nonproliferation and verification R&D, $16
million more than the request for inertial confinement fusion, and $4 million less than the request
for advanced simulation and computing.
The request for DOE energy R&D was $2.681 billion, down 2% from FY2008. Within this total,
R&D on nuclear energy and coal was to increase, while hydrogen R&D was to decrease and gas
and oil technology programs were to be terminated (as also proposed, unsuccessfully, in other
recent years). Most of the requested 17% decrease for energy efficiency and renewable energy
resulted from the omission of $186 million in FY2008 congressionally directed projects. The
requested 44% increase for nuclear energy R&D was mostly for the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative (AFCI). The House and Senate committees and the final bill all recommended
substantial increases in energy R&D, particularly in energy efficiency and renewable energy, but
decreases in nuclear energy. They all recommended funding the gas and oil technology programs
at approximately the FY2008 level and provided less than the request for the AFCI.
Table 12. Department of Energy R&D and Related Programs
(Regular Appropriations)
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009

Final
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
(P.L.
FY2008
Request
H. Cte.
S. Cte.
111-8)
Science
$3,973 $4,722 $4,862 $4,640 $4,773

Basic
Energy
Sciences
1,270 1,568 1,600 1,415 1,572

High
Energy
Physics
689 805 805 805 796

Biological
and
Environmental
Research
544 569 579 599 602

Nuclear
Physics
433 510 517 510 512

Fusion
Energy
Sciences
287 493 499 493 403

Advanced
Scientific
Computing
Research
351 369 379 369 369
Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy
—
—
15
—
15

Other
399 408 468 449 504
National
Security
3,199 3,132 3,052 3,252 3,209
Weapons
Activitiesa
2,016 1,996 1,916 2,051 1,985

Naval
Reactors
775 828 828 828 828

Nonproliferation
and
Verification
R&D
387 275 276 350 364

Defense
Environmental
Cleanup
TD&D
21 32 32 22 32
Congressional Research Service
30

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

FY2009

Final
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
(P.L.
FY2008
Request
H. Cte.
S. Cte.
111-8)
Energy
2,730 2,681 2,989 3,118 2,923
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energyb
1,440 1,197 1,567 1,542 1,447

Fossil
Energy
R&D
743 754 854 877 876
Nuclear Energy R&Dc
438 630 464 566 515
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability R&D 110 100 105 133 85
Total
9,903 10,535 10,903 11,010 10,905
Source: DOE FY2009 congressional budget justification; H.R. 7324 (110th Congress) as reported and H.Rept.
110-921; S. 3258 (110th Congress) as reported and S.Rept. 110-416; P.L. 111-8 and explanatory statement,
Congressional Record, February 23, 2009.
a. Includes Stockpile Services R&D Support, Stockpile Services R&D Certification and Safety, Reliable
Replacement Warhead, Science Campaigns, Engineering Campaigns except Enhanced Surety and Enhanced
Surveillance, Inertial Confinement Fusion, Advanced Simulation and Computing, and a prorated share of
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities. Additional R&D activities may take place in the subprograms of
Directed Stockpile Work that are devoted to specific weapon systems, but these funds are not included in
the table because detailed funding schedules for those subprograms are classified.
b. Excludes Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.
c. Includes Integrated University Program, Nuclear Power 2010, Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems
Initiative, Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, and Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI). Note that AFCI funding
appears in the Fuel Cycle Research and Facilities line item in FY2008 and the FY2009 House report, but in
the Research and Development line item in the FY2009 request, the FY2009 Senate report, and the FY2009
final explanatory statement.
The House-passed version of H.R. 1 included at least an additional $6.4 billion for DOE R&D
and related programs: $2 billion for Science, of which not less than $100 million was for
advanced scientific computing research and not less than $400 million was for ARPA-E; $2
billion for R&D on energy efficiency and renewable energy, of which not less than $800 million
was for biomass energy and not less than $400 million was for geothermal energy; and $2.4
billion for fossil energy projects demonstrating carbon capture and sequestration. The Senate-
passed version included at least an additional $7.578 billion: $330 million for the Office of
Science; $2.648 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D; and $4.6 billion for
fossil energy R&D. The enacted version included $400 million for ARPA-E; $1.6 billion for the
Office of Science programs; $2.5 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy, of which
$800 million was for biomass energy and $400 million was for geothermal energy; and $3.4
billion for fossil energy R&D. Funding provided for weapons activities, defense environmental
cleanup, and electricity delivery and energy reliability may also include an unspecified amount of
R&D. A significant portion of the fossil energy funding is likely to be allocated to demonstration
activities that not all observers would consider R&D.32 (CRS Contact: Daniel Morgan.)

32 The joint explanatory statement designated $1 billion of the enacted $3.4 billion for the Fossil Energy R&D program
as being specifically for research and development. The House and Senate bills did not specify the R&D portion of the
funds they provided under this heading.
Congressional Research Service
31

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Table 13. Department of Energy R&D and Related Programs
(American Recovery and Reinvestment Act)
(in millions of dollars)

H.R. 1
H.R. 1
(House)
(Senate)
P.L. 111-5
Science $2,000
$330
$2,000

Advanced Scientific Computing Research
≥ 100
—
—

Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy
≥ 400
—
400
Energy 4,400
7,248
5,900

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
2,000
2,648
2,500

Fossil Energy R&D (see footnote 32)
2,400
4,600
3,400
Total 6,400
7,578
7,900
Source: H.R. 1 as passed by the House, as passed by the Senate, and as enacted. The symbol ≥ indicates “not
less than.”
National Science Foundation (NSF)
The FY2009 request for the National Science Foundation (NSF) was $6.854 billion, a 13.0%
increase ($789.1 million) over the FY2008 estimate of $6.065 billion (see Table 14). President
Bush proposed doubling the NSF budget over 10 years, from FY2007 to FY2016, as part of his
American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). The FY2009 request represented another installment
toward that doubling effort. In August 2008, Congress passed the America COMPETES Act
which authorizes funding for NSF for FY2008 through FY2010 at a pace that would more than
double the agency’s funding in seven years. NSF identified several strategies in the FY2009
budget request: to maintain a portfolio with “powerful momentum” across all disciplines; to build
a world-class science and engineering workforce; to perform effectively with the highest
standards of accountability; and to support potentially transformative research. The NSF Director
describes transformative research as “a range of endeavors, which promise extraordinary
outcomes; such as, revolutionizing entire disciplines, creating entirely new fields, or disrupting
accepted theories and perspective.”33 Several reports have recommended that funds be allocated
specifically for this type of research. NSF contends that in the global environment of science and
engineering, support for transformative, high-risk, high-reward research is critical to U.S.
competitiveness. These strategies paralleled some of the goals contained in President Bush’s ACI,
and are designed to promote research that will drive innovation and support the design and
development of world-class facilities, instrumentation, and infrastructure.
Included in the FY2009 request was $5.594 billion for Research and Related Activities (R&RA),
a 16.0% increase ($772.5 million) above the FY2008 estimate of $4.822 billion. R&RA funds
research projects, research facilities, and education and training activities. The scientific and
academic communities have voiced concerns about the imbalance between support for the life
sciences and the physical sciences. Research is multidisciplinary and transformational in nature,

33 Bement, Jr., Arden L., Director, National Science Foundation, “Transformative Research: The Artistry and Alchemy
of the 21st Century,” remarks, Texas Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science Fourth Annual Conference,
Austin, Texas, January 4, 2007. http://www.nsf.gov/news/speeches/bement/07/alb070104_texas.jsp.
Congressional Research Service
32

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

and very often, discoveries in the physical sciences lead to advances in other disciplines. The
America COMPETES ACT authorizes increased federal research support in the physical sciences,
mathematics, and engineering. The FY2009 request provided a 20.2% increase for the
Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) directorate. The MPS portfolio supports investments
in fundamental research, facilities, and instruments, and provides approximately 44.0% of the
federal funding for basic research in mathematics and physical sciences conducted at colleges and
universities. R&RA includes Integrative Activities (IA), a cross-disciplinary research and
education program, and is a source of funding for the acquisition and development of research
instrumentation at institutions. The FY2009 request provided $276.0 million for IA. The IA also
funds Partnerships for Innovation, disaster research teams, and the Science and Technology
Policy Institute. In FY2008, support for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR) was transferred from the Education and Human Resources Directorate
(EHR) to IA. NSF’s FY2009 request for EPSCoR was $113.5 million, which is a part of the total
IA funding request. The FY2009 request would support a portfolio of three complementary
strategies—research infrastructure, co-funding, and outreach—for the 27 EPSCoR jurisdictions.
Approximately 67.0% of the funding for EPSCoR would be used for a combination of new
awards and research infrastructure improvement grants. The balance of funding would support
co-funding (31.7%) and outreach activities (1.7%).
The NSF asserts that international research partnerships are critical to the nation in maintaining a
competitive edge, addressing global issues, and capitalizing on global economic opportunities.
The Administration had requested $47.4 million for the Office of International Science and
Engineering (OISE). The OISE manages NSF’s offices in Beijing, Paris, and Tokyo that report on
and analyze in-country and regional science and technology policies and developments. The
OISE serves as a liaison with research institutes and foreign agencies, and facilitates coordination
and implementation of NSF research and education efforts.
The Office of Polar Programs (OPP) is funded in the R&RA. The FY2009 request for addressing
the challenges in polar research was $491.0 million. NSF continues in its leadership role in
planning U.S. participation in observance of the International Polar Year, 2007-2009.34 The NSF
also serves in a leadership capacity for several international research partnerships in the Arctic
and Antarctic. Increases in OPP in FY2009 are directed at research programs for arctic and
antarctic sciences—glacial and sea ice, terrestrial and marine ecosystems, the ocean and the
atmosphere, and biology of life in the cold and dark. In FY2006, responsibility for funding the
operational costs of three icebreakers that support scientific research in the polar regions was
transferred from the U.S. Coast Guard to the NSF.35 NSF is responsible for the operation,
maintenance, and staffing of the vessels. Beginning in FY2009, one of the icebreakers was to be
in drydock. To meet the need for back-up icebreaking services, the FY2009 request included an
additional $9.0 million for contracting of other vessels.
NSF supported several interagency R&D priorities in the FY2009 request. It is a lead agency in
the U.S. nanotechnology research effort, accounting for $396.8 million of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative’s $1.53 billion FY2009 request. Funding would support research in
emerging areas of nanoscale science and technology such as new drug delivery systems,

34 International Polar Year runs from March 2007 through March 2009. Sponsors say that a two-year period was
selected to provide equal coverage of both the Arctic and Antarctic.
35 For expanded discussion of the icebreakers see for example CRS Report RL34391, Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker
Modernization: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
33

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

advanced materials, more powerful computer chips. Support would be directed also at research
and education in the environmental, health, and safety impacts of nanotechnology. NSF’s other
interagency priorities include funding for the Climate Change Science Program ($220.6 million),
Homeland Security ($379.2 million), Networking and Information Technology R&D ($1,090.3
million), and Climate Change Technology Program ($23.5 million).
The NSF supports a variety of individual centers and center programs. The FY2009 request
provided $76.0 million for Science and Technology Centers, $53.6 million for Materials Research
Science and Engineering Centers, $53.6 million for Engineering Research Centers, $44.6 million
for Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers, $15.0 million for Science of Learning Centers,
$20.0 million for Centers for Chemical Innovation, and $18.4 million for Centers for Analysis
and Synthesis.
The FY2009 request for the EHR Directorate was $790.4 million, $64.8 million (8.9%) above the
FY2008 estimate. The EHR portfolio is focused on, among other things, increasing the
technological literacy of all citizens; preparing the next generation of science, engineering, and
mathematics professionals; and closing the achievement gap of underrepresented groups in all
scientific fields. Support at the various educational levels in the FY2009 request was as follows:
research on learning in formal and informal settings (including precollege), $226.5 million;
undergraduate, $219.8 million; and graduate, $190.7 million. Priorities at the precollege level
included research and evaluation on education in science and engineering ($42.0 million),
informal science education ($66.0 million), and Discovery Research K-12 ($108.5 million).
Discovery Research is structured to combine the strengths of three existing programs and
encourage innovative thinking in K-12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education.
According to NSF, programs at the undergraduate level are designed to “create leverage for
institutional change.” Priorities at the undergraduate level included the Robert Noyce Scholarship
Program ($11.6 million); Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement ($39.2 million);
STEM Talent Expansion Program ($29.7 million); Advanced Technological Education ($51.6
million); and Scholarship for Service ($15.0 million). The Math and Science Partnership Program
(MSP), an interagency program, was proposed at $51.0 million in the FY2009 request. The MSP
in NSF coordinates activities with the Department of Education and its state-funded MSP sites. At
the graduate level, NSF’s priorities were Integrative Graduate Education and Research
Traineeship ($25.0 million), Graduate Research Fellowships ($116.7 million), and the Graduate
Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education ($49.0 million).
Additional priorities in the EHR would support a portfolio of programs directed at strengthening
and expanding the participation of underrepresented groups and diverse institutions in the
scientific and engineering enterprise. Among these targeted programs in the FY2009 request are
the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program ($31.0 million), Tribal
Colleges and Universities Program ($13.4 million), Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority
Participation ($42.5 million), and Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology
($30.5 million).
Improving the success rate of grant applicants has been a long-term priority for NSF. The funding
rate (the number of grants awarded as a share of total grant applications) declined from 30% in
FY2000 to an estimated 21% in FY2008. NSF anticipated increasing the funding rate to 23.0% in
FY2009 by supporting an additional 1,370 research grants.
Congressional Research Service
34

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

The Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account was funded at
$147.5 million in the FY2009 request, a decrease of 33.2% from the FY2008 estimate. The
MREFC supports the acquisition and construction of major research facilities and equipment that
extend the boundaries of science, engineering, and technology. According to NSF, it is the
primary federal agency providing support for “forefront instrumentation and facilities for the
academic research and education communities.” NSF’s first priority for funding is for ongoing
projects. Second priority is given to projects that have been approved by the National Science
Board for new starts. To qualify for support, NSF required MREFC projects to have “the potential
to shift the paradigm in scientific understanding and/or infrastructure technology.” The FY2009
request was indicative of NSF’s tighter standards and requirements for receiving funding in this
account. Three projects that appeared in the FY2008 request (Alaskan Regional Research Vessel,
Ocean Observatories Initiative, and the National Ecological Observatory Network) have to
undergo a final design review and a risk management plan to meet NSF’s policy of not allowing
cost overruns on major facilities projects. These projects are still supported by NSF, and will be
considered for inclusion in the next budget cycle following submission of their revised baseline
budgets and contingencies. The FY2009 request supported three ongoing projects: Advanced
Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory ($51.4 million), Atacama Large Millimeter
Array ($82.3 million), and the IceCube Neutrino Observatory ($11.3 million). The request also
provided $2.5 million to support design activities for a new start, the Advanced Technology Solar
Telescope.
During the 110th Congress, the House Appropriations Committee approved a Commerce, Justice,
Science and Related Agencies draft bill that would have provided $6.854 billion for the NSF in
FY2009, $789.1 million above the FY2008 enacted and the same as President Bush’s request.
The R&RA would have received $5.544 billion, a $722.7 million increase above the FY2008
level and $49.9 million below the request. Additional funding in the House bill included $840.3
million for the EHR and $147.5 million for MREFC. The Senate reported a bill during the 110th
Congress, S. 3182, that would have provided $6.854 billion for the NSF, the same as the House-
draft bill and the request. R&RA would be funded at $5.594 billion, $40 million above the House
bill and the same as President Bush’s request. S. 3182 would have funded the MREFC at $790.4
million and $152.0 million, respectively. These bills expired at the end of the 110th Congress.
On June 30, 2008, President Bush signed into law the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008
(P.L. 110-252, H.R. 2642). The act provides, among other things, $62.5 million in emergency
supplemental funding for the NSF. Included in the total is $22.5 million for R&RA, of which $5.0
million is to be available solely for the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship
program. The supplemental provides $40.0 million for the EHR, of which $20.0 million is
directed for activities of the Robert Noyce scholarship program. Please note that the FY2008
supplemental funding has not been included in the table column below.
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, 2009, P.L. 111-5. The legislation provides approximately $3.0 billion for the
NSF—$2.5 billion for R&RA, $400.0 million for MREFC, $100.0 million for EHR, and $2.0
million for the Office of Inspector General. Language in the conference agreement directs that
within the R&RA, $300.0 million be available solely for the Major Research Instrumentation
program. Additional conference language directs that of the total provided to EHR, $60.0 million
be directed to the Robert Noyce Program, $25.0 million be directed to the MSP, and $15.0 million
used solely for the Professional Science Master’s Program. The House-passed version of H.R. 1
had provided similar funding levels for the selected directorates and programs. The Senate-passed
version of the legislation, however, would have provided slightly more than $1.2 billion for the
Congressional Research Service
35

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

NSF—$1.0 billion for R&RA, $150.0 million for MREFC, $50.0 million for EHR, and $2.0
million for the Office of Inspector General.
On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed into law H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations
Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8). P.L. 111-8 provides a total of $6,490.4 million for the NSF. Included in the
total for NSF is $5,183.1 million for R&RA, approximately $410.9 million below the
Administration’s request, and $339.1 million above the FY2008 level. Other funding levels for
programs in FY2009 include $152.0 million for MREFC and $845.3 million for EHR. Table 15.
(CRS Contact: Christine M. Matthews.)
Table 14. National Science Foundation
(in millions of dollars)

FY2008
FY2009
FY2009 Final
Estimate
Request
(P.L. 111-8)
Biological Sciences
612.0
675.1

Computer & Information Science & Engr.
534.5
638.8

Engineering 636.9
759.3

Geosciences 752.7
848.7

Math and Physical Sciences
1,167.3
1,402.7

Social, Behavioral, & Economic Sciences
215.1
233.5

Office of Cyberinfrastructure
185.3
220.1

Office of International Science & Engr.
41.3
47.4

U.S. Polar Programs
442.5
491.0

Integrative Activities
232.3
276.0

U.S. Arctic Research Commission
1.5
1.5

Subtotal Res. & Rel. Act
4,821.5
5,594.0
5,183.1a
Education and Human Resources
725.6
790.4
845.3
Major Research Equipment & Facil. Constr.
220.7 147.5 152.0
Agency Operations & Award Management
281.8
305.1
294.0
National Science Board
4.0
4.0
4.0
Office of Inspector General
11.4
13.1
12.0
Rescission required under P.L. 110-161
-33.0
—
—
Total NSFb 6,065.0c 6,854.1 6,490.4
Sources: NSF FY2009 Budget Request to Congress; House Appropriations Committee-approved draft bill and
report, S. 3182 (S.Rept. 110-397), and H.R. 1105.
a. Specific allocations for each directorate or for individual programs and activities are not yet available.
b. The totals do not include carryovers or retirement accruals. Totals may not add due to rounding.
c. The Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252) provides NSF with $62.5 million in additional
FY2008 funding. NSF obligated al of its supplemental monies by the end of the fiscal year. Emergency
supplemental funds are not included in the base for a Continuing Resolution. The FY2008 supplemental
funding has not been incorporated into the above table column.
Congressional Research Service
36

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Table 15. Funding for NSF R&D and Related Activities in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009
(in millions of dollars)
H.R. 1
H.R. 1
NSF Directorate/Program
(House)
(Senate) P.L.
111-5
Research & Related Activities
2,500
1,000
2,500
Major Research Equipment and Facilities
400 150
400
Construction
Education and Human Resources
100
50
100
Office of the Inspector General
2
2
2
Total 3,002
1,202
3,002
Source: H.R. 1 (House, Senate, and enacted) and the conference report, H.Rept. 111-16.
Department of Commerce (DOC)
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a laboratory of the Department of
Commerce with a mandate to increase the competitiveness of U.S. companies through appropriate
support for industrial development of precompetitive, generic technologies and the diffusion of
government-developed technological advances to users in all segments of the American economy.
NIST research also provides the measurement, calibration, and quality assurance techniques that
underpin U.S. commerce, technological progress, improved product reliability, manufacturing
processes, and public safety.
The Administration’s original FY2009 budget proposed $638.0 million in funding for NIST. On
June 6, 2008, President Bush submitted a series of amendments to his budget including a
reduction of $2.0 million in the amount requested for NIST (from the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP) program). The new request of $636.0 million was 15.9% below FY2008 due
to an absence of support for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP)36 and a significant
decrease in financing for MEP. Funding for in-house research and development under the
Scientific and Technology Research and Services (STRS) account (including the Baldrige
National Quality Program) was to increase 21.5% to $535.0 million, while MEP would be
provided $2.0 million to close out the federally financed portion of the program such that “...
MEP centers will become independent, as intended in the program’s original authorization.”
Construction support would decline 38.3% to $99.0 million. (See Table 16.)
During the 110th Congress, H.R. 7322, as reported from House Committee on Appropriations,
would have funded NIST at $816.9 million, 8.1% above FY2008. The STRS account would have
increased 13.7% to $500.7 million while support for TIP at $65.2 million would remain constant
and MEP funding would increase 36.2% to $122.0 million. Construction spending was to
decrease 19.6% to $129.0 million. S. 3182, as reported by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations in the 110th Congress, would have provided $813.5 million for NIST, an increase

36 The Technology Innovation Program replaced the Advanced Technology Program as mandated by P.L. 110-69.
Congressional Research Service
37

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

of 7.6% over FY2008. Included was $489.5 million for the STRS account (an 11.1% increase),
$65.0 million for TIP, and $110.0 million for MEP (a 22.8% increase). The construction budget
would have declined 7.2% to $149.0 million.
No final FY2009 appropriations legislation was enacted by the close of the 110th Congress. P.L.
110-329, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act,
2009, provided, in part, funding for NIST at FY2008 levels through March 6, 2009.
In the 111th Congress, P.L. 111-8, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, funds NIST at $819.0
million with the STRS account receiving a 7.2% increase to $472.0 million. Support for MEP
would total $110.0 million, a 22.8% increase, and financing for TIP would remain constant at
$65.0 million. The $172.0 million for the construction budget reflects a 7.2% increase in funding.
H.R. 1, as originally passed by the House in the current Congress, provided an additional $100.0
million for the STRS account (to the appropriated funds in the Continuing Resolution), as well as
$70.0 million more for TIP and $30.0 million more for MEP. The construction budget would have
received an extra $300.0 million for a “competitive construction grant program for research
science buildings.” The initial Senate passed version of H.R. 1 included an additional $168.0
million for the STRS account with the construction budget to expand with an additional $307.0
million. The final version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5,
provides an extra $222.0 million for the STRS account to be used for “research, competitive
grants, additional research fellowships and advanced research and measurement equipment and
supplies,” as noted in the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee on Conference. An
additional $360.0 million is included for construction, of which $180.0 million “shall be for the
competitive construction grant program for research science buildings.” The law also directs the
transfer of $20.0 million from the Health Information Technology initiative to NIST to “create
and test standards related to health security and interoperability in conjunction with partners at the
Department of Health and Human Services,” according to the Joint Statement.
The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 110-161, financed NIST at $755.8 million, an
increase of 11.7% over FY2007. Support for the STRS account increased 1.4% to $440.5 million
(including $7.9 million for the Baldrige Quality Program). The Technology Innovation Program
(formerly the Advanced Technology Program (ATP)) was appropriated $65.2 million (with an
additional $5 million from FY2007 unobligated balances under ATP), 17.6% below the previous
fiscal year. Funding for MEP decreased 14.4% to $89.6 million. Support for construction almost
tripled to $160.5 million.
President Bush’s FY2008 budget proposal requested $640.7 million for NIST, 5.3% below the
FY2007 appropriation. The STRS account would have increased 15.2% to $500.5 million
(including the Baldrige Quality Program). There was no funding for ATP and financing for MEP
would have been reduced 55.8% to $46.3 million. Construction expenses were to increase 60% to
$93.9 million.
As part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, the Bush Administration stated its intention to
double over 10 years funding for “innovation-enabling research” performed at NIST through its
“core” programs (defined as internal research in the STRS account and the construction budget).
To this end, the former President’s FY2007 budget requested an increase of 18.3% for intramural
R&D at NIST; FY2007 appropriations for these in-house programs increased 9.6%. For FY2008,
the omnibus appropriations legislation provided for a small increase in the STRS account. This
was in contrast to the Bush Administration’s FY2008 budget which included a 15.2% increase in
Congressional Research Service
38

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

funding, as did the original appropriations bill, H.R. 3093 (110th Congress), as passed by the
House, while the Senate-passed version contained a 15.6% increase. President Bush’s FY2009
budget request proposed a 21.5% increase in support for the STRS account. Increases in the
STRS account were included in the House and Senate appropriations bills during the 110th
Congress, but at amounts less than the budget request. In the current Congress, the FY2009
Omnibus Appropriations bill contains a 7.2% increase in support for both the STRS account and
construction, while the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes significant
additional funding for both initiatives. See Table 17.
Continued funding for the extramural programs at NIST has been a major issue. Support for the
Advanced Technology Program was uncertain particularly because opponents objected to large
companies receiving research grants. Although Congress maintained (often decreasing) funding
for ATP, the initial appropriation bills passed by the House since FY2002 failed to include
financing for the program. In FY2006, support for the program was cut 41% and in FY2007, P.L.
110-69 replaced ATP with the Technology Innovation Program which focuses on small and
medium sized firms. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2008, provided funding for this
new initiative. The Bush Administration’s FY2009 budget request did not include financing for
TIP, while the House and Senate bills provided support similar to FY2008. The budget for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, another extramural program administered by NIST, has
also been debated for several years. The former President’s FY2009 budget proposal
recommended curtailing the federally funded portion of the MEP and provided $2.0 million to
accomplish this objective. During the 110th Congress, the House and Senate appropriation bills
included large increases in funding for the program; the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act
provided a 22.8% increase in MEP financing while TIP funding remained constant. The final
version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 did not contain any additional
support for TIP or MEP.
For additional information, see CRS Report 95-30, The National Institute of Standards and
Technology: An Appropriations Overview; CRS Report RS22815, The Technology Innovation
Program; and CRS Report 97-104, Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program: An
Overview, all by Wendy H. Schacht. (CRS Contact: Wendy H. Schacht.)
Table 16. NIST
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
H.R. 7322
S. 3182
Request
(110th
(110th
FY2009 Final
NIST Program
FY2008
(amended)
Congress)
Congress)
(P.L. 111-8)
STRSa 440.5
535.0
500.7
489.5
472.0
TIP/ATP 65.2b 0 65.2
65.0
65.0
MEP 89.6
2.0
122.0
110.0
110.0
Construction
160.5
99.0
129.0
149.0
172.0
NIST
Total 755.8 636.0 816.9 813.5 819.0
Sources: NIST website (available at http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/budget.htm), H.R. 7322, S. 3182, P.L. 111-
8.
Note: Figures may not add up because of rounding.
a. Includes funding for the Baldrige National Quality Program.
b. Funding is for the new Technology Innovation Program (TIP) that replaces ATP.
Congressional Research Service
39

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Table 17. Funding for NIST in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(in millions of dollars)
H.R. 1a
H.R. 1b
NIST Program
(House)
(Senate)
P.L. 111-5
STRS
100.0 168.0 220.0
ATP/TIPc
70.0
-

MEP 30.0

-

Construction 300.0 307.0 360.0
HITd
20.0 20.0 20.0
Total 520.00
495.0
600.0
Sources: H.R. 1, S.Amdt. 570 to H.R. 1, P.L. 111-5.
Notes:
a. As passed by the House.
b. As passed by the Senate.
c. Funding is for the new Technology Innovation Program (TIP) that replaces ATP.
d. Transferred from Department of Health and Human Services for Health Information Technology initiative.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
For FY2009, President Bush proposed $577 million in R&D funding for the Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Table 18). According to
the NOAA FY2009 Budget Summary, released on February 4, 2008,37 this is about 14% of
NOAA’s total discretionary budget request of $4.109 billion. Also, the R&D request would have
consisted of 93% research funding and 7% development funding. About 70% of the R&D request
would have funded intramural programs and 30% would have funded extramural activities.
According to NOAA’s Budget Office, the R&D funding request for the Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research (OAR) was $288 million, or 50% of total NOAA R&D funding requested
for FY2009. This was a decrease of nearly 11% from the FY2008 appropriation of $323 million.
As compared to FY2008 appropriation levels, the NOAA R&D FY2009 budget request would
have increased funding for the National Ocean Service (NOS) by 2%, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) by 15%, and the National Environmental Satellite Data and
Information Service (NESDIS) by 15%. National Weather Service (NWS) R&D was essentially
flat funded at $23 million. President Bush’s budget request for FY2009 indicated that $260
million of NOAA’s budget would have been for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP). Also, it indicated that the total OAR budget of $372 million represented NOAA’s portion
of President Bush’s “Federal Science and Technology Budget” for FY2009, of which $128.1
million would have been for OAR labs and cooperative institutes.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 3182 (110th Congress) on June 19, 2008
(S.Rept. 110-397). According to a AAAS R&D analysis, the committee recommended a total of

37 Available at http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~nbo/09bluebook_highlights.html.
Congressional Research Service
40

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

$633 million for R&D for FY2009 (see Table 18).38 This amount was reported to be 9.9% greater
than the FY2009 request of $577 million, or an increase of $56 million, for NOAA’s five line
offices and “all other R&D.” That amount was 8.9% more than the FY2008 appropriation of $581
million. The largest R&D monetary increase, compared with President Bush’s request, was $33
million for OAR. Of that amount, climate research and high performance computing R&D would
have stood to benefit the most from the recommendation. The Senate’s largest increase compared
with the request in terms of percentage was for NOS (23.2%), or an additional $13 million.
AAAS indicated that the NOS R&D increase was for congressionally directed programs.39
The House reported H.R. 7322 (110th Congress), Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2009 (H.Rept. 110-919), and passed the bill on December 10,
2008. Within the funds recommended for NOAA, over $376 million would have been for climate
change research, analysis, enhanced modeling capabilities, increased data access and archiving,
and the restoration of critical satellite climate sensors. Full funding of President’s Bush’s request
would have ensured monies for acquisition, construction, and operations of the GOES–R,
NPOESS, and NPP satellites. Funding would have also been provided in areas of critical need
such as protected species research and management, habitat conservation and restoration, and
ocean resources conservation and assessment.40
No final FY2009 appropriations legislation was enacted by the close of the 110th Congress. The
Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-
329) froze most NOAA funding at FY2008 levels. AAAS noted that “R&D in NOAA would have
gained 8.9 percent to $633 million in the Senate plan instead of a requested cut.”41 Even so,
Division B of the act provided $17 million in supplemental appropriations for NOAA to improve
its hurricane track and intensity forecasts for the protection of life and property. This may have
boosted R&D funding for experimental modeling activities at NOAA’s Hurricane Research
Division (HRD) at the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Lab (AOML) and have
fostered “research to operations” activities for NOAA Central Forecast Guidance.
On March 11, 2009, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8) was signed by President
Obama. The act approved $4.365 billion in discretionary funding for NOAA, $468.6 million
above the FY2008 appropriation of $3.896 billon. Funding for all line offices and programs
identified in Table 18 would increase relative to FY2008 enacted and FY2009 requested funding
levels. R&D funding levels for P.L. 111-8 could not be determined from available budget
information. Total funding increases (R&D and all other program activities) include $29.0 million
for NOS (6.2%), $44.9 million for NMFS (6.3%), $8.8 million for OAR (2.3%), $42.6 million for
NWS (5.3%), $8.2 million for NESDIS (4.6%), and $58.5 million for Program Support (14.9%).42

38 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), “Funding Update on Commerce R&D in Senate
Appropriations” (Based on FY2009 Appropriations Bills and Including Conduct of R&D and R&D Facilities),” July 1,
2008, at http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/doc09s.htm..
39 Id.
40 U.S Congress, House, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2009 (H.Rept. 110-
919) to accompany H.R. 7322, December 10, 2008, p. 3.
41 AAAS, “Federal Research Funding Flat in 2009 as Federal Budget Stalls,” September 30, 2008, at
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/upd908.htm.
42 Rep. David R. Obey, "Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Obey, Chairman of the House Committee on
Appropriations, Regarding H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009," House, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 155 (February 23, 2009), pp. H1737-H1762.
Congressional Research Service
41

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

In the 111th Congress, funding for some NOAA R&D-related activities was recommended in the
House version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 (H.R. 1). The
NOAA portion recommended for the PAC account totaled $1 billion (Table 18). Of this amount,
$600 million was to assist in shoring up NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite Data and
Information Service (NESDIS), with respect to technological improvements and continuity of the
Earth orbiting environmental satellites system. NESDIS activities have been critical for ongoing
U.S. climate change science and research and weather research activities. Some scientists argue
that the program has lacked adequate support, including for program management, technological
innovation, and instrumentation critical for Earth observations. Most of the $600 million
recommended likely would have been invested in NESDIS operations rather than research. Also,
the House bill also would have provided NOAA’s ORF account $400 million for marine habitat
restoration and for improving marine ecology, replenishing fish stock and revitalizing the U.S.
fisheries’ economy. It is unclear what portion of this funding, if any, was recommended
specifically be for R&D-related activities.
The Senate passed S.Amdt. 570 to H.R. 1 on February 10, 2009. H.R. 1 (Senate) recommended a
total of $1.022 billion for NOAA (Table 18). Of this amount, $377 million would have been for
the ORF account; however, it was not possible to determine what portion of this funding would
be for R&D activities. S.Amdt. 570 also recommended $645 million for NOAA Procurement,
Acquisition, and Construction to construct and repair NOAA facilities and equipment (while not
technically R&D facilities). Within these funds, $70,000,000 was directed to specifically support
supercomputing activities, especially as they relate to climate research however (S.Rept. 111-3, p.
15).
On February 13, 2009, the 111th Congress passed H.R. 1, the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, also known as the “Stimulus Package.” For NOAA’s ORF
account, a total of $230 million was provided “to address a backlog of research, restoration,
navigation, conservation and management activities.” For NOAA’s PAC account, a total of $600
million was provided “to construct and repair NOAA facilities and equipment,” and, “include
implementing the fleet modernization plan to address ship maintenance and new construction for
the NOAA fleet; accelerating construction of local Weather Forecast Offices, Critical Weather
Observing Systems, weather radars and dual polarization systems throughout the country;
accelerating construction at regional facilities and laboratories currently under construction; and
constructing vessels for marine conservation.” Although it cannot be determined what portion of
this funding would be for R&D at NOAA, within the $600 million proposed for the PAC account,
the joint explanatory statement in the conference report on H.R. 1 (H.Rept. 111-16, p. 418) states
that “$170,000,000 shall address critical gaps in climate modeling and establish climate data
records for continuing research into the cause, effects and ways to mitigate climate change.”
(CRS Contact: Harold Upton.)

Congressional Research Service
42

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Table 18. NOAA R&D
(in millions of dollars, N/A – Not Available)
H.R. 1
R&D By NOAA Line
(Enacted,
Office and Program
FY2008
FY2009
H.R.
H.R. 1
H.R. 1
P.L. 111-
Support
Enacteda Requestb 7322c S. 3182d
(House)e (Senate)f
5)g
National Ocean Service
57
58
N/A
71
N/A
N/A
N/A
(NOS)
National Marine Fisheries
45
52
N/A
56
N/A
N/A
N/A
Service (NMFS)
Oceanic and Atmospheric
323
288
N/A
321
N/A
N/A
N/A
Research (OAR)
National Weather Service
23
23
N/A
24
N/A
N/A
N/A
(NWS)
National Environmental
26
29
N/A
29
N/A
N/A
N/A
Satellite Data and
Information Service
(NESDIS)
Office of Marine and
107
127
N/A
132
N/A
N/A
N/A
Aviation Services (OMAO)h
Program Support
Total Conduct of R&D
$581
$577
N/A
$633
1,000i 1,022i $830i
Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, “FY2008-
FY2009, Research and Development,” personal communication, March 13, 2008.
a. P.L. 110-161 Reported as Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2764 (110th Congress), the
Consolidated. Appropriations Act of 2008, Div. B, Title I, Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies.
b. The request figures for FY2009 reported by AAAS are based on “OMB R&D data and supplemental agency
budget data.”110th Congress. (Compare with NOAA, FY 2009 Blue Book (Budget Summary), February 4,
2008, pp. 6-6 to 6-9, available at http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~nbo/09bluebook_highlights.html)
c. Commerce, Justice Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2009 (H.Rept. 110-919), December
10, 2008. The R&D related portion could not be discerned from other funded activities.
d. AAAS, AAAS R&D Funding Update in FY2009 Senate Appropriations, July 2009.
e. H.R. 1 as passed by the House on January 28, 2009.
f.
H.R. 1 as passed by the Senate on February 10, 2009.
g. H.R. 1 conference report (H.Rept. 111-16) passed by Congress on February 13, 2009.
h. OMAO R&D includes marine research data acquisition and services.
i.
Funding in House, Senate, and final versions of H.R. 1 includes total funding (all program activities including
the R&D portion).
Congressional Research Service
43

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA)
The Administration requested $12.857 billion for NASA R&D in FY2009. This request was a 5%
increase over FY2008, in a total NASA budget that would increase by 2%. The House committee
recommended $12.967 billion.43 The Senate committee recommended $13.044 billion.44 The final
appropriation was $12.983 billion.45 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Authorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-422) included authorization levels for many programs for
FY2009. For details, see Table 19. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L.
111-5) included an additional $550 million as passed by the House, an additional $1.1 billion as
passed by the Senate, and an additional $950 million as enacted. For details, see Table 20. Before
passage of P.L. 111-8, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A of P.L. 110-
329) provided funding for continuing NASA activities at the FY2008 rate through March 6, 2009;
P.L. 111-6 extended this through March 11, 2009. For more information, see CRS Report
RS22818, National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Overview, FY2009 Budget, and Issues
for Congress, by Daniel Morgan and Carl E. Behrens.
For several years, budget priorities throughout NASA have been driven by the Vision for Space
Exploration. Announced by President Bush in January 2004 and endorsed by Congress in both
P.L. 110-422 and the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155), the Vision includes
returning the space shuttle to regular flight status following the 2003 Columbia disaster, but then
retiring it by 2010; completing the International Space Station, but discontinuing its use by the
United States by 2017; returning humans to the Moon by 2020; and then sending humans to Mars
and “worlds beyond.” To replace the space shuttle and carry astronauts to the Moon, NASA is
developing a new spacecraft and a new launch vehicle, known as Orion and Ares I. Their first
crewed flight is expected in March 2015. It is not yet clear what changes, if any, the Obama
Administration will make to the Vision.
In general, the FY2009 request included increases for programs related to the Vision and
decreases for other programs. The request for Constellation Systems, the program responsible for
developing Orion and Ares I, was an increase of $576 million or 23% relative to FY2008. The
request for the International Space Station was an increase of $247 million or 14%. Among
programs not focused on human space exploration, the request for Science was a decrease of $15
million or 0.3%,46 and the request for Aeronautics was a decrease of $65 million or 13%. The
Senate committee recommended $30 million more than the request for Constellation Systems,
while the House committee recommended $20 million less (but $26 million more for Advanced
Capabilities in the same account). The House and Senate committees and the final bill all
provided the requested amount for the International Space Station and more than the request for
both Science and Aeronautics.
Within the nearly flat request for Science, increases for Earth Science and Planetary Science were
to be offset by a decrease for Astrophysics. The request for Earth Science was to fund two new

43 CRS analysis of H.R. 7322 (110th Congress) as reported and H.Rept. 110-919.
44 CRS analysis of S. 3182 (110th Congress) as reported and S.Rept. 110-397.
45 CRS analysis of P.L. 111-8 and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, February 23, 2009.
46 After adjusting for transfers. See notes to Table 19.
Congressional Research Service
44

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

missions recommended by the National Research Council (NRC) in its decadal survey,47 while
the request for Planetary Science was to initiate a new program in lunar robotic science. In
Astrophysics, two programs have been of particular congressional interest: the NASA/DOE Joint
Dark Energy Mission (JDEM) and the Space Interferometer Mission (SIM). The request included
funds for JDEM, as directed by Congress in the FY2008 explanatory statement,48 but not for SIM.
NASA explained that a new exoplanet exploration initiative could include a smaller, medium-
class version of SIM, as recommended by the FY2008 Senate report.49 The House and Senate
committees both recommended more than the request for each of the four Science programs.
Among their recommended increases were additions to cover cost growth in the Glory, Mars
Science Laboratory, and James Webb Space Telescope missions and to fund decadal survey
missions in Earth Science. The final bill provided $150 million for Earth Science decadal survey
missions and $20 million to assess lower-cost versions of SIM; the explanatory statement directed
NASA to report to the appropriations committees on its plans for the Mars Science Laboratory,
whose expected cost has increased by $400 million.
As passed by the House, H.R. 1 included $400 million for Science, of which not less than $250
million was for Earth Science missions recommended by the NRC, and $150 million for
Aeronautics. As passed by the Senate, it included $450 million for Science, $200 million for
Aeronautics, and $450 million for Exploration. As enacted, P.L. 111-5 provided $400 million for
Science, $150 million for Aeronautics, and $400 million for Exploration. (CRS Contact: Daniel
Morgan.)
Table 19. NASA R&D (Regular Appropriations)
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
Final
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
(P.L. 111-
FY2008a
Request
H. Cte.
S. Cte.
Auth.
8)
Scienceb
$4,456 $4,442 $4,518 $4,523 $4,932
$4,503

Earth
Science
1,280 1,368 1,448 1,440 1,518
1,440

Planetary
Science
1,248 1,334 1,411 1,411 1,483
1,327

Astrophysics
1,338 1,162 1,181 1,184 1,290
1,201

Heliophysicsb
591 577 618 633 641
606

Adjustmentc —
—
(140)
(145)
—
(71)
Aeronautics
512 446 515 500 853
500
Exploration
3,143 3,500 3,506 3,530 4,886
3,506

Constel ation
Systems
2,472 3,048 3,028 3,078 4,148
3,051

Advanced Capabilities 671 452 478 452 738
472

Adjustmentc
— — — — —
(18)

47 National Research Council, Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade
and Beyond, 2007.
48 Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H15820 and H15923.
49 S.Rept. 110-124, p. 110.
Congressional Research Service
45

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

FY2009
Final
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
(P.L. 111-
FY2008a
Request
H. Cte.
S. Cte.
Auth.
8)
International Space Station
1,813
2,060
2,060
2,060
n/a
2,060
Subtotal
R&D
9,924 10,449 10,599 10,613
n/a
10,569
Other NASA Programsd 4,142 3,866 3,925 3,880 n/a
3,907
Cross-Agency Supporte
3,243 3,300 3,245 3,320 3,300
3,306

Associated
with
R&D
2,288 2,409 2,368 2,431 n/a
2,414

Associated
with
Other 955 891 877 889 n/a
892
Total
R&D
12,212 12,857 12,967 13,044
n/a
12,983
Total
NASA
17,309 17,614 17,769 17,814 20,210
17,782
Source: FY2008 and FY2009 request: NASA FY2009 congressional budget justification. FY2009 House: H.R.
7322 (110th Congress) as reported and H.Rept. 110-919. FY2009 Senate: S. 3182 (110th Congress) and S.Rept.
110-397. FY2009 authorization: Sec. 101 of P.L. 110-422. FY2009 final: P.L. 111-8 and explanatory statement,
Congressional Record, February 23, 2009. Amounts not specified are shown as n/a (not available).
a. Adjusted for accounting changes to be comparable with the FY2009 request.
b. Reduced by $250 million in FY2008 to adjust for the transfer of Near Earth Networks and Deep Space
Mission Systems from Heliophysics to Space and Flight Support in FY2009.
c. Reflects real ocated funds carried over from FY2008.
d. Space Shuttle, Space and Flight Support (increased in FY2008 as in note b), Education, and Inspector
General.
e. Al ocation between R&D and non-R&D is estimated by CRS in proportion to the underlying program
amounts in order to al ow calculation of a total for R&D. The Cross-Agency Support account consists
mostly of indirect costs for other programs assessed in proportion to their direct costs.

Table 20. NASA R&D (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009)
(in millions of dollars)
H.R. 1
H.R. 1

(House)
(Senate) P.L.
111-5
Science $400
$450
$400
Aeronautics 150
200
150
Exploration
— 450 400
Total R&D
550
1,100
950
Inspector General
2
2
2
Cross-Agency Supporta 50 200 50
Total NASA
602
1,302
1,002
Source: H.R. 1 as passed by the House, as passed by the Senate, and as enacted.
a. Cross-Agency Support funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was devoted
primarily to repair of facilities damaged by hurricanes and other natural disasters.
Congressional Research Service
46

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Department of Agriculture (USDA)
The FY2009 request for research and education activities in the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) was $2.280 billion, a 12.0% decrease ($310.7 million) from the FY2008 estimate of
$2.591 billion (see Table 21). The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is USDA’s in-house basic
and applied research agency, and operates approximately 100 laboratories nationwide. The ARS
laboratories focus on efficient food and fiber production, development of new products and uses
for agricultural commodities, development of effective biocontrols for pest management, and
support of USDA regulatory and technical assistance programs. Included in the total support for
USDA in FY2009 was $1.050 billion for ARS, $117.2 million below the FY2008 estimate. In the
ARS, the Administration proposed the reduction of $41.0 million in funding add-ons designated
by Congress for research at specific locations. Also, there was the proposed discontinuation and
redirection of $105.0 million in lower priority programs. The amounts are to be redirected to
critical research priorities of the Administration that include livestock production, food safety,
crop protection, and human nutrition. Included in the FY2009 request for ARS was $13.2 million
for buildings and facilities.
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 land-grant
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 FY2009 request provided $994.1 million for CSREES, a decrease of $189.7
million from the FY2008 estimate. The CSREES FY2009 budget included the proposed
elimination of $144.0 million in Congressional add-ons and the reduction of $88.0 million in
lower priority programs. Funding for formula distribution in FY2009 to the state Agricultural
Experiment Stations was $273.2 million, approximately $1.5 million below the FY2008 estimate.
Support for the 1890 formula programs was $38.3 million, $2.8 million below the FY2008 level.
One of the primary goals of the FY2009 CSREES budget was to expand competitive, peer-
reviewed allocation of research programs. The FY2009 budget request had proposed, as in
previous years, to modify the Hatch formula program.50 It would expand the multistate research
programs share of Hatch funds from 25.0% to approximately 70.0%. The request would redirect
42.0% of Hatch funds to nationally, competitively awarded, multi-state/multi-institutional
projects in the first year, with the balance of funds distributed over a four year period. In addition,
the FY2009 request proposed allocating 67.0% of McIntire-Stennis funds for the creation of a
competitively awarded multi-state research program. The extension programs were also proposed
to be strengthened through competitively awarded grants. The programs were designed to be
more responsive to critical national issues such as agricultural security, local and regional
emergencies, zoonotic diseases, and pest risk management.
The FY2009 request proposed $256.5 million for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
(AFRI), an increase of $65.6 million over the FY2008 estimate. In addition to supporting
fundamental and applied science in agriculture, USDA maintains that the AFRI makes a

50 Hatch Act Formula grants are provided for agricultural research to state agricultural experiment stations (SAES) in
accordance with the act approved July 2, 1862 (7 U.S.C. 301 et seq.)—as amended through P.L. 107-293. SAESs are
directed to support research projects that have relevance to the special needs of the respective states. SAESs are
required to provide 100% in matching funds.
Congressional Research Service
47

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

significant contribution to developing the next generation of agricultural scientists by providing
graduate students with opportunities to work on research projects. A focus of these efforts is
providing increased opportunities for minority and under-served communities in agricultural
science. AFRI funding was to support projects directed at developing alternate methods of
biological and chemical conversion of biomass, and research determining the impact of a
renewable fuels industry on the economic and social dynamics of rural communities. The
Administration had proposed support for initiatives in agricultural genomics, emerging issues in
food and agricultural security, the ecology and economics of biological invasions, and plant
biotechnology. Research was proposed that moves beyond water quality issues to extend to water
availability, reuse, and conservation.
The FY2009 request for USDA provided $82.1 million for the Economic Research Service
(ERS), $4.2 million above the FY2008 estimated level; and $153.5 million for the National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), approximately $9.9 million below the FY2008 level. The
budget included support to improve research efforts in analyzing the impacts of bioenergy
production, and to examine those concerns pertaining to feedstock storage, transportation
networks, and the vagaries in commodity production. Funding for NASS would allow for the
creation of a data series on key elements of bioenergy production. Research areas to explore
included production and utilization of biomass materials; stocks and prices of distillers’ grains;
and current and proposed ethanol plants. Funding was provided in the NASS FY2009 request to
fully fund the last year of the 2007 Census of Agriculture. Funding would be available also for
data collection to measure energy use and production on farms.
During the 110th Congress, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 3289, the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriation Bill, FY2009 (S.Rept. 110-426). The bill would provide a total of $2.543 billion
for research and education activities in USDA, $262.6 million above the Administration’s
FY2009 request and $48.1 million below the FY2008 estimate. S. 3289 would fund the ARS at
$1.165 billion and CSREES at $1.150 billion. In addition, funding in the Senate-reported bill for
the ERS and the NASS would be $78.2 million and $149.1 million, respectively. The House
Appropriations Committee did not report a FY2009 appropriations bill. A bill was approved by
the subcommittee but the full committee stopped regular action on the bill as a result of
procedural difficulties.
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law H.R. 1, the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The economic stimulus legislation provides an additional
$176.0 million for work on deferred maintenance at ARS buildings and facilities. Currently, ARS
estimates that there is approximately $315.0 million in deferred maintenance work at its facilities.
The House-passed version of the legislation would have provided $209.0 million for work on
deferred maintenance of buildings and facilities. The Senate-version of the economic-stimulus
legislation would have provided $50.0 million for competitive grants under the AFRI.
On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed into law H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations
Act, 2009. H.R. 1105 provides a total of $2,636.7 million for research and education in USDA,
$356.8 million above that requested by the Bush Administration, and $46.1 million above the
FY2008 estimated level. Included in that total is $1,187.2 million for ARS and approximately
$1,222.2 million for CSREES. (See Table 22.) (CRS Contact: Christine M. Matthews.)
Congressional Research Service
48

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Table 21. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D
(in millions of dollars)

FY2008
FY2009
FY2009 Final
Estimate
Requestc
(P.L. 111-8)
Agricultural Research Service

(ARS)
Product Quality/Value Added
$105.1
$97.6

Livestock Production
84.8
70.1

Crop Production
200.6
191.0

Food Safety
104.5
105.8

Livestock Protection
82.4
68.8

Crop Protection
196.0
188.7

Human Nutrition
85.3
79.5

Environmental Stewardship
222.5
199.6

National Agricultural Library
21.8
18.4

Repair and Maintenance
17.5
17.5

Subtotal 1,120.6
1,037.0
1,140.4
Buildings and Facilities
46.8
13.2
46.8
Total, ARS
1,167.4
1,050.2
1,187.2
Cooperative State Research, Education, & Extension (CSREES) Research and
Education
Hatch Act Formula
195.8
139.2
207.1
Cooperative Forestry Research
24.8
19.5
27.5
Evans-Al en Formula (Payments to
1890 Institutions)
41.1 38.3 45.5
Special Research Grants
107.1
18.1
100.4
Agriculture & Food Research
Initiative
190.9 256.5 201.5
Federal Administration
42.2
10.7
39.4
Higher Educationa 47.8
41.6
40.8
Other Programs
18.6
11.4
28.8
Total, Cooperative Research. &
Educationb
668.3 535.3 691.0
Extension Activities
Smith-Lever Sections 3b&c
274.7
273.2
288.5
Smith-Lever Sections 3d
97.5
91.5
98.5
Renewable Resources Extension
4.0
4.1
4.0
1890 Colleges, Tuskegee, & West
Virginia State University Colleges
17.3 16.6 40.2
Other Extension Prog. & Admin.
59.7
46.4
43.1
Total, Extension Activities
453.2
431.8
474.3
Congressional Research Service
49

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

FY2008
FY2009
FY2009 Final

Estimate
Requestc
(P.L. 111-8)
Integrated Activities
55.9
20.1
56.9
Outreach for Disadvantaged Farmers
6.4
6.9
0.0e
Total, CSREESb 1,183.8
994.1
1,222.2
Economic Research Service
77.3
82.1
78.2
National Agricultural Statistics
Service
162.1 153.5 149.1
Total, Research, Education, and
Economics
2,590.6 2,279.9
2,636.7
Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture FY2009 Budget Summary, documents internal to the agency, S.Rept.
110-426, and P.L. 111-8.
Notes: Research activities carried out in support of Homeland Security are reflected under the Food Safety,
Livestock Protection, and Crop Protection program areas—FY2008, $35.5 million; and FY2009, $64.3 million.
a. 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.
b. Program totals may or may not include set-asides (non-add) or contingencies. The CSREES total includes
support for Community Food Projects and the Organic Agriculture Research and Education Initiative.
c. Funding levels are contained in U.S. Department of Agriculture FY2009 Budget Summary, documents
internal to the agency, and S.Rept. 110-426. The House did not report a FY2009 agriculture appropriations
bill during the 110th Congress. The subcommittee approved a bill on June 19, 2008. The full appropriations
committee was to consider both the Agriculture and the Labor-HHS bills on June 26, 2008, but the
proceedings were stopped for the remainder of the session due to procedural difficulties with the Labor-
HHS bill.
d. Specific allocations for individual programs and activities are not yet available.
e. The Committee did not include funding for this program. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2009
provides $15.0 million for this activity and repeals the authorization for appropriations.

Table 22. Funding for USDA R&D and Related Activities in the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(in millions of dollars)
H.R. 1
H.R. 1
P.L.
USDA Program
(House) (Senate)
111-5
Office of the Secretary
—
200a —
ARS Buildings and Facilities
209
—
176
CSREES (Agriculture and
— 50 —
Food Research Initiative)
Total 209
250
176
Source: H.R. 1 (House, Senate, and enacted), and the conference report, H.Rept. 111-16.
a. For replacement, modernization, or upgrades of laboratories or other facilities to improve workplace safety
and mission-area efficiencies in USDA agencies other than the Forest Service. A portion of these funds may
be used for non-R&D/non-S&T related activities.
Congressional Research Service
50

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Department of the Interior (DOI)
President Bush requested $617 million for Department of the Interior (DOI) R&D in FY2009, an
estimated decrease of 8.7% from FY2008 funding of $676 million (see Table 23). The U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) is the primary supporter of R&D within DOI, accounting for nearly
90% of the department’s total R&D appropriations. President Bush proposed $546 million for
USGS R&D in FY2009, a reduction of $40.6 million (-6.9%) from the estimated FY2008 level.
Under the request, FY2009 R&D funding would have declined in three of the four USGS
research divisions: Geographic Research, Geological Resources, and Water Resources. FY2009
funding for the Biological Research Division would have remained flat. Funding for a new USGS
program, Global Change, was authorized by Congress in FY2008 and funded at $7.4 million.
President Bush’s FY2009 budget proposed a 260.1% increase in funding for this program to
$26.6 million.
No final FY2009 appropriations legislation was enacted by the beginning of that fiscal year. On
September 30, 2008, President Bush signed into law the Consolidated Security, Disaster
Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-329). Division A of this act
provides continuing appropriations for FY2009 at their FY2008 levels to agencies not otherwise
addressed in the act through March 6, 2009, or until the enactment into law of an appropriation
for any project or activity provided for in the act, or the enactment into law of the applicable
appropriations act for FY2009 without any provision for such project or activity, whichever
occurs first.
On February 23, 2009, H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8), which
provides specific appropriations for the Interior Department and other agencies covered under
Division A of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act,
2009, was introduced in the House, and passed two days later. With the Omnibus bill under
consideration in the Senate, on March 6, Congress passed and President Obama signed H.J.Res.
38 (P.L. 111-6), extending the continuing appropriations provisions of P.L. 110-329 through
March 11, 2009. On March 10, the Senate passed H.R. 1105 without amendment. President
Obama signed the act on March 11.
In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5) provides $140 million for
a wide variety of activities, including repair, construction and restoration of facilities; equipment
replacement and upgrades; national map activities; and other deferred-maintenance and
improvement projects.
In the 110th Congress, the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies held hearings on agency FY2009 budget requests, however
scheduled full committee markups were postponed and no bill to fund Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies for FY2009 was introduced.
USGS Geographic Research efforts seek to describe and interpret America’s landscape by
mapping the nation’s terrain, monitoring changes over time, and analyzing how and why these
changes have occurred. President Bush’s FY2009 budget for Geographic Research R&D
proposed a $5.6 million cut (-11.8%) to $41.9 million from its estimated FY2008 level of $47.5
million.
Congressional Research Service
51

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Funding for Geological Resources R&D in FY2009 would have decrease by $33.4 million (-15.2
percent) to $185.5 million from its estimated FY2008 level of $218.8 million. 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.
USGS Water Resources R&D is focused on water availability, water quality and flood hazards.
President Bush’s FY2009 budget for Water Resources R&D proposed a $21.4 million cut
(-16.7%) to $106.7 million from its estimated FY2008 level of $128.1 million.
USGS Biological Research efforts seek to generate and distribute scientific information that can
assist in the conservation and management of the nation’s biological resources. President Bush’s
FY2009 budget request for Biological Research R&D proposed a small increase of $0.5 million
(less than 1%) to $180.3 million. The USGS Biological Research program serves as DOI’s
biological research arm, using the capabilities of 17 research centers and associated field stations,
one technology center, 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. (CRS Contact: John Sargent.)
Table 23. Department of the Interior R&D
(in millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
FY2009 Final
H.R. 1
H.R. 1
P.L.

estimate
request
(P.L. 111-8) a
(House)
(Senate)
111-5
U.S. Geological Survey






Geographic Research
47
42
N/A



Geological Resources
219
185
N/A



Water Resources
128
107
N/A



Biological Research
180
180
N/A



Global Change
7
27
N/A



Enterprise Information
5
5
N/A



Deferred maintenance, capital
200 135 140
improvement, infrastructure


upgrades
USGS total
586
546 N/A
Other agenciesb
84
82
N/A
Totalc
671
628 N/A
Source: R&D estimates are from the Department of the Interior’s FY2009 agency budget justification.,
http://www.doi.gov/budget; and H.R. 1 (House, Senate, and enacted), personal communications with Interior
Department staff, March 13, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
52

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

a. Research and development funding in the Department of the Interior appropriations is incorporated in
funding lines that include additional activities. It is not possible at this time to ascertain how much of the
appropriated funds will be allocated to research and development activities.
b. Includes the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management, the Minerals Management Service, and
the National Park Service.
c. Totals may not add due to rounding.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the regulatory agency responsible for carrying out
a number of environmental pollution control 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. Beginning in FY2006, EPA has been funded
within the “Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies” appropriations bill.51 Most of EPA’s
scientific research activities are funded within the agency’s Science and Technology (S&T)
appropriations account. This account is funded by a “base” appropriation and a transfer from the
Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) account. These transferred funds are dedicated to
research on more effective methods to clean up contaminated sites.
The Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8; H.R. 1105) provided $816.5 million for
EPA’s S&T account. The total for the S&T account, including the transfer from the Superfund
account, was $30.7 million (nearly 4%) above the FY2008 appropriations. In comparison to the
FY2009 budget request, the amount in the enacted FY2009 Omnibus for EPA’s S&T account
would be a $16 million increase above the requested amount52 (see Table 24). The appropriation
in the FY2009 Omnibus for EPA’s S&T account represented almost 11% of the $7.64 billion that
was provided for the agency overall for FY2009. The House and Senate Appropriations
Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies held hearings on agency FY2009
budget requests, however, scheduled full committee markups were postponed and no bills to fund
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2009 were introduced prior to the enactment
of P.L. 110-329, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2009,53 and P.L. 111-6 which extended division A of P.L. 110-329 specifying continuing
appropriations for FY2009 until March 11, 2009.
Among individual EPA research programs and activities, there are varying decreases and
increases in funding when comparing the enacted FY2009 appropriations and those requested by

51 For information on funding for all EPA accounts and each of the other agencies funded in this bill see CRS Report
RL34461, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations, by Carol Hardy Vincent et al.
52 This FY2009 request includes a $10.6 million a increase within the EPA S&T account for homeland security
bioterrorism activities submitted as an amendment. August 1, 2008. The White House amendment also included a
$24.2 million increase within EPA’s Hazardous Substance Superfund appropriations account for homeland security
bioterrorism activities. White House, Office of Management and Budget, Estimate #7—FY 2009 Budget Amendments:
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the Interior,
Labor, and State, and the Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments.htm.
53 P.L. 110-329, as enacted September 30, 2008, contained no specific provisions regarding EPA’s programs and
activities including the agency’s R&D activities and programs. As per Section 101 in Division A of P.L. 110-329 funds
were appropriated “at a rate for operations as provided in the applicable appropriations Acts for fiscal year 2008 and
under the authority and conditions provided in such Acts.” For FY2008, Title II of Division F of the FY2008
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161) appropriated $7.46 billion for EPA, including $785.8 million for the
S&T account (including a transfer from the Superfund account).
Congressional Research Service
53

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

President Bush for FY2009, and Congress had enacted for FY2008. For some activities, funding
for FY2009 remained relatively flat, compared to the requested amounts and the prior year
appropriation. The largest requested increase for FY2009 within the S&T account was for two
EPA homeland security activities: Water Security Initiative, and Decontamination Research.54 As
revised by President Bush’s August 1, 2008 budget request amendment, the combined $62.0
million requested55 for FY2009 was $29.9 million above the FY2008 appropriation of $32.1
million for these two activities; a 93% increase.56 The FY2009 enacted appropriation included a
combined total of $41.9 million for these two activities, a 29% increase above the FY2008 level.
The activities funded within the EPA Science and Technology (S&T) account include research
conducted by universities, foundations, and other non-federal entities with grants awarded by
EPA, and research conducted by the agency at its own laboratories and facilities. R&D at EPA
headquarters and laboratories around the country, as well as external R&D, is managed primarily
by EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD). A large portion of the S&T account funds
EPA’s R&D activities managed by ORD, including the agency’s research laboratories and
research grants. The account also provides funding for the agency’s applied science and
technology activities conducted through its program offices (e.g., the Office of Water). Many of
the programs implemented by other offices within EPA have a research component, but the
research is not necessarily the primary focus of the program.
The EPA S&T account incorporates elements of the former EPA Research and Development
(R&D) account, as well as a portion of the former Salaries and Expenses, and Program
Operations accounts, which had been in place until FY1996. Although the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) reports57 historical and projected budget authority amounts for R&D at EPA
(and other federal agencies), OMB documents do not describe how these amounts explicitly relate
to the requested and appropriated funding amounts for the many specific EPA program activities.
EPA’s most recent annual appropriations have been requested, considered, and enacted according
to eight statutory appropriations accounts, which were established by Congress during the
FY1996 appropriations process. Because of the differences in the scope of the activities included
in these accounts, apt comparisons before and after FY1996 are difficult.
The operation and administration of the agency’s laboratories and facilities necessitate significant
expenditures for rent, utilities, and security. Prior to FY2007, a significant portion of the funding
for these expenses had been requested and appropriated within EPA’s Environmental Programs
and Management (EPM) appropriations account. In FY2007, and FY2008, increasing portions of
funding for these expenses were requested and appropriated within the S&T account. This change

54 Under the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, and Homeland Security Presidential Directives 7, 9 and 10, EPA is the lead
federal agency for coordinating security of the Nation’s water systems, and plays a role in developing early warning
monitoring and decontamination capabilities associated with potential attacks using biological contaminants.
55 Includes recommended increase per the August 1, 2008 White House amendments to the FY2009 budget request.
56 The FY2009 President’s budget as amended included a total of $84.5 million for Homeland Security activities within
the S&T account; $30.4 million above the FY2008 enacted appropriation of $54.1 million.
57 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. For example, for
EPA R&D, OMB reported actual budget authority of $606 million for FY2007, an estimated amount of $557 million
for FY2008, and $550 million proposed for FY2009. The R&D budget authority amounts reported by OMB are
typically significantly less than amounts appropriated/requested for the S&T account. This is an indication that not all
of the EPA S&T account funding is allocated to R&D. See OMB, Fiscal Year 2009 Budget of the United States:
Analytical Perspectives - Cross Cutting Programs. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/.
Congressional Research Service
54

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

affects comparisons of the S&T appropriations over time. FY2009 funding for these latter
expenses approximately represents 10% of the total S&T account in H.R. 1105 as passed in the
House, the FY2009 request and the FY2008 appropriations, compared to less than 5% in the
FY2007 appropriations.58
Some Members of Congress and an array of stakeholders have continually raised concerns about
the adequacy of funding for scientific research at EPA. The adequacy of funding for EPA’s
scientific research activities has been part of a broader question about the adequacy of overall
federal funding for a broad range of scientific research activities administered by multiple federal
agencies. Some Members of Congress, scientists, and environmental organizations have
expressed concern about the downward trend in federal resources for scientific research over
time. The debate continues to center around the question of whether the regulatory actions of
federal agencies are based on “sound science,” and how scientific research is applied in
developing federal policy.
Title VII of Division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5,
signed into law February 17, 2009) included a combined total of $7.22 billion for EPA. However,
P.L. 111-5 did not include funding for research activities within the agency’s S&T or EPM
appropriations accounts. For EPA, the law included: $6 billion in funding for state grants to
support water infrastructure projects through the clean water ($4 billion) and drinking water ($2
billion) state revolving funds, $100 million for Brownfield cleanup grants, and $300 million for
Diesel Emission Reduction Act grants, within the State and Tribal Grants (STAG) account; $600
million for remedial cleanup projects at non-federal sites on the EPA National Priority List (NPL)
within the Hazardous Substance Superfund account; $200 million for cleanup grants under the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund account; and $20 million for EPA’s
Office of Inspector General. (CRS Contact: Robert Esworthy.)
Table 24. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account
(in millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
FY2009 Final
Environmental Protection Agency
Enacted
Requested
(P.L. 111-8)
Science and Technology Appropriations Account



—Base Appropriations
$760.1
$774.1
$790.1
—Transfer in from Superfund Account
25.7
26.4
26.4
Science and Technology Total
785.8
800.5
816.5
—(Operations and Administration)
(72.7)
(74.9)
(73.9)
Net Science and Technology
713.1
725.6
742.1
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using information provided by the House
Appropriations Committee, and the August 1, 2008 White House amendments to the FY2009 budget request.
Enacted amounts for FY2008 in the above table reflect a 1.56 % across-the-board rescission required in P.L. 110-
161 for any discretionary appropriations in Division F Titles I through IV of the law (Division F Title IV § 437 of
P.L. 110-161). Numbers may not add due to rounding.

58 For example, for research alone (net after operations and administration expenses), the FY2008 consolidated
appropriations provided a $6.4 million increase above the FY2008 request for the S&T account, but $17.5 million less
than the FY2007 appropriations (includes transfers from the Superfund account).
Congressional Research Service
55

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

Department of Transportation (DOT)
President Bush requested $901 million for Department of Transportation (DOT) R&D in FY2009,
an increase of approximately $78 million (9.5%) from FY2008 funding of $823 million (see
Table 25). In addition to receiving R&D funds through the regular appropriations process, DOT
also receives R&D funding from the Transportation Trust Fund through authorization
legislation.59 For example, P.L. 109-59, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which became law in August 2005, set DOT
surface transportation authorization levels for each fiscal year from FY2005 through FY2009,
providing increased DOT R&D funding during this period.
No final FY2009 appropriations legislation was enacted by the beginning of that fiscal year. On
September 30, 2008, President Bush signed into law the Consolidated Security, Disaster
Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-329). Division A of this act
provided continuing appropriations for FY2009 at their FY2008 levels through March 6, 2009, to
agencies not otherwise addressed in the act, or until the enactment of an appropriation for any
project or activity provided for in the act, or the enactment of the applicable appropriations act for
FY2009 without any provision for such project or activity, whichever occurs first. For the
Department of Transportation, this provided $823 million for R&D, $78 million less than
President Bush’s FY2009 request.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations unanimously reported S. 3261 (110th Congress), the
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2009, on July 10, 2008. Neither the bill nor the accompanying report (S.Rept. 110-418) provided
sufficient detail to allow a complete analysis of the level of R&D funding provided to DOT.
Where the bill provided detailed R&D information, it is provided in the agency funding
discussions below. The American Association for the Advancement of Science estimated DOT
agency R&D funding under S. 3261 (110th Congress); this data is included in Table 25. Action
was not completed on this bill; the bill expired at the end of the 110th Congress.
Previously, the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing
and Urban Development, and Related Agencies marked-up an unnumbered draft on June 20,
2008. Details were not provided publicly in the form of a bill or report, though a related press
release and a summary table of funding are available on the subcommittee’s website.60 Action was
not completed on this bill; the bill expired at the end of the 110th Congress.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
together accounted for more than 80 percent of DOT’s R&D funding request. FHWA, FAA and
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) accounted for all increases in the DOT FY2009 R&D
budget request.
President Bush requested $392.8 million in FY2009 for FHWA R&D, an increase of $20.1
million (5.4%) above the FY2008 funding level of $372.6 million. FHWA’s 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

59 Appropriators may add to or direct funds identified in authorization legislation.
60 See http://appropriations.house.gov/Subcommittees/sub_tranurb.shtml.
Congressional Research Service
56

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

pavements and structures, enhance the cost-effectiveness of highway infrastructure investments,
and minimize negative impacts on the natural and human environment.
FHWA’s FY2009 budget would have provided $166.9 million for R&D under the Surface
Transportation Research, Development, and Deployment Program, an increase of $23 million
(16%) above the FY2008 level of $143.9 million, and $51.3 million for R&D for the Intelligent
Transportation Systems program, an increase of $7.5 million (17%) above the FY2008 level of
$43.8 million. These increases were partially offset by decreases in R&D funds for State Planning
and Research (down $10.7 million, -6.4%) which would have received $156.2 million in FY2009.
S.Rept. 110-418 stated that S. 3261 recommended FHWA transportation research at the level
requested by President Bush. Action was not completed on this bill; the bill expired at the end of
the 110th Congress.
President Bush requested $335.0 million for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) R&D, up
$64.2 million (23.2%) from the FY2008 level of $270.7 million. The request included $171.0
million for Research, Engineering, and Development, $161.5 million for the Air Traffic
Organization (ATO), $2.3 million for Safety and Operations, and $125,000 for Commercial Space
Transportation. The request included an increase in R&D funding for FAA’s Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen) which is focused on addressing air traffic growth by increasing
the nation’s airspace capacity and efficiency and reducing emissions and noise. NextGen R&D
funding under Research, Engineering, and Development would have increased from $24.3 million
in FY2008 to $56.5 million in FY2009, up $32.2 million (132.5%). An additional $69.4 million
was requested for NextGen R&D under ATO focused on systems development, demonstrations
and infrastructure development. S.Rept. 110-418 reported that S. 3261 (110th Congress) provided
$171 million for FAA’s Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D) activity,
approximately equal to President Bush’s request. FAA’s RE&D activity accounts for
approximately one-half of the agency’s total overall R&D funding. Additional FAA R&D funding
details are not available.
President Bush’s FY2009 budget proposed $16.8 million in R&D funding for the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), up $4.9 million over the FY2008 level of $11.9 million.
No funding was provided to the Department of Transportation in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5) for research, development, equipment, facilities, or related
activities. (CRS Contact: John Sargent.)
Table 25. Department of Transportation R&D
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009 Senatea
FY2008
(S. 3261, 110th
FY2009 Final
Department of Transportation
estimated FY2009
request
Congress)
(P.L. 111-8)
Federal Highway Administration
373
393
393
430
Federal Aviation Administration
271
335
335
335
Other agenciesb 179
174
185
191
Total 823
901
912
956
Source: R&D estimates are from unpublished OMB tables, DOT budget justifications, S. 3261, S.Rept. 110-418,
and H.R. 1105 (bill and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, February 23, 2009).
Congressional Research Service
57

---

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009

a. Based on analysis by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
b. “Other agencies” includes National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Railroad Administration,
Federal Transit Administration, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and the Office of the
Secretary.

Author Contact Information

John F. Sargent Jr., Coordinator
John D. Moteff
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
jsargent@crs.loc.gov, 7-9147
jmoteff@crs.loc.gov, 7-1435
Robert Esworthy
Wendy H. Schacht
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
resworthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-7236
wschacht@crs.loc.gov, 7-7066
Christine M. Matthews
Pamela W. Smith
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Analyst in Biomedical Policy
cmatthews@crs.loc.gov, 7-7055
psmith@crs.loc.gov, 7-7048
Daniel Morgan
Harold F. Upton
Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
dmorgan@crs.loc.gov, 7-5849
hupton@crs.loc.gov, 7-2264




Congressional Research Service
58

---