Federal Research and Development Funding:
FY2011
John F. Sargent Jr., Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
March 10, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41098
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Summary
President Obama has requested $147.696 billion for research and development (R&D) in
FY2011, a $343 million (0.2%) increase from the estimated FY2010 R&D funding level of
$147.353 million. Congress will play a central role in defining the nation’s R&D priorities,
especially with respect to two overarching issues: the extent to which the federal R&D investment
can grow in the context of increased pressure on discretionary spending and how available
funding will be prioritized and allocated. Low or negative growth in the overall R&D investment
may require movement of resources across disciplines, programs, or agencies to address
priorities. This report will be updated as Congress acts on appropriations bills that include
funding for research, development and related funding.
Under the President’s request, six federal agencies would receive 94.8% of total federal R&D
spending: the Department of Defense (52.5%), Department of Health and Human Services
(largely the National Institutes of Health) (21.8%), National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (7.4%), Department of Energy (7.6%), National Science Foundation (3.8%), and
Department of Agriculture (1.7%). NASA would receive the largest dollar increase for R&D of
any agency, $1.700 billion (18.3%) above its FY2010 funding level. The Department of Defense
would receive the largest reduction in R&D funding, $3.542 billion (4.4%) below its FY2010
level.
The President’s FY2011 request includes: $31.341 billion for basic research, up $1.339 billion
(4.5%) from FY2010; $30.276 billion for applied research, up $1.949 billion (6.9%); $81.455
billion for development, down $2.918 billion (3.5%); and $4.624 billion for R&D facilities and
equipment, down $27 million (0.6%). The FY2011 request includes funding for three
multiagency R&D initiatives: the National Nanotechnology Initiative, $1.776 billion, down $5
million (0.3%); the Networking and Information Technology R&D program, $4.281 billion, down
$9 million (0.2%); and the U.S. Global Change Research Program, $2.561 billion, up $439
million (20.7%).
President Obama has requested increases in the R&D budgets of the three agencies that were
targeted for doubling in the America COMPETES Act (over seven years) and by President Bush
under his American Competitiveness Initiative (over ten years) as measured using FY2006 R&D
funding as the baseline. Under President Obama’s FY2011 budget, the Department of Energy’s
Office of Science would receive an increase of $226 million (4.6%), the National Science
Foundation’s budget would rise by $551 million (8.0%), and funding for the National Institute of
Standards and Technology’s core research and facilities would grow by $48 million (7.3%).
For the past four 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 multiple regular appropriations bills into the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161), the Omnibus Appropriations
Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117).
Completion of appropriations after the beginning of each fiscal year may cause agencies to delay
or cancel some planned R&D and equipment acquisition.
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Contents
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 1
Federal R&D Funding Perspectives............................................................................................. 2
Agency Perspective............................................................................................................... 2
Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment Perspective ..................................................... 4
Combined Perspective........................................................................................................... 5
Multiagency R&D Initiatives Perspective.............................................................................. 6
Multiagency R&D Initiatives ...................................................................................................... 8
National Nanotechnology Initiative ....................................................................................... 8
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program ..................... 8
U.S. Global Change Research Program ................................................................................. 8
Department of Defense ............................................................................................................... 9
Department of Homeland Security ............................................................................................ 12
National Institutes of Health...................................................................................................... 15
Department of Energy ............................................................................................................... 22
National Science Foundation..................................................................................................... 25
Department of Commerce ......................................................................................................... 29
National Institute of Standards and Technology ................................................................... 29
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.............................................................. 31
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ........................................................................ 33
Department of Agriculture......................................................................................................... 36
Department of the Interior ......................................................................................................... 39
Environmental Protection Agency ............................................................................................. 41
Department of Transportation.................................................................................................... 43
Figures
Figure 1. Doubling of Research Funding: Appropriations versus Selected Rates .......................... 7
Tables
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2009-FY2011..................... 3
Table 2. Federal Research and Development Funding by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2009-FY2011............................................................................................. 4
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities and Equipment,
FY2008-FY2010...................................................................................................................... 5
Table 4. Agencies Targeted for Research Doubling by President Obama, the America
COMPETES Act, and the American Competitiveness Initiative ................................................ 7
Table 5. Department of Defense RDT&E .................................................................................. 11
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Table 6. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs ................................... 14
Table 7. National Institutes of Health......................................................................................... 21
Table 8. Department of Energy R&D and Related Programs ...................................................... 24
Table 9. National Science Foundation........................................................................................ 28
Table 10. NIST.......................................................................................................................... 31
Table 11. NOAA R&D .............................................................................................................. 33
Table 12. NASA R&D............................................................................................................... 35
Table 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D......................................................................... 38
Table 14. Department of the Interior R&D................................................................................. 40
Table 15. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account ........................................................ 43
Table 16. Department of Transportation R&D ........................................................................... 44
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 45
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
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 U.S. 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 R&D funded by the federal government is performed in support
of 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.
On February 1, 2010, President Obama requested $147.696 billion for R&D in FY2011, a 0.2%
increase over the enacted FY2010 R&D funding level of $147.353.1 The President’s proposed
FY2011 R&D funding includes an emphasis on increasing funding for the physical sciences and
engineering, an effort consistent with the intent of the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69)
and President Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). President Obama would
achieve this objective largely through a 6.6% increase in aggregate funding for the Department of
Energy Office of Science, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology’s core laboratory research.
More broadly, in a 2009 speech before members of the National Academy of Sciences, President
Obama put forth a goal of increasing the national investment in R&D to more than 3% of the U.S.
gross domestic product (GDP). President Obama did not provide details on how this goal might
be achieved (e.g., how much would be funded through increases in direct federal R&D funding or
through indirect mechanisms such as the research and experimentation tax credit2); however
doing so likely would require a substantial increase in public and private investment. In 2007,
total U.S. R&D expenditures were $397.629 billion,3 or approximately 2.75% of GDP.4 Based on
2008 figures, reaching President Obama’s 3% goal would require a 8.96% real (above inflation)
increase in national R&D funding. Increasing direct federal R&D funding by 8.96% in FY2011
would have required increase of $12.9 billion above President Obama’s request.
In addition, advocates for increased federal R&D funding—including President Obama’s science
advisor, John Holdren—have raised concerns about the potential harm of a “boom-bust” approach
to federal R&D funding (i.e., rapid growth in federal R&D funding followed by much slower
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.
2 The research and experimentation tax credit is referred to frequently as the research and development tax credit or
R&D tax credit, through the credit does not apply to development expenditures.
3 Preliminary estimate of 2009 U.S. R&D expenditures, National Science Foundation, National Patterns of R&D
Resources:2007 Data Update, NSF 08-318, Arlington, VA, 2008, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/.
4 Based on 2008 U.S. GDP of $14,441.4 billion as reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic
Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts Table, Table 1.1.5, http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/
TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2007&LastYear=2009.
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
growth, flat funding, or even decline).5 The biomedical research community experienced a variety
of challenges resulting from such a circumstance following the five-year doubling of the NIH
budget that was completed in FY2003. With the NIH doubling came a rapid expansion of the
nation’s biomedical research infrastructure (e.g., buildings, laboratories, equipment), as well as
rapid growth in university faculty hiring, students pursuing biomedical degrees, and grant
applications to NIH. After the doubling, however, the agency’s budget fell each year in real terms
from FY2004 to FY2009. Critics assert a variety of damages of this boom-bust cycle, including
interruptions and cancellations of promising research, declining share in the number of NIH grant
proposals funded, decreased student interest in pursuing graduate studies, and reduced
employment prospects for the large number of biomedical researchers with advanced degrees.
According to then-NIH Director Elias Zerhouni, the damages have been particularly acute for
early- and mid-career scientists seeking a first or second grant.6
Analysis of federal R&D funding is complicated by several factors, including the Obama
Administration’s omission of congressionally directed spending from the FY2011 budget request
and inconsistency among agencies in the reporting of R&D. Another complicating factor for
FY2009 and FY2010 is the inclusion of funding for R&D, facilities, and equipment, and related
activities in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5). ARRA
funds supplement funding provided to agencies in P.L. 110-329 and P.L. 111-8. Some ARRA
funding was spent in FY2009 and in FY2010, and the balance of these funds will be spent in
subsequent years. For purposes of this report, unless otherwise noted, comparisons of FY2009
and FY2010 R&D funding do not incorporate funding provided under P.L. 111-5. As a result of
these and other factors, the R&D agency figures reported by the White House Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP), and shown in Table 1, may differ somewhat from the agency budget analyses that
appear later in this report.
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 FY2009 (actual),
FY2010 (estimate), ARRA, and FY2011 (request) as reported by OMB. Under President Obama’s
FY2011 budget request, six federal agencies would receive 94.8% of total federal R&D funding:
the Department of Defense (DOD), 52.5%; the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
(primarily the National Institutes of Health (NIH)), 21.8%; the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), 7.4%; the Department of Energy (DOE), 7.6%; the National Science
Foundation (NSF), 3.8%; and the Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1.7%. This report provides
an analysis of the R&D budget requests for these agencies, as well as for the Departments of
5 Jennifer Couzin and Greg Miller, “NIH Budget: Boom and Bust,” Science, vol. 316, no. 5823 (April 2007), pp. 356-
361, at http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/full/316/5823/356.
6 Ibid. For additional information on NIH R&D funding issues, see CRS Report RL33695, The National Institutes of
Health (NIH): Organization, Funding, and Congressional Issues, by Pamela W. Smith.
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Commerce (DOC), Homeland Security (DHS), the Interior (DOI), and Transportation (DOT), as
well as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In total, these departments and agencies
account for more than 98% of current and requested federal R&D funding.
In his FY2011 budget request, President Obama reiterated his intention to double the federal
investment in three key science agencies over a decade from their FY2006 levels: DOE’s Office
of Science (up 4.6% above the estimated FY2010 level), NSF (up 8.0%), and DOC’s National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories and construction funds (up 6.9%).7
This request essentially continues the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) initiated by
President Bush to double physical sciences and engineering research in these agencies over 10
years (FY2007-FY2016). In 2007, Congress authorized substantial R&D increases for these
agencies under the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69), setting a more aggressive seven-year
doubling course.8
The largest agency R&D increases in the President’s FY2011 request are for NASA, $1.700
billion; the Department of Health and Human Services, $979 million (due primarily to a $956
million increase in R&D funding for NIH); the Department of Energy, $526 million; and the
National Science Foundation, $479 million. Under President Obama’s FY2011 budget request,
DOD R&D funding would be reduced by $3.542 billion, USDA R&D funding would be cut by
$143 million, and DHS R&D would fall by $104 million.9
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2009-FY2011
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Dollar
Percent
Change,
Change,
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
2010 to
2010 to
Department/Agency
Actual
ARRA
Estimate
Request
2011
2011
Agriculture 2,437
176
2,591
2448
-143
-5.5
Commerce 1,393
576
1,516
1,727
211
13.9
Defense 80,821
300
81,090
77,548
-3,542
-4.4
Energy 10,301
2,967
10,693
11,219
526
4.9
Environmental Protection
Agency 559
0
622
651
29
4.7
Health and Human
Services 30,595
11,063
31,177
32,156
979
3.1
Homeland Security
1,096
0
1,150
1046
-104
-9.0
Interior 701
74
755
772
17
2.3
7 Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The President’s Plan for Science and
Innovation: Doubling Funding for Key Science Agencies in the FY2011 Budget, February 1, 2010,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/doubling%2011%20final.pdf.
8 For additional information, see CRS Report RL34328, America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected
Issues, by Deborah D. Stine.
9 A Renewed Commitment to Science and Technology: Federal R&D, Technology, and STEM Education in the 2010
Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House, May 7, 2009, available at http://www.ostp.gov/
galleries/budget/FY2010RD.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Dollar
Percent
Change,
Change,
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
2010 to
2010 to
Department/Agency
Actual
ARRA
Estimate
Request
2011
2011
NASA 10,887
790
9,286
10,986
1,700
18.3
National Science
Foundation 5,379
2,197
5,092
5,571
479
9.4
Transportation
976 0
1,012
1,018 6 0.6
Veterans Affairs
1,020
0
1,162
1,180
18
1.5
Other 1,153
10
1,207
1,374
167
16.7
Totala 147,318
18,153
147,353
147,696
343
0.2
Sources: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of
the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Table 21-1; Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Investing in the Building Blocks of American Innovation: Federal R&D, Technology, and STEM
Education in the 2011 Budget, Table 1, February 1, 2010.
a. Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment Perspective
Federal R&D funding can also be examined by the character of work it supports—basic research,
applied research, and development—and funding provided for facilities and acquisition of major
R&D equipment. (See Table 2.) President Obama’s FY2011 request includes $31.341 billion for
basic research, up $1.339 billion (4.5%) from FY2010; $30.276 billion for applied research, up
$1.949 billion (6.9%); $81.455 billion for development, down $2.918 billion (3.5%); and $4.624
billion for facilities and equipment, down $27 million (0.6%).
Table 2. Federal Research and Development Funding by Character of Work,
Facilities, and Equipment, FY2009-FY2011
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Dollar
Percent
Change,
Change,
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
2010 to
2010 to
Actual
ARRA
Estimate
Request
2011
2011
Basic research
29,583
7,794
30,002
31,341
1,339
4.5
Applied research
29,054
5,385
28,327
30,276
1,949
6.9
Development 83,866
1,482
84,373
81,455
-2,918
-3.5
Facilities & equipment
4,815 3,492
4,651
4,624
-27 -0.6
Totala 147,318
18,153
147,353
147,696
343
0.2
Source: Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Investing in the Building Blocks
of American Innovation: Federal R&D, Technology, and STEM Education in the 2011 Budget, Table 1, February 1, 2010.
a. Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
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 57% of U.S. basic research in 2008,10 primarily because the private sector asserts it
cannot capture an adequate return on long-term fundamental research investments. In contrast,
industry funded only 17.7% of U.S. basic research in 2008. In FY2010, the Department of Health
and Human Services, primarily the National Institutes of Health (NIH), accounts for more than
half of all federal funding for basic research.11
In contrast to basic research, industry is the primary funder of applied research in the United
States, accounting for an estimated 60.8% in 2008, while the federal government accounted for an
estimated 32.4%.12 Among federal agencies, HHS is the largest funder of applied research,
accounting for nearly half of all federally funded applied research in FY2010.13
Industry also provides the vast majority of funding for development, accounting for an estimated
84.1% in 2008, while the federal government provided an estimated 14.9%.14 DOD is the primary
federal agency funder of development, accounting for 88.5% of total federal development funding
in FY2010.15
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities and Equipment,
FY2008-FY2010
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Actuala
Estimate
Request
Basic Research
Health and Human Services
21,140
16,981
17,502
National Science Foundation
6,107
4,291
4,684
Energy 4,505
3,862
4,003
Applied Research
Health and Human Services
18,836
14,051
14,479
Defense 5,066
4,500
4,479
Energy 3,686
3,131
3,728
Defense 74,100
74,676
70,974
10 National Science Foundation, New NSF Estimates Indicate that U.S. R&D Spending Continued to Grow in 2008,
NSF 10-312, January 2010, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10312/#fn.http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/.
11 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United
States Government, Fiscal Year 2010, Table 5-1, May 2009.
12 National Science Foundation, National Patterns of R&D Resources: 2007 Data Update, NSF 08-318, 2008,
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/.
13 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Table 5-1, May 2009.
14 National Science Foundation, National Patterns of R&D Resources, 2008, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/.
15 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Table 5-1, May 2009.
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Actuala
Estimate
Request
NASA 6,677
5,452
6,126
Energy 3,050
2,612
2,560
Facilities and Equipment
NASA 2,180
2,267
2,547
Energy 2,027
1,088
928
National Science Foundation
998
458
452
Source: Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Office of Management and
Budget, The White House, February 2010.
Note: Top funding agencies based on FY2011 request.
a. The amounts for FY2009 include funding from P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009.
Multiagency R&D Initiatives Perspective
Federal R&D funding can also be viewed in terms of multiagency efforts, such as the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (see “Multiagency R&D Initiatives” below), and presidential
initiatives, such as the Bush Administration’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI).
President Obama stated that he would seek to double funding for basic research over 10 years at
the agencies comprising the ACI—NSF, DOE’s Office of Science, and NIST. Congress
established authorization levels for FY2008-FY2010 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 targets. Figure 1 illustrates how actual, estimated,
and requested appropriations (for FY2006 through FY2011) compare to seven- and ten-year
doubling rates.
For FY2011, President Obama has proposed $13.255 billion in funding for NSF, DOE’s Office of
Science, and NIST’s core research and facilities, an increase of $824 million (6.6%) above the
FY2010 estimated funding level of $12.431 billion. For FY2010, Congress appropriated an
estimated $12.431 billion in funding for these agencies, an increase of $522 million (11.0%)
above the FY2009 level of $11.909 billion. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (P.L. 111-5) also provides funding for each of the three ACI agencies totaling approximately
$5.202 billion (in addition to the enacted levels in P.L. 110-329). (See Table 4.)
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Figure 1. Doubling of Research Funding: Appropriations versus Selected Rates
$18,000
$16,000
$14,000
)
rs
la
$12,000
$10,000
rrent dol
u
c
of
$8,000
NSF/DOE Science/NIST core research
and facilities appropriations
llions
$6,000
Ten-year doubling pace
(in mi
$4,000
Seven-year doubling pace
$2,000
$-
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Request
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using data from the sources cited in Table 4;
appropriations data does not include funding providing by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Notes: The ten-year doubling pace assumes annual increases of 7.2% each year for ten years. The seven-year
double pace assumes annual increases of 10.4% each year for seven years. Through compounding, these rates
achieve the doubling of funding in the desired time period. The line passing through the aggregate agency
appropriations data points is for illustration purposes only.
Table 4. Agencies Targeted for Research Doubling by President Obama, the America
COMPETES Act, and the American Competitiveness Initiative
(dollar amounts in millions)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Agency
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
ARRA
Estimate
Request
National Science Foundation
5,646
5,917
6,092
6,490
3,002
6,873
7,424
Department of Energy/Office
3,632 3,836
4,036
4,773
1,600
4,895 5,121
of Science
National Institute of Standards
395 434
441
472
240
515 585
and Technology/core researcha
National Institute of Standards
174 59
160
172
360
147 125
and Technology/facilities
Totalb
9,846 10,246
10,731
11,907
5,182
12,638 13,255
Sources: Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Investing in the Building
Blocks of American Innovation: Federal R&D, Technology, and STEM Education in the 2011 Budget, Table 1, February 1,
2010; National Institute of Standards and Technology, Fiscal Year 2011 NIST Budget Submission to Congress, ,
February 2010; National Institute of Standards and Technology, Fiscal Year 2010 NIST Budget Submission to
Congress, May 2009; CRS Report 95-30, The National Institute of Standards and Technology: An Appropriations
Overview, by Wendy H. Schacht; Department of Energy, FY2008 Department of Energy Budget Request to Congress,
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
February 2008; Department of Energy, FY2009 Department of Energy Budget Request to Congress, February 2008;
National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Appropriations Summary, FY2006-2008; National Science
Foundation, NSF Summary Tables, FY2008 Budget Request to Congress, February 5, 2007.
a. NIST core research activities are those performed under its Scientific and Technical Research and Services
account.
b. Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
Multiagency R&D Initiatives
National Nanotechnology Initiative
President Obama’s FY2011 budget request provides funding for three multiagency R&D
initiatives. Funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is requested in the amount
of $1.776 billion for FY2011, $5 million (0.3%) below the estimated FY2010 level of $1.781
billion. The overall decrease in the FY2011 NNI funding request is due primarily to reductions of
$87 million (20.0%) in funding for DOD nanotechnology R&D compared to its estimated
FY2010 funding level, a decrease of $17 million (4.1%) in funding for NSF, and a decrease of $6
million (5.3%) in funding for NIST. These decreases are offset, in part, by increases in funding
for other agencies, primarily DOE (up $65 million, 17.4%) and HHS16 (up $36 million, 9.5%).17
Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Program
President Obama is requesting $4.281 billion in FY2011 funding for the Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program, $9 million (0.2%) below
the estimated FY2010 level of $4.290 billion. The NITRD request includes a reduction of $171
million (13.4%) in DOD funding, and increases of $80 million (7.3%) for NSF, $38 million
(3.1%) for HHS, $29 million (5.9%) for DOE, and $15 million (14.4%) for DOC. 18
U.S. Global Change Research Program
President Obama has proposed $2.561 billion for the U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP) in FY2010, $439 million (20.7%) above the estimated FY2010 level of $2.122
billion. Four agencies would receive the bulk of the FY2010 USGCRP funding increase: NASA
(up $214 million, 20.0%); DOC, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
16 HHS NNI R&D funding includes funding for NIH, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
17 Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Investing in the Building Blocks of
American Innovation: Federal R&D, Technology, and STEM Education in the 2011 Budget, Table 1, February 1, 2010.
For additional information on the NNI, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview,
Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by John F. Sargent Jr.
18 Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Investing in the Building Blocks of
American Innovation, February 1, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
and NIST (up $77 million, 21.4%); NSF (up $51 million, 16.0%); and USDA (up $48 million,
44.0%).19
Department of Defense20
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 5.) However, RDT&E funds are also appropriated in other parts of
the bill. For example, RDT&E funds are appropriated 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 have been requested through the
Procurement appropriation. The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF) also
contains 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. The
JIEDDF funding is not included in the table below. Typically, Congress has funded each of these
programs in Title VI (Other Department of Defense Programs) of the defense appropriations bill.
RDT&E funds also have been requested and appropriated as part of DOD’s separate funding to
support efforts in what the Bush Administration had termed the Global War on Terror (GWOT),
and what the Obama Administration refers to as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
Typically, the RDT&E funds appropriated for GWOT/OCO activities go to specified Program
Elements (PEs) in Title IV. However, they are requested and accounted for separately. The Bush
Administration requested these funds in separate GWOT emergency supplemental requests. The
Obama Administration, while continuing to identify these funds uniquely as OCO requests, has
included these funds as part of the regular budget, not in emergency supplementals. However, the
Obama Administration will ask for additional OCO funds in supplemental requests, if the initial
OCO funding is not enough to get through the fiscal year.
In addition, GWOT/OCO-related requests/appropriations often include money for a number of
transfer funds. These include the Iraqi Freedom Fund (IFF), the Iraqi Security Forces Fund, the
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, the Mine Resistant and Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund
19 Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Investing in the Building Blocks of
American Innovation: Federal R&D, Technology, and STEM Education in the 2011 Budget, Table 1, February 1, 2010.
The USGCRP figures do not include Climate Change International Assistance programs in the U.S. Agency for
International Development (U.S. AID), $43 million requested for FY2011. For additional information on the USGCRP,
see CRS Report RL33817, Climate Change: Federal Program Funding and Tax Incentives, by Jane A. Leggett.
20 This section was written by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
(MRAPVF), and, beginning in FY2010, the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund.
Congress typically makes a single appropriation into each of these funds, and authorizes the
Secretary to make transfers to other accounts, including RDT&E, at his discretion.
For FY2011, the Obama Administration requested $76.131 billion for DOD’s baseline Title IV
RDT&E, roughly $4.5 billion (between 5% and 6%) less than the funding available for baseline
Title IV RDT&E in FY2010. The FY2011 requests for RDT&E in the Defense Health Program
and the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction program were $500 million and $401
million, respectively. In addition, the Obama Administration requested $635 million in FY2011
OCO-related RDT&E. It also intends to submit a supplemental request for additional FY2010
OCO funding, which will include $277 million for RDT&E.
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 technology development, respectively) constitute what
is called DOD’s Science and Technology Program (S&T) and represent the more research-
oriented part of the RDT&E program. Budget activities 6.4 and 6.5 focus on the development of
specific weapon systems or components (e.g., the Joint Strike Fighter or missile defense systems),
for which an operational need has been determined and an acquisition program established.
Budget activity 6.7 supports system improvements in existing operational systems. Budget
activity 6.6 provides management support, including support for test and evaluation facilities.
Congress is particularly interested in S&T funding since these funds support the development of
new technologies and the underlying science. Ensuring 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 FY2011 baseline S&T funding request in Title IV is $11.819 billion, about $1.928 billion
(14%) less than the funding available for baseline S&T in Title IV in FY2010. Furthermore, the
S&T request for baseline Title IV is approximately 2.2% of the overall baseline DOD budget
request ($549 billion, not counting funds for the Overseas Contingency Operations), short of the
3% goal.
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 NIH or
NSF. 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 FY2011 request for basic research ($1.999 billion) is
roughly $166 million (8%) less than what was available for Title IV basic research in FY2010.
While the FY2011 request for RDT&E is below the funding provided in FY2010, Congress
provided more funding than requested in FY2010, as it has for a number of years. Even so, the
FY2011 request is roughly $2.5 billion below the Administration’s FY2010 request. The
Administration requested more in FY2011 than FY2010 for basic research and applied research.
Congressional Research Service
10
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Table 5. Department of Defense RDT&E
(in millions of dollars)
FY2011
FY2009 FY2010 FY2010
Request
Budget Account
Base + OCO
Base + OCO
Supplemental
Actuala
Enacted
Request
Base OCO
Army
12,079 11,472
62 10,333
151
Navy
19,734 19,967
5 17,693
60
Air Force
26,692
28,273b 188
27,247 266
Defensewide
21,661 20,737
22 20,662
157
Dir. Test & Eval.
185
188
195
Total Title IV - By
Accountc
80,351 80,639
277 76,131
635
Budget
Activity
6.1
Basic
Research
1,756 2,165
1,999
6.2
Applied
Research
4,989 5,038
4,476
6.3
Advanced
Dev.
6,320 6,544
5,344
14
6.4 Advanced Component
Dev. and Prototypes
14,859
14,485
13,877
75
6.5 Systems Dev. and Demo
18,125
17,299
66
16,453
44
6.6 Management Supportd 5,983 4,745
11 4,484
5
6.7 Op. Systems Dev. e
28,320 30,362
200 29,498
497
Classified programs
17,665
17,724
200
17,590
356
Total Title IV - by
Budget Activityc
80,351 80,639
277 76,131
635
Title VI - Other Defense
Programs
Defense Health Program
1,095
1,288
500
Chemical Agents and
Munitions
Destruction
289 401
401
Grand
Total
81,735 82,036
277 77,032
635
Source: CRS, adapted from the Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2011, RDT&E Programs (R-1),
February 2010. The Defense Health Program figures taken from the Defense of Defense Budget, FY2011,
Military Personnel Programs(M-1), Operation and Maintenance Programs (O-1), Revolving and Management
Funds (RF-1), February 2010. Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program figures taken from the
Defense Department Budget, FY2011, Procurement (P-1), February 2010.
a. FY2009 figures do not include $300 million for Title IV RDT&E provided in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5).
b. Includes $292 million for Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund.
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. Funding for classified programs in parentheses.
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Department of Homeland Security21
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has requested $1.344 billion for R&D and related
programs in FY2011, a 4% decrease from FY2010.22 This total includes $1.018 billion for the
Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T), $306 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO), and $20 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) in
the U.S. Coast Guard. (See Table 6.)
The S&T Directorate is the primary DHS R&D organization.23 Headed by the Under Secretary
for Science and Technology, it performs R&D in several laboratories of its own and funds R&D
performed by the DOE national laboratories, industry, universities, and others. The
Administration has requested a total of $1.018 billion for the S&T Directorate for FY2011. This
is 2% more than the FY2010 appropriation, but it includes $109 million for radiological and
nuclear countermeasures R&D, an activity formerly funded in DNDO. Funding for the
directorate’s other activities would decline by 9%. The proposed reduction of $39 million for the
Infrastructure and Geophysical Division would include the termination of local and regional
initiatives previously established or funded at congressional direction. The request for Laboratory
Facilities includes no funds for the planned National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF),
which received $32 million in FY2010, but DHS plans to request a reprogramming of
unobligated prior-year funds to support construction of a utility plant at the NBAF site.24
The construction of NBAF will likely require significant increases in Laboratory Facilities
funding over the next several years. It may also result in increased congressional oversight. For
construction of NBAF and decommissioning of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC),
which NBAF is intended to replace, DHS expects to need further appropriations of $691 million
between FY2012 and FY2017. The estimated total federal cost of the NBAF project increased
from $451 million in December 2006 to $615 million in May 2009. Additional site-specific
infrastructure and utility upgrade costs of $110 million are to be contributed in-kind by Kansas
State University and its partners. Decommissioning PIADC is expected to cost another $190
million. These estimated costs have not changed since May 2009, but the completion schedule
has been extended by one year because the process of selling Plum Island is taking longer than
DHS had planned. In the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-
329, Div. D, §540) and the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-
83, §540), Congress authorized DHS to use receipts from the sale of Plum Island, subject to
appropriation, to offset NBAF construction and PIADC decommissioning costs.25
21 This section was written by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
22 If the DNDO Systems Acquisition account, which funds little or no R&D, is excluded, then the FY2011 request is
$1.283 billion, a decrease of 7% from FY2010.
23 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.
24 DHS is prohibited from obligating funds for NBAF construction until 90 days after it completes a safety and security
assessment, has it evaluated by the National Academy of Sciences, and provides the Academy’s report and certain
other reports to the House and Senate appropriations committees. (Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Act, 2010, P.L. 111-83, §560) According to the DHS congressional budget justification for FY2011, DHS expects to
conduct site preparation at the NBAF site during FY2010 and FY2011, and to begin construction of a utility plant in
FY2011, but does not plan to commence construction of the laboratory facility until FY2012.
25 For more information on NBAF, see CRS Report RL34160, The National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility: Issues for
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Congress has been interested for several years in DHS policies and procedures for testing and
evaluation (T&E) of large acquisition projects. This interest has especially focused on the T&E
role of the S&T Directorate in acquisitions by other DHS components. The Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296, §306) authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through
the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, to “issue necessary regulations with respect to
... testing and evaluation activities of the Department.” Under current DHS policy, in establishing
T&E policies and procedures for DHS acquisitions, the Under Secretary acts through the Director
of the S&T Directorate’s Test and Evaluation and Standards Division (TSD) and a special
assistant in the TSD known as the Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation (DOT&E).26
Congressional oversight of DHS acquisition and T&E may therefore focus attention on the S&T
Directorate’s funding for Test and Evaluation and Standards.
Statutory authority for the Homeland Security Institute (HSI) expired in April 2009. Under its
general authority to establish federally funded R&D centers, the S&T Directorate has replaced
HSI with the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute (HSSAI). It has also established a
new Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute (HSSEDI). Both
institutes are funded mostly on a cost-reimbursement basis by other S&T programs and other
DHS and non-DHS agencies. The institutes attracted outside users in FY2009 at only about one-
third the level that DHS had anticipated. Nevertheless, DHS expects them to grow rapidly in
FY2010 and continue growing in FY2011. The FY2011 budget justification projects reimbursable
obligations of $187 million in FY2011, more than four times the FY2009 level of $42 million.
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 development, testing,
evaluation, acquisition, and operational support. Under the Administration’s FY2011 budget,
DNDO’s research role would be transferred to the S&T Directorate. The Administration has
requested a total of $306 million for DNDO for FY2011. This is a 20% decrease from the
FY2010 appropriation, but if the Transformational R&D program, which would be transferred to
the S&T Directorate, is excluded, the remaining activities would increase by 12%. In some cases,
however, there would be substantial shifts in emphasis. Systems Acquisition would receive $53
million for human-portable radiation detection systems, versus none in FY2010. Systems
Development would be reduced by $31 million.
Congressional attention has focused in recent years on the testing and analysis DNDO has
conducted to support its planned purchase and deployment of Advanced Spectroscopic Portals
(ASPs), a type of next-generation radiation portal monitor.27 Congress has included a requirement
for secretarial certification before full-scale ASP procurement in each homeland security
appropriations act from FY2007 through FY2010. The expected date for certification has been
postponed several times. In February 2010, DHS decided that it would no longer pursue the use
of ASPs for primary screening, although it will continue developing and testing them for use in
secondary screening.28
(...continued)
Congress, by Dana A. Shea, Jim Monke, and Frank Gottron.
26 DHS, Acquisition Management Directive, DHS Directive 102-01, revision 01, authorized by the Under Secretary for
Management on January 20, 2010.
27 For more information, see CRS Report RL34750, The Advanced Spectroscopic Portal Program: Background and
Issues for Congress, by Dana A. Shea, John D. Moteff, and Daniel Morgan.
28 Letter from Dr. William K. Hagan, Acting Director, DNDO, to Senator Lieberman, February 24, 2010,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
The global nuclear detection architecture overseen by DNDO remains an issue of congressional
interest.29 According to the FY2011 budget justification, the proposed reduction in funding for
Systems Development reflects “a shift in DNDO priorities to developing a wider range of
potential solutions to enduring vulnerabilities in the global nuclear detection architecture” and
will result in increased funding for “systems studies, as well as testing and piloting existing
technologies in new operational environments.” Congress may wish to consider the basis for and
implications of these changes in priorities, including how they may affect other elements of the
global architecture. Other agencies with a role in the architecture, in addition to DHS, include the
DOD, DOE, Department of State, and the intelligence community.
The mission of DNDO, as established by Congress in the SAFE Port Act (P.L. 109-347, Title V),
includes serving as the primary federal entity “to further develop, acquire, and support the
deployment of an enhanced domestic system” for detection of nuclear and radiological devices
and material (6 U.S.C. 592). The act also eliminated any explicit mention of radiological and
nuclear countermeasures from the statutory duties and responsibilities of the Under Secretary for
S&T. Congress may consider whether the proposed transfer of DNDO’s research activities to the
S&T Directorate is consistent with its intent in the SAFE Port Act. Congress may also choose to
consider the acquisition portion of DNDO’s mission. Most of DNDO’s funding for Systems
Acquisition was eliminated in FY2010, and that year’s budget stated that “funding requests for
radiation detection equipment will now be sought by the end users that will operate them.”30 In
contrast, the FY2011 request for Systems Acquisition includes more funding than ever before for
DNDO’s procurement of human-portable radiation detectors on behalf of the Coast Guard,
Customs and Border Protection, and the Transportation Security Administration. The reasons for
this apparent reversal of policy are not explained in the FY2011 budget justification for DNDO.
Table 6. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Actual
Enacted
Request
Directorate of Science and Technology
$933
$1,000
$1,018
Management and Administration
132
143
152
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
800
856
866
Border and Maritime
33
44
40
Chemical and Biological
200
207
201
Command, Control, and Interoperability
75
82
75
Explosives 96
121
121
Human Factors / Behavioral Sciences
12
16
13
Infrastructure and Geophysical
76
75
36
(...continued)
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=11f7d1f0-c4fe-4105-94e6-
bb4a0213f048.
29 For more information, see CRS Report RL34574, The Global Nuclear Detection Architecture: Issues for Congress,
by Dana A. Shea.
30 Executive Office of the President, FY2010 Budget, Appendix, p. 560.
Congressional Research Service
14
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Actual
Enacted
Request
Radiological and Nuclear
—
—
109
Innovation 33
44
44
Laboratory Facilities
162 150 122
Test and Evaluation, Standards
29
29
23
Transition 29
46
42
University Programs
50
49
40
Homeland Security Institute
5
—
—
Rescission of Prior-Year Unobligated Balances
—
(7)
—
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
514
383
306
Management and Administration
38
38
37
Research, Development, and Operations
323
325
208
Systems Engineering and Architecture
25
25
39
Systems Development
108
100
69
Transformational R&D
103
109
—
Assessments 32
32
43
Operations 38
38
34
Forensics 17
20
23
Systems Acquisition
153
20
61
Radiation Portal Monitors Program
120
—
8
Securing the Cities
20
20
—
Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems
13
—
53
U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E
18
25
20
TOTAL 1,465
1,407
1,344
Source: DHS FY2011 budget justification, online at http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/budget/.
Notes: Totals may not add because of rounding.
National Institutes of Health31
President Obama’s FY2011 budget request includes an NIH program level total of $31.947
billion, a $1 billion (3.2%) increase over the FY2010 level of $30.947 billion, which was
provided in Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117). The FY2010
amount was a $693 million (2.3%) increase over the FY2009 level of $30.254 billion. (See Table
7.) In addition to the FY2009 regular appropriations, which were provided in Division F of the
Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8), NIH received emergency supplemental
appropriations in Division A of the ARRA (P.L. 111-5). ARRA provided a total of $10.400 billion
31 This section was written by Pamela Smith, Analyst in Biomedical Policy, CRS Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
to NIH, of which $4.954 billion was obligated in FY2009, leaving $5.446 billion available for
obligation in FY2010.
Funding for NIH 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 mandatory funding of
$150 million annually that is provided in the Public Health Service (PHS) Act for a special
program on diabetes research, and also receives $8.2 million annually for the National Library of
Medicine from a transfer within PHS. Each year since FY2002, Congress has provided that a
portion of NIH’s Labor/HHS appropriation be transferred to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS,
Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The transfer, currently $300 million, is part of the U.S. contribution to
the Global Fund. The total funding available for NIH activities, taking account of add-ons and
transfers, is the program level. Because the “NIH program level” cited in the Administration’s
FY2011 budget documents does not reflect the Global Fund transfer, Table 7 shows the program
level both before and after the transfer. Discussions in this section refer to the program level after
the transfer.
In FY2003, NIH reached the peak of its purchasing power from regular appropriations when
Congress completed a five-year doubling of the NIH budget. In each year since then, NIH’s
buying power has declined because its annual appropriations have grown at a lower rate than the
inflation rate for medical research. Congress provided NIH with annual increases in the range of
14% to 15% each year from FY1999 through FY2003. From FY2004 to FY2009, increases
dropped to between 1.0% and 3.2% each year (except that the FY2006 total was a 0.3%
decrease), at a time when, according to NIH, the biomedical research inflation rate ranged
between 3.4% and 4.7% per year. The projected changes in the Biomedical Research and
Development Price Index (BRDPI) are 3.1% for FY2010 and 3.2% for FY2011.32 Even though in
current dollars, the FY2010 NIH total is 14.3% higher than it was in FY2003, in inflation-
adjusted terms (converting all amounts to constant 2010 dollars), the FY2010 funding level
represents an estimated 12.6% decrease in purchasing power from the FY2003 peak. Similarly,
the FY2011 budget request proposes growth of 3.2%, equal to the projected inflation rate; in
constant dollars, the NIH total would remain 12.5% below the FY2003 level.
The agency’s organization consists of the Office of the NIH Director and 27 institutes and
centers. The Office of the Director (OD) sets overall policy for NIH and coordinates the programs
and activities of all NIH components, particularly in areas of research that involve multiple
institutes. The 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
own research programs in coordination with the Office of the Director. As shown in Table 7,
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.)
32 National Institutes of Health, Biomedical Research and Development Price Index (BRDPI): Fiscal Year 2009 Update
and Projections for FY 2010-FY 2015, Bethesda, MD, February 1, 2010, http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY11/
BRDPI_Proj_Feb_2010.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
16
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
The $1 billion increase proposed in the FY2011 budget request would be shared across all of the
ICs, with most of them receiving increases of 2.5% to 3.6%. NIH has identified five broad areas
of “exceptional scientific opportunity” in which it plans to target resources to advance basic and
clinical research. Specific programmatic increases, many of them trans-NIH efforts, are described
below within the five major research areas.
Genomics and Other High Throughput Technologies. Technologies such as DNA
sequencing, microarrays, small molecule screening, new imaging methods, and
computational biology have enabled basic science research on a much more comprehensive
scale than in the past. NIH plans to continue work on The Cancer Genome Atlas, cataloging
the characteristics of 20 common malignancies, and will undertake complete genome
sequencing and analysis of 300 autism spectrum disorder cases. In support of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, NIH is requesting an increase of $22 million (6.0%) to a total of
$382 million for its nanotechnology research portfolio.
Translational Medicine. NIH continues to emphasize the movement of basic science
discoveries into development of improved treatments. The request includes doubling support
of a trans-NIH initiative launched in FY2009, the Therapeutics for Rare and Neglected
Diseases (TRND) program, from $24 million to $50 million. The program focuses on the pre-
clinical stage of drug development in partnership with the private sector. The Clinical and
Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program would increase to a total of $500 million in
support of a consortium of 60 academic health centers doing collaborative research and
training. Cancer researchers plan the initiation of 30 new drug trials in FY2011 and a
doubling of the number of novel compounds in Phase 1-3 clinical trials by 2016. NIH’s
HIV/AIDS research portfolio, covering the spectrum from basic viral research to vaccine
development trials, would increase 3.2% to about $3.2 billion in FY2011. Overall funding on
stem cell research would increase by $30 million to $1.1 billion.
Science to Enable Health Reform. In recent years, NIH has expanded its support of projects
in fields that could improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of treatments. Examples
include comparative effectiveness research, health disparities research, the identification of
prevention approaches and opportunities for more personalized medicine,
pharmacogenomics, health economics research, and social and behavioral research. A trans-
NIH initiative called the Basic Behavioral and Social Sciences Opportunity Network
(OppNet) was started in FY2010 with ARRA funds. It aims to enhance the understanding of
fundamental mechanisms of behavioral and social functioning to develop new approaches for
reducing risky behaviors and improving health. The FY2011 request proposes a $20 million
investment in OppNet, shared 50/50 between the Office of the Director and support from all
the ICs.
Global Health. In addition to providing the transfer for the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS,
Tuberculosis, and Malaria, discussed above, NIH has long supported extensive research on
these “big three” worldwide health threats. As part of the Obama Administration’s Global
Health Initiative, the FY2011 budget proposes increased emphasis on researching prevention,
diagnostics, and therapeutics for other neglected diseases of the developing world. NIH often
does this work in partnership with other funding organizations such as the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation. The Fogarty International Center’s budget is proposed for a 4.3% increase
from $70 million to $73 million; no specific funding amounts are detailed for overall NIH
work on global health.
Congressional Research Service
17
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Reinvigorating the Biomedical Research Community. In addition to specific increases in
support of research grants and contracts (discussed below), the FY2011 budget requests a
6.0% increase in stipends for predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees supported by the Ruth L.
Kirschstein National Research Service Awards program. The increase, which would raise the
funding for the program by $42 million to $824 million, is part of the Administration’s
emphasis on supporting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
education programs. On the research resources side, a promising research tool called the
National Synchrotron Light Source-II, currently under construction by the DOE, will receive
a second contribution of support from NIH. The National Center for Research Resources
contributed $12 million in FY2010 from ARRA funds, and NIH has made a commitment to
DOE for an additional $33 million in FY2011, for a total of $45 million. The high-
performance light source is expected to become operational around 2015.
Research Project Grants. Of the funds appropriated to NIH each year, about 84% go out to the
extramural research community in the form of grants, contracts, and other awards. The funding
supports research performed by more than 300,000 scientists and technical personnel who work at
more than 3,100 universities, hospitals, medical schools, and other research institutions around
the country and abroad. The primary funding mechanism for support of the full range of
investigator-initiated research is competitive, peer-reviewed research project grants (RPGs). In
the FY2011 request, total funding for RPGs, at $17.1 billion, represents about 53% of NIH’s
budget. The request proposes to support an estimated 37,001 awards, 195 RPGs more than are
projected to be supported in FY2010, excluding ARRA funds. Within that total, 9,052 competing
RPG awards are expected to receive support, 199 fewer than in FY2010. (“Competing” awards
means new grants plus competing renewals of existing grants.) The request provides inflation-
adjustment increases of 2.0% for noncompeting continuation awards, as well as a 2.0% increase
in the average cost of competing RPGs (raising that cost to about $443,000 per award).
Under the request, the overall “success rate” of RPG applications receiving funding is expected to
fall to about 15%, considerably below the 21% estimated rate for FY2010. Estimated success
rates for the various ICs are expected to range from 7% to 27%, compared to anticipated rates of
11% to 31% for FY2010, including ARRA applications and funded grants. NIH expects the lower
FY2011 success rates in part because it anticipates receiving a high volume of applications
resulting from the resubmission of unfunded ARRA applications from FY2009 and FY2010. In
addition, many researchers who did receive ARRA support will probably wish to compete for
continued funding in FY2011. A further factor squeezing available funds for RPGs, however, is
that biomedical research has been moving towards more interdisciplinary, team-based work, so
the balance between investigator-initiated projects and larger-scale community resource programs
is likely to shift away slightly from individual RPGs to other funding mechanisms such as
research centers and R&D contracts.
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 Pathway to Independence program provides, through all the ICs, mentored grants
that convert to independent RPGs. The NIH Director’s New Innovator Award program provides
first-time independent awards to especially creative investigators; the Administration plans to
spend $80 million to support New Innovator Awards through the Common Fund in FY2011. In
FY2009, NIH began giving special consideration during peer review to applications for research
support made by Early Stage Investigators (new investigators who are within 10 years of having
completed their terminal (i.e., final) research degree or residency). The traditional peer-review
system, though widely lauded, is also increasingly criticized for its tendency towards
Congressional Research Service
18
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
conservatism and potential for not allowing full exploration of innovative, high-risk/high reward
proposals. NIH has been pursuing steps to enhance peer review since 2008.33
Other Funding Mechanisms. Changes proposed in the request for other funding mechanisms
within the NIH budget include increased support for research centers, up $56 million (1.9%) to
$3.090 billion, including support of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards. Support for
grants in the Other Research category is proposed to increase by $47 million (2.6%) to a total of
$1.854 billion. The stipend increase for the Research Training program was discussed above; the
requested level for training would support 17,164 Full-Time Training Positions, 92 (0.5%) fewer
than in FY2010. R&D contracts would increase by $86 million (2.5%) to $3.546 billion,
including $300 million for the Global HIV/AIDS Fund. The NIH intramural research program,
representing about 10% of the NIH budget, is proposed to increase by $109 million (3.2%) to a
total of $3.394 billion. The request includes a proposed increase of $73 million (5.0%) to a total
of $1.525 billion for research management and support. As has been the case for the past five
years, no new funding is requested for extramural research facilities construction and renovation.
The ARRA provided $1.0 billion for this purpose, most of which remains to be obligated in
FY2010. Funding for repairs and construction to intramural buildings and facilities would
increase by $25 million (23.6%) to $133 million, returning it to the FY2009 level. FY2010
funding was reduced to $108 million because of the availability of $500 million from ARRA.
The appropriation for the Office of the Director (OD) covers a variety of cross-cutting programs
in addition to funding for OD’s own leadership and management operations. The request proposes
aggregate funding for OD of $1.220 billion for FY2011, an increase of $43 million (3.7%) over
FY2010. As in FY2010, funding for the NIH Director’s Bridge Award program is not included,
since ARRA funds enabled NIH to support additional awards to investigators whose renewal
applications had just missed the funding cutoff. The other programs managed or coordinated by
OD are all proposed for sustained or increased funding. OD Operations would increase from $151
million in FY2010 to $158 million (4.9%). The President requested funding of $194 million for
continuation of the National Children’s Study, a 0.3% increase. The request includes $100 million
(up $3 million) for research on medical countermeasures against nuclear, radiological, and
chemical threats. A total of $196 million (up $15 million and 8.3%) is requested for several
program coordination offices that work with the ICs, including $10 million in the Office of
Behavioral and Social Sciences Research for OD’s contribution to the OppNet initiative described
earlier.
Also funded through the OD account is the NIH Common Fund, which supports NIH Roadmap
initiatives and other trans-institute research. 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 FY2011, the President requests $562 million for
the Roadmap/Common Fund, up $18 million (3.2%) from FY2010. Some Roadmap programs
that have been supported for five years are ready to transition to the ICs for continued support.
The Common Fund is also supporting a number of initiatives with ARRA money. See further
discussion below.
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
33 See http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/.
Congressional Research Service
19
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
federal health programs and to identify ways to improve them. The set-aside has the effect of
redistributing appropriated funds for specific purposes among PHS and other HHS agencies.
Section 205 of the FY2010 Labor/HHS appropriations act capped the set-aside at 2.5%, instead of
the 2.4% maximum that had been in place for several years. The FY2011 budget proposes to
increase the set-aside to 2.9%. 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 7 do not subtract the amount of the evaluation tap, or of
other taps within HHS, from the agencies’ appropriations.34
ARRA Funding. As mentioned earlier, NIH received a total of $10.400 billion in ARRA. The
funding given to NIH included $8.2 billion for scientific research; $1.3 billion for non-federal
research facility construction, renovation, and equipment; $500 million for NIH buildings and
facilities; and $400 million for comparative effectiveness research.35 The funds were made
available for obligation for two years. FY2009 obligations totaled $4.954 billion, leaving $5.446
billion available in FY2010.
Activities supported with NIH’s ARRA funding are being tracked on the NIH Recovery website.36
On a webpage about current grant funding opportunities, NIH says: “While NIH Institutes and
Centers have broad flexibility to invest in many types of grant programs, they will follow the
spirit of the ARRA by funding projects that will stimulate the economy, create or retain jobs, and
have the potential for making scientific progress in 2 years.”37 The agency’s implementation plans
for the various funding categories are available on the HHS Recovery Plans website.38 NIH is
focusing activities on (1) funding new and recently peer-reviewed, highly meritorious research
grant applications that can be accomplished in two years or less; (2) giving targeted supplemental
awards to current grants to push research forward; and (3) supporting a new initiative called the
NIH Challenge Grants in Health and Science Research for research on specific topics that would
benefit from significant two-year jumpstart funds (grants have budgets under $500,000 per year).
NIH received about 20,000 applications in response to the Challenge Grant announcement.
Another new program, called Research and Research Infrastructure “Grand Opportunities” (GO)
grants, supports large-scale research projects (budgets over $500,000 per year) that work in areas
of specific knowledge gaps, create new technologies, or develop new approaches to multi- and
interdisciplinary research teams. On September 30, 2009, President Obama spoke about the
nearly $5 billion that NIH had awarded in ARRA funding in FY2009, supporting over 12,000
grants to research institutions across all the states. A White House press release highlighted
examples of research in cancer, heart disease, and autism, particularly over $1 billion in research
applying the technology produced by the Human Genome Project.39
34 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.
35 For further details, see CRS Report R40181, Selected Health Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009, coordinated by C. Stephen Redhead.
36 NIH and the ARRA, http://www.nih.gov/recovery/.
37 Grant Funding Opportunities Supported by the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA),
http://grants.nih.gov/recovery/. The site also includes searchable state-by-state data on ARRA-funded awards.
38 Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Health and Human Services Agency-Wide Plan,
http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/reports/plans/index.html. See the section on “Strengthening Scientific Research and
Facilities.”
39 See the press release, “President Obama Announces Recovery Act Funding for Groundbreaking Medical Research,”
and an accompanying fact sheet, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-
Recovery-Act-Funding-For-GroundingBreaking-Medical-Research/ and http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
20
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Table 7. National Institutes of Health
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Institutes and Centers (ICs)
Comparablea
ARRAb
Comparablec
Request
Cancer (NCI)
4,968
1,257
5,102
5,265
Heart, Lung, and Blood (NHLBI)
3,015
763
3,096
3,188
Dental and Craniofacial Research
(NIDCR)
403 102 413 424
Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases
(NIDDK)
1,760 445 1,807 1,858
Neurological Disorders and Stroke
(NINDS)
1,593 403 1,636 1,681
Al ergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)d 4,701
1,113
4,817
4,977
General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
1,997
505
2,051
2,125
Child Health and Human Development
(NICHD)
1,295 327 1,329 1,369
Eye (NEI)
688
174
707
724
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
663
187
690
707
Aging (NIA)
1,080
273
1,110
1,142
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin
Diseases (NIAMS)
525 133 539 556
Deafness and Communication Disorders
(NIDCD)
407 103 419 429
Nursing Research (NINR)
142
36
146
150
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) 450
114
462
475
Drug Abuse (NIDA)
1,032
261
1,059
1,094
Mental Health (NIMH)e 1,451
367
1,490
1,540
Human Genome Research (NHGRI)
502
127
516
534
Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
(NIBIB)
308 78 316 326
Research Resources (NCRR)
1,226
1,610
1,269
1,309
Complementary and Alternative
Medicine (NCCAM)
125 32 129 132
Minority Health and Health Disparities
(NCMHD)
206 52 212 219
Fogarty International Center (FIC)
69
17
70
73
National Library of Medicine (NLM)
339
84
351
365
Office of Director (OD)f 1,247
1,337
1,177
1,220
Common Fund (non-add)
(541)
(137)
(544)
(562)
(...continued)
Fact-Sheet-Recovery-to-Discovery-5-Billion-Recovery-Act-Investment-in-Scientific-Research-and-Jobs/.
Congressional Research Service
21
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Institutes and Centers (ICs)
Comparablea
ARRAb
Comparablec
Request
Buildings & Facilities (B&F)
126
500
100
126
Subtotal, Labor/HHS Appropriation
30,318
10,400
31,010
32,007
Superfund (Interior appropriation to
NIEHS)g
78 0 79 82
Total, NIH discretionary budget
authority
30,396 10,400 31,089 32,089
Pre-appropriated Type 1 diabetes fundsh 150
0
150
150
PHS Evaluation Tap fundingi 8
0
8
8
NIH program level before Global Fund
transfer (cited in HHS budget documents)
30,554 10,400 31,247 32,247
Global Fund transfer (AIDS/TB/Malaria)d -300
0
-300
-300
Total, NIH program level after
Global Fund transfer
30,254 10,400 30,947 31,947
Source: Adapted by CRS from National Institutes of Health, FY2011 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations
Committees, Tabular Data, p. TD-1, http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY11/Tabular%20Data.pdf. Details may
not add to totals due to rounding.
a. FY2009 Comparable reflects real transfers of $1 million from HHS to NIMH and $625,000 from NIDDK to
OD/Office of AIDS Research, as well as comparable adjustments for transfers of funds from ICs to NLM.
Does not reflect transfers among ICs under the NIH Director’s 1% transfer authority.
b. Funds are appropriated from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-5) and are
available until September 30, 2010.
c. FY2010 Comparable reflects real transfer of $1 million from HHS to NIMH as well as comparable
adjustments for transfers of funds from ICs to NLM.
d. NIAID totals include funds for transfer to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria
($300 million in each of FY2009, FY2010, and FY2011).
e. NIMH totals for FY2009 and FY2010 each include $1.0 million transferred from Office of the Secretary to
administer the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee.
f.
FY2009 ARRA amount for OD includes $400 million transferred from the Agency for Healthcare Quality
Research for comparative effectiveness research.
g. Separate account in the Interior/Environment appropriations for NIEHS research activities related to
Superfund.
h. Mandatory funds available to NIDDK for Type 1 diabetes research under PHS Act § 330B (provided
through P.L. 110-173 and P.L. 110-275). Funds have been appropriated through FY2011.
i.
Additional funds for NLM from PHS Evaluation Set-Aside (§ 241 of PHS Act).
Department of Energy40
The Administration has requested $12.797 billion for Department of Energy (DOE) R&D and
related programs in FY2011, including activities in three major categories: science, national
40 This section was written by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
22
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
security, and energy. This request is 7.2% more than the FY2010 appropriation of $11.941 billion.
(See Table 8 for details.)
The request for the DOE Office of Science is $5.121 billion, an increase of 4.4% from the
FY2010 appropriation of $4.904 billion. The Administration intends to double the combined
R&D funding of the Office of Science and two other agencies over the decade from FY2006 to
FY2016.41 This policy continues a goal first established by the Bush Administration as part of its
American Competitiveness Initiative. The 4.4% increase requested for FY2011, however, is less
than the 7.2% annual growth rate required to achieve a doubling in ten years. The America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) authorized $5.814 billion for the Office of Science in FY2010; the
act does not include authorizations beyond FY2010.
Most of the research programs of the Office of Science would receive increases under the
Administration’s budget proposal. The largest increase would be for basic energy sciences.
Among other changes, this program would allocate $34 million for a new energy innovation hub
on materials for batteries and energy storage and $24 million for the existing hub on fuels from
sunlight.42 The Administration proposed to initiate eight energy innovation hubs in FY2010, but
Congress funded only three. The aim of the hubs is “to address basic science and technology
hindering the nation’s secure and sustainable energy future” by assembling multidisciplinary
teams of researchers “spanning science, engineering, and other disciplines, but focused on a
single critical national need identified by the Department.”43 Office of Science funding for
graduate fellowships would triple to $15 million. In fusion energy sciences, the U.S. contribution
to International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) would drop from $135 million to
$80 million because of delays in the construction schedule. The current estimate for ITER’s total
project cost is $1.45 billion to $2.2 billion, but this range “presumed a much more aggressive
schedule than has evolved thus far.”44 A revised estimate of cost and schedule is being developed
for review by the ITER Council in mid-2010.
The request for DOE national security R&D is $3.850 billion, a 10.6% increase from $3.481
billion in FY2010. Funding for experiments and analysis in support of advanced certification of
nuclear weapons would increase $58 million. An increase of $125 million for the naval reactors
program would accelerate the continuing design of reactors for the Ohio-class ballistic missile
submarine, modernization of the land-based prototype reactor, and recapitalization of program
infrastructure. Funding for nonproliferation and verification R&D would increase $34 million to
support testing and evaluation of new technologies for treaty monitoring.
The request for DOE energy R&D is $3.825 billion, up 7.6% from $3.556 billion in FY2010. In
the energy efficiency and renewable energy program, solar and wind energy would increase $98
million; energy efficiency would increase $37 million; hydrogen and fuel cell technologies would
decrease $37 million; and the RE-ENERGYSE program for education and workforce
development in energy science and engineering, for which Congress appropriated no funds in
FY2010, would receive $50 million. Funding for nuclear energy would increase $37 million, and
41 Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The President’s Plan for Science and
Innovation: Doubling Funding for Key Science Agencies in the 2011 Budget, February 1, 2010,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/doubling 11 final.pdf.
42 The fuels from sunlight hub is currently funded by the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
43 DOE FY2011 budget justification, vol. 4, p. 86.
44 DOE FY2011 budget justification, vol. 4, p. 235.
Congressional Research Service
23
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
the program would be restructured to focus more on long-term R&D rather than short-term
demonstration projects. In fossil energy R&D, no funds would be provided for natural gas
technologies or unconventional fossil energy technologies; DOE budget documents describe this
proposal as “consistent with Administration policy to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.”45
The Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) would receive $300 million under
the Administration request. This agency received no appropriation for FY2010. The bulk of its
funding so far has been provided by the ARRA.46 In recommending no funds for ARPA-E in
FY2010, the House Committee on Appropriations explained that ARRA funds remained available
and that “the decision not to provide any additional funding ... [did] not in any way suggest a lack
of commitment to this program by the Committee.”47
Table 8. Department of Energy R&D and Related Programs
($ in millions)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Regular
ARRA
Enacted
Request
Science
4,807 1,633 4,904 5,121
Basic
Energy
Sciences
1,536
555
1,636
1,835
High
Energy
Physics
776
232
810
829
Biological and Environmental Research
585
166
604
627
Nuclear
Physics
500
155
535
562
Fusion Energy Sciences
395
91
426
380
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
359
162
394
426
Other
656
272
499
462
National Security
3,357
0
3,481
3,850
Weapons
Activitiesa 2,141
0
2,198
2,395
Naval
Reactors
828
0
945
1,070
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
356
0
317
352
Def. Envtal. Cleanup Technology Devel.
31
0
20
32
Energy 3,394
5,616
3,556
3,825
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energyb 1,641
5,227
1,973
1,970
Fossil Energy R&D
863
0
672
587
Nuclear
Energy
791
0
787
824
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability R&D
83
0
125
144
Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy
15
389
0
300
Total 11,558
7,249
11,941
12,797
45 DOE FY2011 budget justification, vol. 3, pp. 701 and 710.
46 For more information on ARPA-E, see CRS Report RL34497, Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy
(ARPA-E): Background, Status, and Selected Issues for Congress, by Deborah D. Stine.
47 H.Rept. 111-203, p. 120.
Congressional Research Service
24
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Source: DOE FY2011 budget justification, online at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/11budget/.
Notes:
a. Including Stockpile Services R&D Support, Stockpile Services R&D Certification and Safety, Science,
Engineering except Enhanced Surety and Enhanced Surveillance, Inertial Confinement Fusion, Advanced
Simulation and Computing, Science Technology and Engineering Capability, and a prorated share of
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities. Additional R&D activities may take place in the subprograms of
Directed Stockpile Work that are devoted to specific weapon systems, but these funds are not included in
the table because detailed funding schedules for those subprograms are classified.
b. Excluding Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.
National Science Foundation48
The FY2011 request for the National Science Foundation (NSF) is $7.424 billion, an increase of
$551.0 million (8.0%) over the FY2010 estimate of $6.873 billion. (See Table 9.) Under
President Obama’s National Innovation Strategy,49 the Administration proposed doubling the
federal investment in three basic research agencies (NSF, DOE Office of Science, and NIST) over
a period of 10 years relative to the FY2006 level. The National Innovation Strategy proposes
added support and focus on high-risk, high-return research, on multidisciplinary research, and on
scientists and engineers at the beginning of their careers. The FY2011 request for NSF is
intended to be an installment toward the doubling effort of the Administration and is structured to
build on the scientific investments funded by the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act and the
ARRA. NSF obligated approximately 80.0% ($2.4 billion) of its ARRA funding in FY2009,
making 4,599 awards and supporting 6,762 investigators/co-investigators. Of those investigators
receiving ARRA funds, approximately 35.0% had never before received NSF support.50
NSF identified several strategies in the FY2011 budget request, including expanding the scientific
workforce and broadening participation from underrepresented groups and geographical regions;
increasing three-fold the number of new Graduate Research Fellowships awarded annually;
expanding and enhancing international partnerships and interagency collaborations; performing
effectively with the highest standards of accountability; and maintaining a portfolio of basic,
high-risk, and transformative research across all disciplines. The NSF Director has described
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.”51 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. The
FY2011 strategies for NSF parallel some of the goals contained in the Administration’s Strategy
for American Innovation and are designed to promote research that will drive innovation; support
48 This section was written by Christine M. Matthews, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
49 Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy and National Economic Council, A
Strategy for American Innovation: Driving Towards Sustainable Growth and Quality Jobs, September 2009,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Sept_20_Innovation_whitepaper_FINAL.pdf.
50 National Science Foundation, National Science Foundation: FY2011 Budget Request to Congress, February 1, 2010;
Arden L. Bement, Jr., FY 2011 Budget Request Remarks, National Science Foundation, February 1, 2010,
http://www.nsf.gov/news/speeches/bement/10/alb100201_budget.jsp.
51 Arden L. Bement, Jr., Transformative Research: The Artistry and Alchemy of the 21st Century, National Science
Foundation, January 4, 2007, http://www.nsf.gov/news/speeches/bement/07/alb070104_texas.jsp.
Congressional Research Service
25
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
the design and development of world-class facilities, instrumentation, and infrastructure; and
maintain an internationally competitive workforce.
Included in the FY2011 request is $6.019 billion for Research and Related Activities (R&RA), an
increase of $454.9 million (8.2%) above the FY2010 estimate of $5.564 billion. R&RA funds
research projects, research facilities, and education and training activities. Some in the scientific
and academic communities have voiced concerns about the imbalance between support for the
life sciences and the physical sciences. Research can be multidisciplinary and transformational,
and often discoveries in the physical sciences lead to advances in other disciplines. The America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) authorized increased federal research support in the physical
sciences, mathematics, and engineering. The FY2011 request provides $1.410 billion for the
Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) Directorate, a 4.3% increase over the FY2010 level.
The MPS portfolio supports investments in fundamental research, facilities, and instruments, and
provides approximately 50% of the federal funding for basic research in mathematics and
physical sciences conducted by colleges and universities, ranging from approximately 60% in
mathematics to 35% in physics. R&RA includes Integrative Activities (IA), a cross-disciplinary
research and education program that is also a source of funding for the acquisition and
development of research instrumentation at institutions. In FY2008, support for the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)—a university-oriented program with the
goal of identifying, developing, and utilizing the academic science and technology resources in a
state that will lead to increased R&D competitiveness—was transferred from the Education and
Human Resources Directorate (EHR) to IA. The FY2011 EPSCoR request includes $296.0
million for IA. The IA also funds Partnerships for Innovation, disaster research teams, and the
Science and Technology Policy Institute. NSF’s FY2011 request for EPSCoR is $154.4 million.
The FY2011 request supports a portfolio of three complementary strategies—research
infrastructure ($111.9 million), co-funding ($41.0 million), and outreach ($1.5 million)—for the
27 EPSCoR jurisdictions. The NSF states that approximately 65% of the funding for EPSCoR is
to be used for new research awards in FY2011. The remaining funding is to be used to support
grants made in previous years.52
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.
For FY2011, the Administration requested $53.3 million for the Office of International Science
and Engineering (OISE), an 11.4% increase over FY2010. The OISE manages NSF’s offices in
Beijing, Paris, and Tokyo that analyze and report on 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 under the R&RA account. The OPP is the primary
source of U.S. support for basic research in polar regions. The NSF also leads several
international research partnerships in the Arctic and Antarctic. Research in the Arctic and
Antarctic explores the various aspects of the global Earth system that affect the global
environment and climate. The FY2011 request for polar research is $528.0 million, a 17.0%
increase over the FY2010 estimate. Increases in OPP in FY2011 are for arctic and antarctic
sciences—glacial and sea ice, terrestrial and marine ecosystems, the ocean and the atmosphere,
52 For additional information, see CRS Report RL30930, U.S. National Science Foundation: Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), by Christine M. Matthews.
Congressional Research Service
26
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
and biology of life in the cold and dark. Priorities of the OPP in FY2011 include support for
national energy goals, support for transformative research, resupply improvements at the research
stations, and management and oversight of the environmental, health, and safety aspects of
research operations conducted in polar regions. From FY2006 through FY2008, NSF was
responsible for funding the operational costs of the U.S. Coast Guard’s (USCG) three icebreakers
that support scientific research in the polar regions—Polar Sea, Polar Star, and Healy.53 NSF was
responsible for operating, maintaining, and staffing the vessels under a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between NSF and USCG. Beginning in FY2009, the MOA no longer covered
the Polar Star. The FY2011 request provides $54.0 million for the operation and maintenance of
the Polar Sea and Healy. This support includes significant funding for a triennial dry dock for
each vessel.
NSF supports several interagency R&D priorities in its FY2011 request. It is a supporter in the
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), requesting $401.3 million for nanotechnology
research. Funding would support research in emerging areas of nanoscale science and technology
such as new drug delivery systems, advanced materials, and more powerful computer chips. This
funding includes $33.0 million for research to explore potential environmental, health, and safety
effects of nanotechnology, and $32.2 million for nanomanufacturing. NSF’s other interagency
priorities in its FY2011 request include funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program
($369.9 million), Homeland Security activities ($405.4 million), and Networking and
Information Technology R&D ($1.170 billion).
The NSF supports a variety of centers and center programs. The FY2011 request provides $66.0
million for Science and Technology Centers, $63.0 million for Materials Research Science and
Engineering Centers, $67.5 million for Engineering Research Centers, $40.2 million for
Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers, $25.8 million for Science of Learning Centers,
$28.0 million for Centers for Chemical Innovation, and $23.3 million for Centers for Analysis
and Synthesis.
The FY2011 request for the Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate is $892.0
million, $19.2 million (2.2%) above the FY2010 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 FY2011 request is as follows: research on learning in formal and informal settings (including
precollege), $247.9 million; undergraduate education, $290.0 million; and graduate education,
$185.3 million. Priorities at the precollege level include research and evaluation on education in
science and engineering ($45.7 million), informal science education ($64.4 million), project and
program evaluation ($19.0 million), and Discovery Research K-1254 ($118.7 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, its undergraduate level program is intended to address the needs of the 21st
century while transforming undergraduate science and mathematics education. Priorities at the
undergraduate level include the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program ($55.0 million); Curriculum,
53 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.
54 “K-12” refers to kindergarten through grade 12.
Congressional Research Service
27
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Laboratory and Instructional Development ($61.0 million); Advanced Technological Education
($64.0 million); and the Math and Science Partnership program (MSP, $58.2 million). The MSP is
an interagency program and the NSF coordinates its MSP activities with the Department of
Education and state-funded MSP sites. At the graduate level, NSF’s priorities are Integrative
Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) ($29.5 million),55 Graduate Research
Fellowships ($107.9 million), and the Graduate STEM Fellows in K-12 Education ($48.2
million).
An additional priority in the EHR is to support a new comprehensive program to increase the
participation of undergraduates at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal colleges
and universities, and Hispanic-serving institutions. The new program, Comprehensive
Broadening Participation of Undergraduates in STEM, will build on and realign the existing NSF
programs that are directed at strengthening and expanding the participation of underrepresented
groups and diverse institutions in the scientific and engineering enterprise. The Comprehensive
Broadening Participation of Undergraduates in STEM is proposed at $103.1 million in the
FY2011 request.
The Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account is funded at
$165.2 million in the FY2011 request, a 40.5% increase above the FY2010 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 gives highest priority to ongoing projects, and second
highest priority 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.”56 In FY2011, NSF anticipates
construction of the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) at a cost of $20.0 million.
The NEON will compile data on the effects of climate changes, land use changes, invasive
species on natural resources, and biodiversity. The data from NEON is intended to have local,
regional, and national uses. In addition to the support of NEON, NSF will continue its support of
four ongoing construction projects: Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave
Observatory ($23.6 million); Atacama Large Millimeter Array ($13.9 million); Advanced
Technology Star Telescope ($17.0 million); and the Ocean Observatories Initiative ($90.7
million).
Table 9. National Science Foundation
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Actual
ARRA
Estimate
Request
Biological
Sciences
$656.2 $260.0 $714.5 $767.8
Computer & Information Sci. & Eng.
574.5
235.0
618.8
684.5
Engineering
665.0 265.0 743.9 825.7
Geosciences
808.5 347.0 889.6 955.3
55 NSF’s FY2011 request includes and additional $32.3 million for IGERT in the R&RA account.
56 National Science Foundation, National Science Foundation: FY2011 Budget Request to Congress, February 1, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
28
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Actual
ARRA
Estimate
Request
Math and Physical Sciences
1,243.9
475.0
1,351.8
1,409.9
Social, Behavioral, & Economic Sciences
240.6
85.0
255.3
268.8
Office
of
Cyberinfrastructure
199.2 80.0 214.3 228.1
Office of International Sci. & Eng.
47.5
14.0
47.8
53.3
U.S.
Polar
Programs
473.6 171.9 451.2 528.0
Integrative
Activities
241.6 129.9 275.0 295.9
U.S. Arctic Research Comm.
1.5
—
1.6
1.6
Subtotal Res. & Rel. Act
5,152.4
2,062.6
5,563.9a 6,018.8
Education & Human Resources
845.5
85.0
872.8
892.0
Major Research Equip. & Facil. Constr. 160.8
254.0
117.3 165.2
Agency Ops. & Award Mgmt.
294.1
—
300.0
329.2
National Science Board
4.0
—
4.5
4.8
Office of Inspector General
12.0
(0.02)
14.0
14.4
Total NSFb 6,468.8b 2,401.7 6,872.5 7,424.4
Source: National Science Foundation, FY2011 Budget Request to Congress, Arlington, VA, February 1, 2010.
Summary Tables.
a. Funding for FY2010 excludes a one-time appropriation transfer of $54.0 million to the U.S. Coast Guard
per P.L. 111-117.
b. The totals do not include carryovers or retirement accruals. Totals may not add due to rounding.
Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology57
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 FY2011 budget proposes $918.9 million in funding for NIST, a 7.3%
increase over the FY2010 appropriation. Support for in-house research and development under
the Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account (including the Baldrige
National Quality Program) increases 13.5% to $584.5 million. The Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP) program is to receive $129.7 million, 4.0% more than in FY2010, while
57 This section was written by Wendy H. Schacht, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
29
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
financing for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) increases 14.3% over FY2010 funding to
$79.9 million. The construction budget declines 15.1% to $124.8 million. (See Table 10.)
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117) provided $856.6 million in funding for
NIST, an increase of 4.6% over the FY2009 appropriation. The STRS account (including the
Baldrige National Quality Program) increased 9.1% to $515.0 million. The Manufacturing
Extension Partnership Program received $124.7 million, 13.4% more than FY2009, while
financing for TIP increased 7.5% to $69.9 million. Construction support totaled $147.0 million,
14.5% below the previous fiscal year.
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 FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, funded NIST at $819.0 million
with the STRS account receiving a 7.2% increase to $472.0 million (including the Baldrige
Quality Program). Support for MEP totaled $110.0 million, a 22.8% increase, and financing for
TIP remained constant at $65.0 million. The $172.0 million for the construction budget reflected
a 7.2% increase in funding.
The ARRA provided 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 was included for construction, of which $180.0 million
“shall be for the competitive construction grant program for research science buildings.” The law
also directed 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.
Continued support for NIST extramural programs—currently the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP) and the Technology Investment Program (TIP)—directed toward increased
private sector commercialization has been a major issue. Some Members of Congress have
expressed skepticism over a “technology policy” based on providing federal funds to industry to
develop pre-competitive generic technologies. This approach, coupled with pressures to balance
the federal budget, led to significant reductions in appropriations for several of these NIST
activities. The ATP and the MEP, which accounted for more than 50% of the FY1995 NIST
budget, were proposed for elimination. In 2007, ATP was terminated and replaced by the
Technology Innovation Program.58
While much of the legislative debate has focused on extramural efforts, increases in spending for
the NIST laboratories that perform the research essential to the mission responsibilities of the
agency have tended to remain small. As part of the American Competitiveness Initiative,
announced by former President Bush in the 2006 State of the Union address, the Bush
Administration stated its intention to double funding over 10 years for “innovation-enabling
research” done at NIST through its “core” programs (defined as internal research in the STRS
account and the construction budget). In April 2009, the President Obama stated his decision to
58 For additional information on the MEP and TIP programs, see CRS Report RS22815, The Technology Innovation
Program, and CRS Report 97-104, Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program: An Overview, both by Wendy H.
Schacht.
Congressional Research Service
30
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
double the budget of key science agencies, including NIST, over the next 10 years. While
additional funding has been forthcoming, it remains to be seen how support for internal R&D at
NIST will evolve and how this might affect financing of extramural programs such as TIP and
MEP.59
Table 10. NIST
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2010
(P.L. 111-8)
ARRAa
(P.L. 111-117)
FY2011
NIST Program
Actual
(P.L. 111-5)
Enacted
Request
STRSb
472.0 220.0 515.0 584.5
TIP/ATP 65.0
69.9
79.9
MEP 110.0
124.7
129.7
Construction 172.0 360.0 147.0 124.8
HITd
20.0
NIST Totale 819.0 600.0 856.6 918.9
Sources: NIST website (available at http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/budget.htm), P.L. 111-8, P.L. 111-5, and
Administration’s Budget Request.
a. Includes FY2009 and FY2010 funding.
b. Includes funding for the Baldrige National Quality Program.
c. Funding is for the new Technology Innovation Program (TIP) that replaced ATP.
d. Transferred from Department of Health and Human Services for Health Information Technology Initiative.
e. Figures may not add up because of rounding.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration60
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) conducts scientific research in
areas such as ecosystems, climate, global climate change, weather, and oceans; supplies
information on the oceans and atmosphere; and conserves coastal and marine organisms and
environments. NOAA was created in 1970 by Reorganization Plan No. 4.61 The reorganization
was intended to unify the nation’s environmental activities and to provide a systematic approach
for monitoring, analyzing, and protecting the environment.
NOAA’s R&D efforts focus on three areas: climate; weather and air quality; and ocean, coastal,
and Great Lakes resources. For FY2011, President Obama has requested $949.0 million in R&D
funding for NOAA, a 22.0% increase in funding from the FY2010 level of $777.9 million. R&D
accounts for 17.1% of NOAA’s total FY2011 discretionary budget request of $5.554 billion. The
59 For additional information on NIST, see CRS Report 95-30, The National Institute of Standards and Technology: An
Appropriations Overview.
60 This section was written by Harold F. Upton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
61 “Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970,” 35 Fed. Reg. 15627-15630, October 6, 1970; also, see
http://www.lib.noaa.gov/noaainfo/heritage/ReorganizationPlan4.html.
Congressional Research Service
31
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
R&D request consists of $522 million for research (55.0%), $251 million for development
(26.4%), and $176 million for R&D equipment (18.5%). About $374 million (48%) of the R&D
request would fund intramural programs and $399 million (52%) would fund extramural
programs.62
NOAA’s administrative structure has evolved into five line offices that reflect its diverse mission,
including the National Ocean Service (NOS); the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); the
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS); the National Weather
Service (NWS); and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). In addition to
NOAA’s five line offices, Program Support (PS), a cross-cutting budget activity, includes the
Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO).
OAR is the primary center for R&D within NOAA. OAR would receive $430.1 million for R&D,
45.3% of the total NOAA FY2011 R&D request and 92.5% of the total OAR request. The OAR
request is a 4.5% increase from the FY2010 appropriation of $411.5 million. The OAR R&D total
includes $77.1 million for R&D equipment. The President’s budget includes $80.8 million for
NOS R&D, $12.7 million (18.6%) more than FY2010, and $252.8 million for NESDIS, an
increase of $157.8 million (166.1%).63 NMFS R&D funding would remain nearly unchanged at
$69.2 million, a decrease of $1 million (-1.4%). NWS R&D funding would decrease by $9.5
million (26.0%) to $27.0 million. OMAO64 R&D equipment would be funded at $89.1 million, a
decrease of $7.5 million (-7.8%) from FY2010. (See Table 11.) 65
The NOAA FY2011 Budget Summary provides information on its FY2011 R&D funding request
by function: ecosystems, 30%; mission support, 30%; climate, 26%; weather and water, 12%; and
commerce and transportation, 1%.66 R&D activities highlighted by NOAA include: developing a
dedicated program to produce climate assessments at national and regional scales; sustaining a
carbon observation and analysis system; supporting the Earth Observing System to provide
climate change data; monitoring of ocean acidification; improving water forecasting services for
extreme events such as floods; demonstrating the advantages of using multi-function phased array
radar for weather forecasting; and supporting creation of integrated ecosystem assessments.67
62 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration FY 2011
Budget Summary, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, February 9, 2010,
http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~nbo/11bluebook_highlights.html, and 62 Emily Larkin, NOAA Budget Office,
personal communication, February 23, 2010.
63 NOAA, at the direction of the Office of Management and Budget, has included four Joint Polar Satellite System
sensors in NESDIS R&D.
64NOAA now reports OMAO spending as R&D equipment.
65 Information used in this paragraph was obtained from Emily Larkin, NOAA Budget Office, personal communication,
February 23, 2010.
66 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration FY 2011
Budget Summary, Washington, DC, February 9, 2010, http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~nbo/
11bluebook_highlights.html.
67 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
32
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Table 11. NOAA R&D
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
NOAA Line Office
Actual
ARRA
Enacted
Request
NOS 73.7
68.1
80.8
NMFS 39.6
70.2
69.2
OAR
575.8
411.5
430.1
NWS 33.4
0.5
36.5
27.0
NESDIS
119.2
95.0
252.8
OMAO
113.0
96.6
89.1
Total R&D
954.7
0.5
777.9
949.0
Sources: Emily Larkin, NOAA Budget Office, personal communication, February 23, 2010.
a. FY2010 and FY2011 enacted and request columns include R&D equipment for OAR ($73.5 million in
FY2010 and $77.1 million in FY2011), NESDIS ($9.5 million in FY2011), and OMAO ($96.6 million in
FY2010 and $89.1million in FY2011).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration68
The Administration has requested $16.190 billion for NASA R&D in FY2011. This amount
would be an increase of 18.3% over FY2010, in a total NASA budget that would increase by
1.5%. (See Table 12.) The growing share of NASA’s budget devoted to R&D results from a new
focus on long-term technology development; increased support for Earth science; and the planned
retirement of the space shuttle, which is considered an operational program, not R&D.
For several years, budget priorities throughout NASA have been driven by the Vision for Space
Exploration. The Vision was announced by President Bush in January 2004 and endorsed by
Congress in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155) and the NASA Authorization
Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-422). Under the Vision, NASA’s primary goal is to return humans to the
Moon by 2020. In 2009, the Augustine committee conducted an independent review of NASA’s
human spaceflight activities.69 The committee found that the program outlined by the Vision
would require additional NASA funding of $3 billion per year, even if a return to the Moon were
delayed by a few years. The Administration’s budget for FY2011 would cancel the Moon
program. Under the Administration proposal, NASA’s eventual goal would be human exploration
of Mars, but in the near term, the International Space Station would be the only destination for
human spaceflight that would have a specific schedule.
The Administration request for Exploration in FY2011 is $4.263 billion, a 12.8% increase over
FY2010. The activities funded by this account would change significantly. Its main current
activity is the Constellation Systems program, which is developing the Orion crew vehicle and
68 This section was written by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
69 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great
Nation, October 2009, http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf. The committee that
developed this report is known as the Augustine committee after its chairman, Norman Augustine.
Congressional Research Service
33
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
the Ares I rocket for carrying humans into low Earth orbit, as well as the heavy-lift Ares V rocket,
the Altair lunar lander, and lunar surface systems for the planned Moon mission. The
Administration budget for FY2011 would eliminate Constellation Systems. Instead of Orion and
Ares I, the proposed budget would provide $812 million to spur development of commercial crew
transport services to low Earth orbit. Instead of Ares V and the lunar systems, it would provide
$1.551 billion to enable future human exploration by conducting robotic precursor missions and
R&D on technologies such as advanced in-space propulsion and in-situ production of oxygen,
water, and propellants from lunar and Martian materials.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117) prohibits NASA from using FY2010
or prior-year funds to terminate or eliminate “any program, project, or activity of the architecture
for the Constellation program” or to create or initiate any new program, project, or activity.70
Some analysts and policy makers have expressed concern that NASA contracting decisions and
other actions during FY2010 may be in violation of the appropriations provision.71 NASA
officials reply that they are continuing the Constellation program during FY2010 in full
compliance with the law, even though they intend to terminate the program in FY2011.
The requested $5.006 billion for Science in FY2011 would be an 11.4% increase over FY2010.
The largest increase would be for Earth science. This would include $171 million to fund a
replacement for the Orbital Carbon Observatory (OCO), which was launched in February 2009
but failed to reach orbit, and $150 million as the first year of a five-year, $2.1 billion global
climate initiative. The climate initiative and other increases would accelerate the development and
launch of several Earth science missions recommended in 2007 by a National Academies decadal
survey.72
A new Space Technology program would receive $572 million under the Administration’s budget
proposal. This program’s focus would be technologies that are applicable to multiple missions in
the long term, as opposed to components needed for specific systems in the short term. It would
seek to advance technologies from the point of early-stage innovation to the demonstration of
flight readiness.
The Administration’s budget would extend operation of the International Space Station (ISS) to at
least 2020. Increased funding would provide for greater utilization of existing facilities, in part by
paying the launch costs of non-NASA users of the ISS national laboratory. The first commercial
cargo flights to resupply the ISS are scheduled during FY2011.
70 P.L. 111-117, Division B, Title III.
71 See, for example, the letter from 27 Members of Congress to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, February 12,
2010, online at http://www.posey.house.gov/UploadedFiles/LetterToBolden-CancellingConstellation-Feb15-2010.pdf.
72 National Research Council, Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade
and Beyond, 2007, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11820.html.
Congressional Research Service
34
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Table 12. NASA R&D
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
Regular
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Actual
ARRA
Enacted
Request
Science
$4,503 $400 $4,493 $5,006
Earth
Science
1,377 325 1,421 1,802
Planetary
Science
1,288
— 1,341 1,486
Astrophysics
1,230
75 1,104 1,076
Heliophysics
608 — 627 642
Aeronautics and Space R&T
500
150
507
1,152
Aeronautics
Research
500 150 507 580
Space
Technology
— — — 572
Exploration
3,506 400 3,780 4,263
Constel ation Systems
3,033
400
3,325
—
Constellation
Transition
— — —
1,900
Commercial
Spaceflight
— — — 812
Advanced Capabilities 472
— 454 —
Exploration
R&D
— — —
1,551
International Space Station
2,060
—
2,317
2,780
Subtotal
R&D
10,569
950 11,097 13,201
Other NASA Programsa
3,907
2 4,084 2,291
Cross-Agency Supportb
3,306
50 3,095 3,111
Associated
with
R&D
2,414
— 2,262 2,651
Associated
with
Other
892 50 833 460
Construction & Env. C&Rb
— — 448 397
Associated
with
R&D
— — 328 339
Associated with Other
—
—
121
59
Total
R&D
12,983
950 13,687 16,190
Total
NASA
17,782 1,002 18,724 19,000
Source: NASA FY2011 congressional budget justification, online at http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/.
Notes: ARRA is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5).
a. Space Shuttle, Space and Flight Support, Education, and Inspector General.
b. Al ocation between R&D and non-R&D is estimated by CRS in proportion to the underlying program
amounts (except FY2009 ARRA) in order to al ow calculation of a total for R&D. The Cross-Agency
Support and Construction and Environmental Compliance and Remediation accounts consist mostly of
indirect costs for other programs assessed in proportion to their direct costs.
Congressional Research Service
35
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Department of Agriculture73
The FY2011 request for research and education activities in the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is $2.976 billion, a decrease of $30.9 million (approximately 1.0%) from the FY2010
estimate of $3.007 billion. (See Table 13.) 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 FY2011 is $1.224 billion for ARS, $51.0 million below the FY2010
estimate. In ARS, the Administration proposes a reduction of $40.0 million in funding add-ons
designated by Congress for research at specific locations. The amounts from the discontinued
projects are to be redirected to critical research priorities of the Administration that include
genetic and genomic databases, domestic and global market opportunities, new varieties and
hybrids of feedstocks, animal health and feed efficiency, and new healthier foods with decreased
caloric density. The FY2011 budget provides an increase of $3.0 million for improved animal
protection to enhance food and production security and an increase of $6.4 million for research on
children’s nutrition and health. In addition, an increase of $5.0 million has been proposed for
research to safeguard food supply by developing and validating sensing technologies for
pathogens, toxins, and chemical residues. The Administration does not propose any funding for
buildings and facilities in FY2011 for the ARS. The Administration does provide $1.8 million for
a review of USDA research facilities. It is anticipated that such a review would serve as a
framework for developing a service-wide capital improvement strategy for future investments
that parallel program goals.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), formerly the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), was established in Title VII, §7511 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, also known as the 2008 farm bill). In the
FY2011 request, NIFA is focused on larger and longer research efforts that will “... create
substantial impacts in addressing critical issues facing the long-term viability of agriculture.”
NIFA is responsible for developing linkages between the federal and state “components of a
broad-based, national agricultural research, extension, and higher education system.”74 NIFA
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, 1994 tribal land-grant colleges, and
Hispanic-serving institutions. Funding is distributed to the states through competitive awards,
statutory formula funding, and special grants. The FY2011 request provides $1.500 billion for
NIFA, a decrease of $12.0 million from the FY2010 estimate. The NIFA FY2011 budget includes
the proposed elimination of $141.0 million in congressional add-ons. Funding for formula
distribution in FY2011 to the state Agricultural Experiment Stations is $215.0 million, level with
FY2010. One of the primary goals of the President’s FY2011 NIFA request is to emphasize and
prioritize competitive, peer-reviewed allocation of research funding. Programs are to be designed
73 This section was written by Christine M. Matthews, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
74 U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture FY2011 Budget Summary and Annual Performance,
February 2010, p. 116.
Congressional Research Service
36
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
that are more responsive to critical national issues such as agricultural security, local and regional
emergencies, zoonotic diseases, climate change, childhood obesity, pest risk management, and
development of biofuels that assure agricultural productivity and sustainability. Support is to be
given for a competitive program directed at developing training and expanding use of web-based
and other technology applications. Funding is provided for programs that improve the quality of
rural life and provide stress assistance programs to individuals engaged in agriculture-related
occupations. Another focus in the FY2011 request is on programs that support minority-serving
institutions and their recipients.
NIFA is also responsible for administering the agency’s primary competitive research grants
program, the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). The FY2011 request proposes
$428.8 million for AFRI, a $166.3 million (63.3%) increase over the FY2010 estimate. In
addition to supporting fundamental and applied science in agriculture, USDA maintains that the
AFRI makes a 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 to provide increased opportunities for minority and under-served communities in
agricultural science. AFRI funding is to support projects directed at developing alternative
methods of biological and chemical conversion of biomass, and research on the impact of a
renewable fuels industry on the economic and social dynamics of rural communities. The
Administration proposes support for initiatives in agricultural genomics, emerging issues in food
and agricultural security, the ecology and economics of biological invasions, and plant
biotechnology. Research is proposed that moves beyond water quality issues to extend to water
availability, reuse, and conservation.
The FY2011 request for USDA provides $87.2 million for the Economic Research Service (ERS),
$5.2 million above the FY2010 estimated level. ERS supports both economic and social science
information analysis on agriculture, rural development, food, and the environment. ERS collects
and disseminates data concerning USDA programs and policies to various stakeholders. Funding
for the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is proposed at $164.7 million in the
FY2011 request, $2.9 million (1.8%) above FY2010. The budget includes support to improve
research efforts in analyzing the impacts of bioenergy production, and to examine concerns
pertaining to feedstock storage, transportation networks, and the vagaries in commodity
production. Additional research areas include production and utilization of biomass materials;
stocks and prices of distillers’ grains; and current and proposed ethanol production plants.
Funding for NASS is to allow for the restoration of the chemical use data series on major row
crops; post harvest chemical use; and alternating annual fruit, nuts, and vegetable chemical use.
Also, funding is provided to support the second year of the 2012 Census of Agriculture’s five year
cycle. Data from the Census of Agriculture is to be used to measure trends and new developments
in the agricultural community.
ARRA provided $176.0 million for ARS buildings and facilities; these funds are characterized as
funding for R&D facilities.
Congressional Research Service
37
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Table 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Actuala
ARRA
Estimate
Request
Agricultural Research Service
Product Quality/Value Added
$103.0
$105.0
113.0
Livestock Production
80.0
81.0
85.0
Crop Production
199.0
208.0
220.0
Food Safety
106.0
108.0
114.0
Livestock Protection
75.0
79.0
83.0
Crop Protection
198.0
204.0
213.0
Human Nutrition
79.0
86.0
91.0
Environmental Stewardship
220.0
228.0
240.0
National Agricultural Library
23.0
22.0
23.0
Repair, Maintenance, and Other Programs
84.0
83.0
42.0
Subtotal 1,167.0
1,204.0
1,224.0
Buildings and Facilities
47.0
176.0
71.0
0.0
Total, ARS
1,214.0
176.0
1,275.0
1,224.0
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA)b
Hatch Act Formula
207.0
215.0
215.0
Cooperative Forestry Research
28.0
29.0
29.0
Earmarked Projects and Grants
128.0
111.5
0.0
Agriculture & Food Research Initiative
202.0
262.5
428.8
Federal Administration
19.0
45.1
14.5
Higher Education Programsc
43.0
56.5
61.9
Other Programs
64.0
72.9
94.2
Total, Research and Education Activitiesd 691.0
792.5 843.4
Extension Activities
Smith-Lever Sections 3b&c
288.0
297.5
297.5
Extension and Integrated Programs
38.0
38.0
42.7
1890 Colleges, Tuskegee, & West Virginia State
University Colleges
86.0
44.4
44.4
Other Extension Programs
62.0
115.0
94.6
Total, Extension Activities
474.0
494.9
479.2
Integrated Activities
57.0
60.0
24.9
Mandatory Programs
127.0
140.9
152.9
Total, NIFAd 1,349.0
1,488.3
1,500.3
Congressional Research Service
38
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Actuala
ARRA
Estimate
Request
Economic Research Service
80.0
82.0
87.2
National Agricultural Statistics Service
152.0
161.8
164.7
Total, Research, Education, and Economics
2,795.0
3,007.1
2,976.2
Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, FY2011 Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan.
Notes: Research activities carried out in support of Homeland Security are reflected under the Food Safety,
Livestock Protection, and Crop Protection program areas, including $64.3 million in FY2009.
a. Funding levels are contained in the U.S. Department of Agriculture FY2011 Budget Summary and Annual
Performance Plan, February 2010. USDA received approximately $28.0 billion from the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, 2009 (ARRA). Included in that total was $176.0 million for ARS facilities.
b. Formerly CSREES. NIFA was established in Title VII of the 2008 Farm Bill.
c. Higher Education includes capacity building grants, Hispanic-Serving Institution Education Grants Program,
Two-Year Postsecondary, and Agriculture in the K-12 Classroom, Higher Education Chal enge Grants,
Improve the Quality of Life in Rural America, and others.
d. Program totals may or may not include set-asides (non-add) or contingencies.
Department of the Interior75
President Obama has requested $812.8 million for Department of the Interior (DOI) R&D in
FY2011, an increase of $27.5 million (2.3%) above FY2010 funding of $785.3 million. (See
Table 14.) The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the primary supporter of R&D within DOI,
accounting for approximately 84% of the department’s total FY2010 R&D appropriations.
President Obama has proposed $679.2 million for USGS R&D in FY2011, an increase of $18.6
million (2.8%) above the estimated FY2010 level. USGS R&D is conducted under several
activity/program areas: global change, geographic research, geological resources, water
resources, biological research, and enterprise information.
Global climate change R&D would receive the largest boost in the USGS R&D budget, rising
$13.9 million (23.9%) to $72.1 million in FY2011 under President Obama’s budget request.
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 Obama’s FY2011 budget for geographic research R&D proposes a $6.5
million increase (113.8%) to $53.7 million.
Funding for USGS geological resources R&D in the FY2011 request includes $227.2 million, an
increase of $5.1 million (2.3%) from its estimated FY2010 level. 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 that resulting from human activity.
Within the Earth sciences, the USGS plays a major role in important geological hazards research,
75 This section was written by John F. Sargent, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
39
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
including research on earthquakes and volcanoes. Enterprise Information conducts information
science research to enhance the National Map and National Spatial Data infrastructure.76
USGS water resources R&D is focused on water availability, water quality and flood hazards.
President Obama’s FY2011 budget for water resources R&D proposes a $3.2 million decrease
(2.6%) to $123.9 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
Obama’s FY2011 budget request for biological research R&D proposes a reduction of $3.6
million (1.8%) to $201.3 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.
Enterprise information R&D would be cut by $0.1 million (9.4%) in FY2011 under the
President’s budget.
In past years, the Department of the Interior had not reported R&D funded through the Fish and
Wildlife Service. For FY2011, DOI has added the Fish and Wildlife Service to its R&D
calculations and asked the FWS to count their R&D activities for previous years. According to
DOI, this was prompted by the addition of $10 million for global change research funding for
FWS in FY2009, and the President’s request for $15 million in FY2011. The R&D funding data
for FWS is included, together with other DOI agencies, in Table 14.
Table 14. Department of the Interior R&D
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Actual
ARRA
Enacted
Request
U.S. Geological Survey
614.8
74.4
660.6
679.2
Geographic research
45.6
47.2
53.7
Geological resources
215.8
222.0
227.2
Water resources
126.4
127.1
123.9
Biological research
185.3
204.9
201.3
Global change
40.6
58.2
72.1
Enterprise information
1.0
1.1
1.0
Bureau of Land Management
11.0
11.0
11.0
Bureau of Reclamation
12.8
12.8
15.2
76 For additional information see CRS Report RL33861, Earthquakes: Risk, Detection, Warning, and Research, and
CRS Report R40625, Geospatial Information and Geographic Information Systems (GIS): Current Issues and Future
Challenges, both by Peter Folger.
Congressional Research Service
40
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Actual
ARRA
Enacted
Request
Minerals Management Service
36.5
44.9
46.2
National Park Service
33.0
35.3
35.5
Fish and Wildlife Service
10.6
20.8
25.8
Total, DOI R&Da 718.7
74.4
785.3
812.8
Source: CRS analysis of unpublished data provided to CRS by the Department of the Interior budget office,
March 4, 2010, unless otherwise noted.
a. Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
Environmental Protection Agency77
The U.S. 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. 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 President’s FY2011 budget request of $871.2 million for the EPA S&T account, including
transfers from the Superfund account, is $1.7 million (about 0.2%) below the FY2010
appropriation of $872.9 million,78 but $54.7 million (nearly 7%) above the FY2009 appropriation
of $816.5 million.79 The amount included in the FY2011 budget request for the EPA’s S&T
account represented 8.7% of the total $10.020 billion requested for the agency overall for FY2011
As indicated in Table 15 below, the base requested funded for the S&T account is a slight
increase above the FY2010 level. The $24.5 million proposed transfer from the Superfund
account for FY2011 is $2.3 million less than the $26.8 million transferred in FY2010, accounting
for the overall decrease from FY2010 levels. However, as indicated in EPA’s budget
justification,80 the requested base amount for the S&T includes both increases and decreases of
varying levels for the individual EPA research program and activity line items identified within
77 This section was written by Robert Esworthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
78 Title II of P.L. 111-88, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations for FY2010. For information
on FY2010 funding for all EPA appropriations accounts see CRS Report R40685, Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations.
79 P.L. 111-8, Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009. 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, but
did not include funding for activities within the agency’s S&T appropriations account. For information on FY2009
funding for all EPA appropriations accounts see CRS Report RL34461, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2009 Appropriations.
80 FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification (EPA’s Proposed Budget): Science and
Technology, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/.
Congressional Research Service
41
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
the account when compared with the enacted FY2009 appropriations. For some activities, the
amount requested for FY2011 remained relatively flat compared to the prior year appropriation.
Areas within the S&T account for which increases have been requested for FY2011 include: clean
air research, global change research, and clean water research. FY2011 requested funding for
other areas, such as air toxics and quality and human health and ecosystem research, reflects both
increases and decreases when compared to FY2010 appropriations. For example, the $256.2
million requested for human health and ecosystem research is $7.8 million above the FY2010
level. Requested funding within this program area includes: $17.3 million for the Science to
Achieve Results (STAR) fellowships, a $6.4 million (nearly 60%) increase above FY2010
appropriations; $17.4 for Endocrine Disruptor Research, a $6.0 million increase; and $21.9 for
Computational Toxicology research, a $2.1 million increase. The total within this program
activity also includes: $80.1 Human Health Research, $3.9 below FY2010 levels; and $74.0
million for Ecosystem Research, a $1.6 million reduction. The largest requested decrease for
FY2011 within the S&T account was for EPA’s homeland security activities.81 The $51.3 million
requested for FY2011 is nearly $15.0 million (22.6%) below the FY2010 appropriation of $66.3.
The activities funded within the S&T account include research conducted by universities,
foundations, and other non-federal entities with EPA grants, 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 FY1996.82 Because of the differences in the
scope of the activities included in these accounts, apt comparisons before and after FY1996 are
difficult. Although the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reports83 historical and
projected budget authority (BA) 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. The R&D BA amounts reported
by OMB are typically significantly less than amounts appropriated/requested for the S&T
81 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.
82 EPA’s most recent annual appropriations have been requested, considered, and enacted according to eight statutory
appropriations accounts established by Congress during the FY1996 appropriations process.
83 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reports R&D budget authority (BA) 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 BA of $559 million for FY2009, estimated BA of $622 million for
FY2010, and $651 million proposed for FY2011. 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 2011 Budget of the United States: Analytical
Perspectives – Special Topics/Research and Development pgs. 339-344, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/
fy2009/.
Congressional Research Service
42
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
account. (BA as reported by OMB is included in Table 15 below for purpose of comparison.)
This is an indication that not all of the EPA S&T account funding is allocated to R&D.
The operation and administration of the agency’s laboratories and facilities necessitate significant
expenditures for rent, utilities, and security. Funding for these expenses represented slightly less
than 9% of the total S&T account in the FY2011 request, roughly the same as the FY2008-
FY2010 appropriations. 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. This change affects comparisons of the S&T appropriations over
time. For example, the majority of operation and administrative expenses were funded within the
EPM account in FY2006 and prior fiscal year appropriations. Funding provided within the S&T
account for these expenses represented less than 1% of the total S&T appropriation for FY2006
and prior fiscal years.
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.
Table 15. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2010
Enacted
Enacted
FY2011
Environmental Protection Agency
(P.L. 111-8)
(P.L. 111-88)
Request
Science and Technology Appropriations Account
—Base Appropriations
$790.1
$846.1
$846.7
—Transfer in from Superfund Account
26.4
26.8
24.5
Total Science and Technology
$816.5
$872.9
$871.2
R&D Budget Authority Report by OMB
$559.0
$622.0 est.
$651.0 est.
Source: Prepared by CRS. The FY2009 and FY2010 appropriation are from the Conference Report (H.Rept.
111-316 , accompany the FY2010 Interior, Environment and related Agencies appropriations (P.L. 111-88)).
FY2011 requested amounts are from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2011 Annual Performance Plan and
Congressional Justification, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget.). Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Department of Transportation84
President Obama has requested $1.022 billion for Department of Transportation (DOT) R&D in
FY2011, an increase of 0.5% above the FY2010 enacted level. (See Table 16.) Two DOT
84 This section was written by John F. Sargent, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
43
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
agencies—the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)—account for most of the department’s R&D funding (approximately 84% in FY2010).
The President has requested $400.4 million for FAA R&D and R&D facilities, a decrease of $11.3
million (2.7%) from the FY2010 enacted level. Most of the substantial changes in FAA R&D
funding are related to the agency’s Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)
program which seeks to address challenges posed by air traffic growth by increasing the nation’s
airspace capacity and efficiency and by reducing emissions and noise. Changes requested for
NextGen R&D funding include: elimination of funding for demonstrations and infrastructure
($33.8 million); a reduction of $5.9 million for environmental research on aircraft technologies,
fuels and metrics; and increases of $28.9 million for system development, $4.9 million for air-
ground integration, $2.4 million for alternative fuels for general aviation, and $1.7 million for
self-separation. In addition, the agency’s proposed budget includes a reduction of $13.0 million
for advanced technology development and prototyping.85
President Obama has requested no increase in R&D funding for the FHWA, proposing $442.0
million for FY2011, identical to the agency’s funding for FY2010, both in aggregate and for each
specific activity area.86 According to the agency’s budget request:
The Administration is developing a comprehensive approach for surface transportation
reauthorization, which includes [research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E)].
Consequently, the Budget contains no policy recommendations for programs subject to
reauthorization [which includes R&D], including Federal-aid highways.
Instead, the Budget displays baseline funding levels for all surface programs. Future
authorizations for RDT&E with the Federal-aid highway program may include activities
associated with deployment of safety initiatives, a restructured infrastructure program, and a
variety of activities associated with environmental improvement and streamlining, security
improvements, and outreach and dissemination.87
Table 16. Department of Transportation R&D
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009 Actual
FY2010 Estimate
FY2011 Request
Federal Highway Administrationa
431.6 442.0 442.0
Federal Aviation Administrationb
362.2 411.6 400.4
Other agenciesc
180.3 163.3 180.0
Total, DOT R&Dd
974.1
1,016.9
1,022.4
Source: DOT FY2011 agency budget justifications; unpublished tables provided by OMB to CRS in February
2010; and private communications between OMB and CRS.
Notes: N/A = not available
85 Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Budget Estimates Fiscal Year2011, February
2010.
86 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Budget Estimates Fiscal Year2011, February
2010.
87 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
44
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
a. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year FY2011,
Federal Highway Administration, February 2010, http://www.dot.gov/budget/2011/budgetestimates/fhwa.pdf.
b. Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year FY2011,
Federal Aviation Administration, February 2010, http://www.dot.gov/budget/2011/budgetestimates/faa.pdf;
private e-mail correspondence with the Office of Management and Budget dated February 19, 2010.
c. “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. Figures derived from FY2011 agency budget justifications and unpublished tables provided by
OMB to CRS in February 2010.
d. Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
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
Specialist 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
45