Federal Research and Development Funding:
FY2011
John F. Sargent Jr., Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
June 10, 2011
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 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 billion.
Congress plays 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.
Under the President’s request, six federal agencies would have received 94.8% of total federal
R&D spending: the Department of Defense (DOD, 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 have received the largest dollar increase for
R&D of any agency, $1.700 billion (18.3%) above its FY2010 funding level. The DOD would
have received the largest reduction in R&D funding, $3.542 billion (4.4%) below its FY2010
level.
President Obama requested increases in the R&D budgets of the three agencies that were targeted
for doubling in the America COMPETES Act and its reauthorization, and by President Bush
under his American Competitiveness Initiative using FY2006 R&D funding as the baseline. The
Department of Energy’s Office of Science would have received an increase of $226 million
(4.6%), the National Science Foundation an increase of $551 million (8.0%), and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology’s core research and facilities an increase of $48 million
(7.3%).
As of the end of the 111th Congress, no regular appropriations bill had been enacted by Congress.
Two of the 12 regular appropriations bills had passed the House (the Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011, and the Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011); none had
passed the Senate. To provide for continuity of government operations into FY2011, the 111th and
112th Congress passed a series of continuing resolutions that provided funding for all agencies
until enactment of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011
(P.L. 112-10) on April 15, 2011. Division A of the act provides FY2011 appropriations for the
Department of Defense; Division B provides full-year continuing funding for FY2011 for all
other agencies at their FY2010 levels unless other provisions in the act specify otherwise. With
respect to federal R&D funding overall and to several agencies in particular, it is not possible yet
to assess the level of funding provided under the act. This report will be updated as additional
information about FY2011 R&D funding becomes available.
For the past five 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), the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117), and P.L. 112-
10. 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............................................................................................. 3
Agency Perspective............................................................................................................... 3
Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment Perspective ..................................................... 4
Combined Perspective........................................................................................................... 5
Multiagency R&D Initiatives Perspective.............................................................................. 6
FY2010 Supplemental Funding for Research and Development............................................. 9
Multiagency R&D Initiatives ...................................................................................................... 9
National Nanotechnology Initiative ....................................................................................... 9
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program ................... 10
U.S. Global Change Research Program ............................................................................... 10
FY2011 Appropriations Status............................................................................................. 10
Department of Defense ............................................................................................................. 11
Department of Homeland Security ............................................................................................ 16
National Institutes of Health...................................................................................................... 20
Department of Energy ............................................................................................................... 25
National Science Foundation..................................................................................................... 28
Department of Commerce ......................................................................................................... 32
National Institute of Standards and Technology ................................................................... 32
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.............................................................. 34
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ........................................................................ 35
Department of Agriculture......................................................................................................... 38
Department of the Interior ......................................................................................................... 42
Environmental Protection Agency ............................................................................................. 44
Department of Transportation.................................................................................................... 47
Figures
Figure 1. Doubling of Research Funding Effort: Appropriations versus Selected Rates ................ 8
Tables
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2009-FY2011..................... 4
Table 2. Federal Research and Development Funding by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2009-FY2011............................................................................................. 5
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities and Equipment,
FY2008-FY2010...................................................................................................................... 6
Table 4. Agencies Targeted for Research Doubling by President Obama, the America
COMPETES Act, and the American Competitiveness Initiative ................................................ 8
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Table 5. Alignment of Agency R&D Funding and Regular Appropriations Bills......................... 11
Table 6. Department of Defense RDT&E .................................................................................. 13
Table 7. FY2010 OCO Supplemental ........................................................................................ 15
Table 8. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs ................................... 19
Table 9. National Institutes of Health......................................................................................... 23
Table 10. Department of Energy R&D and Related Programs .................................................... 27
Table 11. National Science Foundation...................................................................................... 31
Table 12. NIST.......................................................................................................................... 33
Table 13. NOAA R&D .............................................................................................................. 35
Table 14. NASA R&D............................................................................................................... 37
Table 15. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D......................................................................... 40
Table 16. Department of the Interior R&D................................................................................. 43
Table 17. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account ........................................................ 46
Table 18. Department of Transportation R&D ........................................................................... 49
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 49
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Overview
The 111th Congress took continuing interest in the health of the U.S. research and development
(R&D) enterprise and in providing sustained support for federal R&D activities. However, the
111th Congress was unable to enact any of the regular appropriations bills. Two of the 12 regular
appropriations bills passed the House (the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011, and the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011); none passed the Senate.
To provide for continuity of government operations into FY2011, the 111th and 112th Congress
passed a series of continuing resolutions that provided funding for all agencies until enactment of
the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10) by
the 112th Congress on April 15, 2011. Division A of the act provides FY2011 appropriations for
the Department of Defense; Division B provides full-year continuing funding for FY2011 for all
other agencies at their FY2010 levels unless other provisions in the act specify otherwise. With
respect to federal R&D funding overall and to several agencies in particular, it is not possible yet
to assess the level of funding provided under the act. This report will be updated as additional
information about FY2011 R&D funding becomes available
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 billion.1 The President’s
proposed FY2011 R&D funding included 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
sought to 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,
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.
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
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 have required 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 an 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
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.
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.
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 R41705, The National Institutes of
Health (NIH): Organization, Funding, and Congressional Issues, by Judith A. Johnson and Pamela W. Smith.
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
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 have received 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 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 accounted for more than 98% of FY2010 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 continued 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 were 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 have been reduced by $3.542 billion, USDA R&D funding would
have been cut by $143 million, and DHS R&D would have fallen by $104 million.9
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
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
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 included $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%).
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
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.
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
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/.
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
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
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.
In FY2010 supporting budget documents, President Obama stated that he would seek to double
funding for basic research over 10 years (FY2006-FY2016) at the the NSF, NIST laboratories and
construction accounts, and the DOE Office of Science (collectively, the “target accounts”)—
continuing the goal of President George W. Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI).16
15 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Table 5-1, May 2009.
16 Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The President’s Plan for Science and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
In 2007 Congress established authorization levels for FY2008-FY2010 in the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) that would put funding for research at these agencies on track to
double in approximately seven years. Three years later, with enacted funding levels for FY2008-
FY2010 below those authorized in P.L. 110-69, Congress passed the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010 establishing authorization levels for FY2011-FY2013 for the target
accounts at a growth rate consistent with a 10-year doubling path. In FY2011 supporting budget
documents, President Obama extended his target for doubling to 11 years (FY2006-FY2017).17
However, FY2011 enacted funding for the target accounts was below both authorized and
requested levels, setting a pace for a 15-year doubling—more than twice the length of time
originally envisioned in the America COMPETES Act and about a third longer than the pace set
by the 2010 reauthorization.
Further, it is unclear whether the Obama Administration still intends to support doubling of the
target accounts. Following enactment of the 2011 budget, White House Communications Director
Dan Pfeiffer stated on The White House Blog,
Even though we will no longer double the funding of key research and development
agencies, you will still see strong investments in National Institute of Standards and
Technology, National Science Foundation and the [DOE] Office of Science.
Figure 1 illustrates how requested, actual, and enacted appropriations (for FY2006 through
FY2011) for the target accounts, in aggregate, compare to 7- and 10-year doubling rates.
For FY2011, President Obama 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 $12.598 billion; Congress appropriated $12.311 billion for
FY2011. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) also provided
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.)
(...continued)
Innovation: Doubling Funding for Key Basic Research Agencies in the 2010 Budget, May 7, 2009,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ostp/budget/doubling.pdf.
17 Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The President’s Plan for Science and
Innovation: Doubling Funding for Key Basic Research Agencies in the 2011 Budget, February 1, 2010,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/doubling%2011%20final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Figure 1. Doubling of Research Funding Effort: Appropriations versus Selected Rates
170%
160%
ing
)
s 150%
llar
oubl
o
d
D
140%
rd
a
rrent
u
w
o
f c
America COMPETES Act
o
T
130%
s
Obama Requests
es
llions
rogr
(in mi 120%
P
Bush Requests
Actual Appropriations
110%
100%
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
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 10-year doubling pace assumes annual increases of 7.2% each year for 10 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
FY2011
Agency
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
ARRA
Estimate
Request
Enacted
National Science
5,646 5,884 6,084 6,469 2,402 6,972 7,424 6,860
Foundation
Department of
3,632 3,837 4,083 4,807 1,633 4,964 5,121 4,874
Energy/Office of
Science
National Institute of
395 434 441 472 220 515 585 507
Standards and
Technology/core
researcha
National Institute of
174 59 161 172 360 147 125 70
Standards and
Technology/facilities
Totalb
9,846 10,214 10,768 11,920 4,615 12,598 13,255 12,311
Sources: National Institute of Standards and Technology, budget requests for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, and
2011, available at http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/budget/index.cfm; Department of Energy, budget requests for
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, available at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/crorg/cf30.htm; National Science
Foundation, budget requests for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, available at http://www.nsf.gov/about/
budget/. FY2011 enacted funding levels based on CRS analysis of P.L. 112-10.
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.
FY2010 Supplemental Funding for Research and Development
On February 12, President Obama submitted to Congress a request for FY2010 supplemental
funding for disaster relief related to Hurricane Katrina and the Midwest floods, as well as for
funds to implement settlement of certain legal cases. The request did not appear to contain any
funding for R&D or related activities.
On March 21, 2010, the Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010 (H.R. 4899), a FY2010
supplemental funding bill, was introduced in the House and was subsequently passed. The House-
passed version of H.R. 4899 did not appear to contain any funding for R&D or related activities.
On May 14, 2010, the Senate Committee on Appropriations adopted an amendment in the form of
a substitute and reported the bill, accompanied by S.Rept. 111-188. On May 27, 2010, the Senate
passed H.R. 4899, as amended. The Senate version of H.R. 4899 was named the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2010, and includes funding for a variety of agencies and purposes, including
funding for R&D and related activities. On July 1, 2010, the House passed an amended version of
the bill that would, among other things, rescind funds for research and development accounts at
the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, and Interior. Subsequently,
the Senate considered the House-amended version of the bill. A cloture vote failed and the
amended bill was sent back to the House. On July 27, 2010, the House passed the Senate’s May
27 version of the bill; President Obama signed the bill (P.L. 111-212) into law on July 29, 2010.
Multiagency R&D Initiatives
National Nanotechnology Initiative
President Obama’s FY2011 budget request sought funding for three multiagency R&D initiatives.
Funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) was 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 was 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 were offset, in part, by requested increases in
funding for other agencies, primarily DOE (up $65 million, 17.4%) and HHS18 (up $36 million,
9.5%).19
18 HHS NNI R&D funding includes funding for NIH, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
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.
For additional information on the NNI, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Program
President Obama requested $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 included 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.20
U.S. Global Change Research Program
President Obama 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 were to receive the bulk of the FY2010 USGCRP funding increase: NASA
(up $214 million, 20.0%); DOC, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
and NIST (up $77 million, 21.4%); NSF (up $51 million, 16.0%); and USDA (up $48 million,
44.0%).21
FY2011 Appropriations Status
As of the end of the 111th Congress, no regular appropriations bill had been enacted. Two of the
12 regular appropriations bills had passed the House (the Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011, and the Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011); none had passed the Senate.
To provide for continuity of government operations into FY2011, the 111th and 112th Congress
passed a series of continuing resolutions that provided funding for all agencies until enactment of
the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10) by
the 112th Congress on April 15, 2011. Division A of the act provides FY2011 appropriations for
the Department of Defense; Division B provides full-year continuing funding for FY2011 for all
other agencies at their FY2010 levels unless other provisions in the act specify otherwise. With
respect to federal R&D funding overall and to several agencies in particular, it is not possible yet
to assess the level of funding provided under the act. This report will be updated as additional
information about FY2011 R&D funding becomes available.
The remainder of this report provides a more in-depth analysis of research and development in 12
federal departments and agencies that receive more than 98% of federal R&D funding. Annual
appropriations for these agencies are provided through 8 of the 12 regular appropriations bills.
(...continued)
Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by John F. Sargent Jr.
20 Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Investing in the Building Blocks of
American Innovation, February 1, 2010.
21 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.
Congressional Research Service
10
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
For each agency covered below, Table 5 shows the corresponding regular appropriations bill that
provides funding for the agency, including its R&D activities.
Table 5. Alignment of Agency R&D Funding and Regular Appropriations Bills
Department/Agency
Regular Appropriations Bill
Department of Defense
Department of Defense Appropriations Act
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act
National Institutes of Health
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
Department of Energy
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act
National Science Foundation
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act
Department of Commerce
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Appropriations Act
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act
Department of Agriculture
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
Department of the Interior
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act
Department of Transportation
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act
Source: CRS website, FY2011 Status Table of Appropriations, available at http://www.crs.gov/Pages/
appover.aspx.
Department of Defense22
Congress supports research and development in the Department of Defense (DOD) through its
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) appropriation. The appropriation
primarily supports the development of the nation’s future military hardware and software and the
technology base upon which those products rely.
Nearly all of what DOD spends on RDT&E is appropriated in Title IV of the defense
appropriation bill. (See Table 6.) However, RDT&E funds are also 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
22 This section was written by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
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
(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 submitted a supplemental request for additional FY2010 OCO
funding, which included $277 million for RDT&E.
In the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10),
Congress provided $74.957 billion in Title IV RDT&E funding. This was $1.174 billion below
the request and $5.698 billion below what was available in FY2010. A large share of the
reductions were taken from the Systems Development and Demonstration activities of the
departments, including reductions due to program adjustments in the Army’s manned ground
vehicle program, the Navy’s Joint Strike Fighter program, terminations of the Air Forces HH-60
search and rescue helicopter program and the Marines Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, and
reductions in the Chemical/Biological Defense Program due in part to schedule delays. Congress
also provided $1.176 billion in RDT&E through the Defense Health Program and $393 million in
RDT&E through the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program. Congress also
provided $979 billion in OCO RDT&E funding, including $24 billion for the Defense Health
Program.
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
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. The S&T funding provided in the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10) totaled $11.982 billion, $163 million more than requested.
Basic research was less than requested, but more that what was available in FY2010.
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.
Table 6. Department of Defense RDT&E
(in millions of dollars)
FY2010
Actual
FY2011 Request
FY2011 Enacted
Budget Account
Base + OCO
Base
OCO
Base
OCO
Army
11,711 10,333
151 9,711 143
Congressional Research Service
13
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Navy
19,948 17,693
60 17,736
105
Air Force
27917c 27,247
266 26,517
484
Defensewide
20,890 20,662
157 20,797
223
Dir. Test & Eval.
188
195
195
Total Title IV - By
Accountd
80,655 76,131
635 74,957
955
Budget
Activity
6.1
Basic
Research
1,815 1,999
1,947
6.2
Applied
Research
4,984 4,476
4,497
6.3
Advanced
Dev.
6,507 5,344
14 5,539 130
6.4 Advanced Component
Dev. and Prototypes
14,469
13,877
75
14,391
52
6.5 Systems Dev. and Demo
16,779
16,453
44
14,486
92
6.6 Management Supporte
6,098 4,484
5 4,569
6.7 Op. Systems Dev. f
30,003 29,498
497 29,527
682
Total Title IV - by Budget
Activityd
80,655 76,131
635 74,957
955
Title VI - Other Defense
Programs
Defense Health Program
1,444
500
1,176
24
Chemical Agents and
Munitions
Destruction
351 401
393
Grand
Total
82,036 77,032
635 76,525
979
Source: FY010 actual figures taken from the Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2012, RDT&E
Programs (R-1), February 2011. FY2011 request figures taken from the Department of Defense Budget, fiscal
Year 2011, RDT&E Programs (R-1), February 2010. The FY2011 enacted figures taken from H.R. 1473, P.L. 112-
10, and from the Explanatory Summary in Congressional Record, April 14, 2011, H2768-H2787.
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. See Table 7 below for Congressional action on the FY2010 Supplemental.
c. Includes $292 million for Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund.
d. Total Budget Authority for Account and Budget Activity may not agree due to rounding.
e. Includes funds for Developmental and Operational Test and Evaluation.
f.
Includes funding for classified programs.
The Senate Appropriations Committee added the Obama Administration’s FY2010 OCO
Supplemental request to H.R. 4899; see Table 7. The Administration requested $277 million in
supplemental RDT&E. The committee recommended $274 million, eliminating funds for the
Army request, reducing funds for classified programs, providing a net decrease in funds for the
Air Force, and providing a net increase in funds for the Navy and Defensewide accounts. The
House resolved to concur with the Senate’s action on RDT&E.
Congressional Research Service
14
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Table 7. FY2010 OCO Supplemental
(in millions of dollars)
Budget Account
Request
Housea Senate Enacted
Army
62 0 0 0
Navy
5 45 45 45
Air
Force
188 164 164 164
Defensewide
22 65 65 65
Dir. Test & Eval.
Total Title IV-By
Accountb
277
274
274
274
Budget Activity
6.1
Basic
Research
6.2
Applied
Research
6.3
Advanced
Dev. 16 16 16
6.4 Advanced
Component Dev. and
Prototypes
6.5 Systems Dev. and
Demo
66
44
44
44
6.6 Management
Supportc
11
5
5
5
6.7 Op. Systems Dev.d
200 209 209 209
Classified programs
200
139
139
139
Total Title IV - by
Budget Activityb
277
274
274
274
Title VI - Other
Defense Programs
Defense Health
Program
Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction
Grand
Total 277 274 274 274
Source: Senate Rpt. 111-188, accompanying H.R. 4899. P.L. 111-212.
a. The House resolved to concur with the Senate amendments to H.R. 4899 related to DOD’s RDT&E
funding.
b. Total Budget Authority for Account and Budget Activity may not agree due to rounding.
c. Includes funds for Developmental and Operational Test and Evaluation.
d. Includes funding for classified programs. Funding for classified programs in italics below.
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Department of Homeland Security23
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested $1.344 billion for R&D and related
programs in FY2011, a 4% decrease from $1.407 billion in FY2010.24 This total included $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. The final appropriation for these activities was
$1.122 billion, including $767 million for S&T, $331 million for DNDO, and $24 million for
Coast Guard RDT&E. (See Table 8.)
The S&T Directorate is the primary DHS R&D organization.25 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 requested a total of $1.018 billion for the S&T Directorate for FY2011. This was
2% more than the FY2010 appropriation, but it included $109 million for radiological and nuclear
countermeasures R&D, an activity formerly funded in DNDO. The request proposed reducing
funding for the directorate’s other activities by 9%. A proposed reduction of $39 million for the
Infrastructure and Geophysical Division included the termination of local and regional initiatives
previously established or funded at congressional direction. The request for Laboratory Facilities
included no funds for the planned National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), which
received $32 million in FY2010, but DHS stated that it plans to request a reprogramming of
unobligated prior-year funds to support construction of a utility plant at the NBAF site.26 The
final appropriation was $767 million: $828 million in new funds and a rescission of $60 million
remaining unobligated from prior years. For the most part, Congress did not specify how the final
appropriation should be allocated to particular programs.
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
23 This section was written by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
24 If the DNDO Systems Acquisition account, which funds little or no R&D, was excluded, then the FY2011 request
was $1.283 billion, a decrease of 7% from FY2010.
25 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.
26 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.
Congressional Research Service
16
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
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.27 The final
FY2011 appropriation continued this authorization from the FY2010 act.
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).28
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 projected
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 was to be transferred to the S&T Directorate. The Administration
requested a total of $306 million for DNDO for FY2011. This was a 20% decrease from the
FY2010 appropriation. Excluding the proposed transfer of the Transformational R&D program,
the request for the remaining DNDO activities was a 12% increase. In some cases, however, the
request proposed substantial shifts in emphasis. The request for Systems Acquisition included $53
million for human-portable radiation detection systems, versus none in FY2010. The request for
Systems Development was reduced by $31 million. The final appropriation provided $331
million for DNDO: $342 million in new funds and a rescission of $11 million remaining
unobligated from prior years. Congress did not specify how the final appropriation should be
allocated to programs below the account level.
27 For more information on NBAF, see CRS Report RL34160, The National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility: Issues for
Congress, by Dana A. Shea, Jim Monke, and Frank Gottron.
28 DHS, Acquisition Management Directive, DHS Directive 102-01, revision 01, authorized by the Under Secretary for
Management on January 20, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
17
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
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.29 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.30 The final FY2011 appropriation continued the certification requirement
from the FY2010 act.
The global nuclear detection architecture overseen by DNDO remains an issue of congressional
interest.31 According to the FY2011 budget justification, the proposed reduction in funding for
Systems Development reflected “a shift in DNDO priorities to developing a wider range of
potential solutions to enduring vulnerabilities in the global nuclear detection architecture” and
would 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.”32 In
contrast, the FY2011 request for Systems Acquisition included 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 were not explained in the FY2011 budget justification for DNDO.
29 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.
30 Letter from Dr. William K. Hagan, Acting Director, DNDO, to Senator Lieberman, February 24, 2010,
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=11f7d1f0-c4fe-4105-94e6-
bb4a0213f048.
31 For more information, see CRS Report RL34574, The Global Nuclear Detection Architecture: Issues for Congress,
by Dana A. Shea.
32 Executive Office of the President, FY2010 Budget, Appendix, p. 560.
Congressional Research Service
18
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Table 8. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs
(in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
Enacted
Request
Enacted
Directorate of Science and Technology
$1,000
$1,018
$767
Management and Administration
143
152
141
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
856
866
626
Border and Maritime
44
40
n/a
Chemical and Biological
207
201
n/a
Command, Control, and Interoperability
82
75
n/a
Explosives 121
121
n/a
Human Factors / Behavioral Sciences
16
13
n/a
Infrastructure and Geophysical
75
36
n/a
Radiological and Nuclear
—
109
n/a
Innovation 44
44
n/a
Laboratory Facilities 150
122 n/a
Test and Evaluation, Standards
29
23
n/a
Transition 46
42
n/a
University Programs
49
40
n/aa
Homeland Security Institute
—
—
n/a
Rescission of Prior-Year Unobligated Balances
(7)
—
(60)
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
383
306
331
Management and Administration
38
37
37
Research, Development, and Operations
325
208
264
Systems Engineering and Architecture
25
39
n/a
Systems Development
100
69
n/a
Transformational R&D
109
—
n/a
Assessments 32
43
n/a
Operations 38
34
n/a
Forensics 20
23
n/a
Rescission of Prior-Year Unobligated Balances
—
—
(11)
Systems Acquisition
20
61
30
Radiation Portal Monitors Program
—
8
n/a
Securing the Cities
20
—
n/a
Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems
—
53
n/a
U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E
25
20
24
TOTAL 1,407
1,344
1,122
Source: DHS FY2011 budget justification, online at http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/budget/, and P.L. 112-10.
Notes: Totals may not add because of rounding.
Congressional Research Service
19
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
a. Not less than 80% of the FY2010 amount.
National Institutes of Health33
President Obama’s FY2011 budget requested a total of $31.8 billion for NIH at the program level,
almost a $1 billion (2.9%) increase over the FY2010 level of $30.9 billion.34 FY2010 funding was
provided in Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117).35 The
Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, P.L. 112-10, provides $30.6
billion at the program level for the agency in FY2011, $317 million less than FY2010 or about a
1% reduction.36 The FY2011 appropriation is $1.217 billion less than the FY2011 request and a
3.8% reduction from the request level. See Table 9.
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. 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
$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. The
“NIH program level” cited in the Administration’s FY2011 budget documents does not reflect the
Global Fund transfer; Table 9 shows the program level both before and after the transfer.
Discussions in this section refer to the program level after the transfer.
The agency’s organization consists of the Office of the NIH Director (OD) and 27 institutes and
centers (ICs). 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 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 OD. Congress
33 This section was written by Pamela Smith, Analyst in Biomedical Policy, and Judith A. Johnson, Specialist in
Biomedical Policy, CRS Domestic Social Policy Division.
34 The NIH FY2011 program level request of $31,947 million was revised on August 20, 2010, to $31,844 million due
to a $103 million reduction in the NIH Buildings and Facilities account. For further information on NIH in general, see
CRS Report R41705, The National Institutes of Health (NIH): Organization, Funding, and Congressional Issues, by
Judith A. Johnson and Pamela W. Smith.
35 In FY2010, in addition to the funding from its regular appropriations, NIH also had available about $5.45 billion in
emergency supplemental appropriations that had been provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5). NIH had received a total of $10.4 billion from ARRA, which was obligated in FY2009 and
FY2010.
36 P.L. 112-10 provides FY2011 funding for NIH as follows: from the FY2010 base for NIH enacted in P.L. 111-117
(Labor-HHS, $31,009 million), the amount for NIH in FY2011 is reduced from the FY2010 base by $50 million
(Buildings and Facilities), $210 million (pro rata reduction in all NIH accounts for institutes and centers and the Office
of the Director), and by a 0.2% across-the-board rescission. The enacted Labor/HHS appropriation level for NIH in
FY2011 is $30,688 million; the enacted total NIH program level, after the Global Fund transfer, is $30,626 million; see
Table 9.
Congressional Research Service
20
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
provides a separate appropriation to 24 of the 27 ICs, to OD, and to a Buildings and Facilities
account. (Three centers, not listed in Table 9, are funded through the NIH Management Fund.)
For FY2011, NIH identified five areas of “exceptional scientific opportunity” in which it planned
to target resources. Specific programmatic increases are described below.
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 requested an
increase of $22 million (6.0%) to a total of $382 million for nanotechnology research.
Translational Medicine. NIH continues to emphasize the movement of basic science discoveries
into development of improved treatments. The request doubles support for 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 would increase 3.2% to about $3.2
billion. Funding for 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, 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 OD and support from all the ICs.
Global Health. In addition to the Global Fund transfer (discussed above), NIH has long supported
research on 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 neglected diseases in the developing world. NIH works in
partnership with other funding organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The
Fogarty International Center’s budget would increase by 4.3% from $70 million to $73 million;
no specific funding amounts are detailed for overall NIH work on global health.
Reinvigorating the Biomedical Research Community. The FY2011 budget requests a 6.0%
increase in stipends for pre- and post-doctoral trainees supported by the Ruth L. Kirschstein
National Research Service Awards program. The increase of $42 million (to a total of $824
million) is part of the Administration’s emphasis on supporting science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) education programs. In FY2010 NIH contributed $12 million in ARRA
funds to DOE for the construction of a promising research tool, the National Synchrotron Light
Congressional Research Service
21
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Source-II. NIH will provide an additional $33 million in FY2011. The high-performance light
source is expected to become operational in 2015.
Research Project Grants. Of the funds appropriated to NIH each year, about 84% goes to
extramural research as grants, contracts, and other awards. The funding supports research
performed by more than 300,000 scientists and technical personnel who work at over 3,100
universities, hospitals, medical schools, and other research institutions around the country and
abroad. The primary funding mechanism for supporting investigator-initiated research is the
competitive, peer-reviewed research project grants (RPGs). In the FY2011 request, funding for
RPGs, at $17.1 billion, represents about 53% of NIH’s budget. The request would support about
37,000 awards, 195 RPGs more than the projection for FY2010 (excluding ARRA). 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.) For
noncompeting continuation awards the request provides a 2% increase (for inflation) and a 2.0%
increase in the average cost of competing RPGs (raising that cost to about $443,000 per award).
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. Support for grants in the Other Research category would increase by $47 million
(2.6%) to a total of $1.854 billion. The requested level for training would provide a stipend
increase and 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, would 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 (ARRA provided $1.0
billion for this purpose). The original request amount of $126 million for Buildings and Facilities
was reduced by $103 million to $23 million on August 20, 2010.37
The OD appropriation covers its own leadership and management operations and a variety of
cross-cutting programs. The request would provide $1.220 billion for OD in FY2011, an increase
of $43 million (3.7%) over FY2010. 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 included $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%) was requested for several
program coordination offices that work with the ICs, including $10 million in the Office of
Behavioral and Social Sciences Research for 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 requested $562 million for
the Roadmap/Common Fund, up $18 million (3.2%) from FY2010. Some Roadmap programs
that have been supported for five years would transition to the ICs for continued support. The
Common Fund supported a number of initiatives with ARRA money.
37 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/budget_amendments/amendment_08_20_10_0.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
22
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
NIH and three of the other Public Health Service agencies within HHS are subject to a budget tap
called the PHS Program Evaluation Set-Aside. Section 241 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. § 238j)
authorizes the Secretary to use a portion of eligible appropriations to assess the effectiveness of
federal health programs and to identify ways to improve them. The 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 9 do not subtract the amount of the evaluation tap, or of
other taps within HHS, from the agencies’ appropriations.38
Table 9. National Institutes of Health
(in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
Institutes and Centers (ICs)
Actuala
Request
Enactedb
Cancer (NCI)
5,098
5,265
5,059
Heart, Lung, and Blood (NHLBI)
3,094
3,188
3,070
Dental and Craniofacial Research
(NIDCR)
413 424 410
Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases
(NIDDK)
1,809 1,858 1,792
Neurological Disorders and Stroke
(NINDS)
1,634 1,681 1,622
Al ergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
4,815
4,977
4,776
General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
2,048
2,125
2,034
Child Health and Human Development
(NICHD)
1,327 1,369 1,318
Eye (NEI)
706
724
701
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
695
707
684
Aging (NIA)
1,108
1,142
1,100
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin
Diseases (NIAMS)
538 556 534
Deafness and Communication Disorders
(NIDCD)
418 429 415
Nursing Research (NINR)
145
150
144
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) 462
475 458
Drug Abuse (NIDA)
1,067
1,094
1,051
Mental Health (NIMH)
1,494
1,540
1,477
Human Genome Research (NHGRI)
524
534
511
38 For further information on the Evaluation Set-Aside, CRS Report R41737, Public Health Service (PHS) Agencies:
Overview and Funding, FY2010-FY2012, coordinated by C. Stephen Redhead and Pamela W. Smith.
Congressional Research Service
23
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
Institutes and Centers (ICs)
Actuala
Request
Enactedb
Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
(NIBIB)
316 326 314
Research Resources (NCRR)
1,267
1,309
1,258
Complementary and Alternative
Medicine (NCCAM)
129 132 128
Minority Health and Health Disparities
(NCMHD)
211 219 210
Fogarty International Center (FIC)
70
73
69
National Library of Medicine (NLM)
340
365
337
Office of Director (OD)
1,177
1,220
1,167
Common Fund (non-add)
(544)
(562)
(543)
Buildings & Facilities (B&F)c 100
23
50
Subtotal, Labor/HHS Appropriation
31,005
31,904
30,688
Superfund (Interior appropriation to
NIEHS)e
79 82 79
Total, NIH discretionary budget
authority
31,084 31,986 30,767
Pre-appropriated Type 1 diabetes fundsf 150
150
150
PHS Evaluation Tap fundingg 8
8
8
NIH program level before Global Fund
transfer (cited in HHS budget documents)
31,243 32,144 30,926
Global Fund transfer (AIDS/TB/Malaria)
-300
-300
-299
Total, NIH program level after
Global Fund transfer
30,943 31,844 30,627
Source: FY2010 Actual and FY2011 Enacted columns based on NIH operating plan at http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/
ob/docbudget/2011operatingplan_nih.pdf. FY2011 Request column 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. FY2010 Actual reflects real transfer of $1 million from HHS/Office of the Secretary to NIMH, $4.6 million
transfer to Health Resources and Services Administration Ryan White Program, as well as comparable
adjustments for transfers of funds from ICs to NLM.
b. P.L. 112-10 provides FY2011 funding for NIH as fol ows: the amount for NIH in FY2011 is reduced from the
FY2010 base (enacted in P.L. 111-117, Labor-HHS, $31,009 million) by $50 million (Buildings and Facilities),
$210 million (pro rata reduction in all NIH accounts for institutes and centers and the Office of the
Director), and by a 0.2% across-the-board rescission. NIH FY2011 operating plan is found at
http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ob/docbudget/2011operatingplan_nih.pdf.
c. The FY2011 request amount for Buildings & Facilities was reduced by $103 million, from $126 million to
$23 million, on August 20, 2010. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/
budget_amendments/amendment_08_20_10_0.pdf.
d. NIAID totals include funds for transfer to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria
($300 million in FY2010 and FY2011).
e. Separate account in the Interior/Environment appropriations for NIEHS research activities related to
Superfund.
Congressional Research Service
24
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
f.
Mandatory funds available to NIDDK for Type 1 diabetes research under PHS Act § 330B (provided
through P.L. 110-275 and P.L. 111-309). Funds have been appropriated through FY2013.
g. Additional funds for NLM from PHS Evaluation Set-Aside (§ 241 of PHS Act).
Department of Energy39
The Administration requested $12.797 billion for Department of Energy (DOE) R&D and related
programs in FY2011, including activities in three major categories: science, national security, and
energy. This request was 7.2% more than the FY2010 appropriation of $11.941 billion. It is not
yet possible to identify the enacted FY2011 appropriation for DOE R&D, because several
categories of DOE R&D are funded from appropriations accounts that also include non-R&D
activities, and P.L. 112-10 did not specify how funds should be allocated within accounts. When
sub-account allocations become available, this section will be updated. (See Table 10 for details.)
The request for the DOE Office of Science was $5.121 billion, an increase of 4.4% from the
FY2010 appropriation of $4.904 billion. The Administration’s stated goal is to double the funding
of the Office of Science. This continues a plan initiated by the Bush Administration in January
2006. The original target under both Administrations was to achieve the doubling goal in the
decade from FY2006 to FY2016. The current policy no longer specifies a completion date. The
4.4% increase requested for FY2011 was less than the 7.2% annual growth rate required to
achieve a doubling in 10 years. The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-
358) authorized $5.247 billion for the Office of Science in FY2011. The enacted FY2011
appropriation was $4.843 billion.
The Administration’s budget request proposed increases for most of the research programs of the
Office of Science. The largest was for basic energy sciences. Among other changes, the request
for this program included $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.40 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.”41 The request tripled funding for Office of Science graduate
fellowships to $15 million. In fusion energy sciences, it proposed decreasing the U.S.
contribution to International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) from $135 million in
FY2010 to $80 million in FY2011 because of delays in the construction schedule. The current
estimate for ITER’s total project cost remains between $1.45 billion and $2.2 billion. Despite a
slip of several years in the expected start-up date for ITER, DOE stated in February 2011 that
“the costs associated with the schedule delays to date ... are manageable within the existing ...
cost range.”42 Damage to component test facilities in Japan, however, caused by the Fukushima
earthquake and tsunami in March 2011, may result in additional delays.43 The enacted FY2011
39 This section was written by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
40 Previously, the fuels from sunlight hub was funded by the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
41 DOE FY2011 budget justification, vol. 4, p. 86.
42 DOE FY2012 congressional budget justification, vol. 4, p. 234.
43 Geoff Brumfiel, “Japan Quake Rocks Fusion Project: Damaged Facilities Force Further Delay to ITER Experiment,”
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
25
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
appropriation for the Office of Science did not specify how funds should be allocated among
these various programs.
The request for DOE national security R&D was $3.850 billion, a 10.6% increase from $3.481
billion in FY2010. The request included a proposed increase of $58 million in funding for
experiments and analysis in support of advanced certification of nuclear weapons. It proposed an
increase of $125 million for the naval reactors program, to 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. It included an increase of $34 million for
nonproliferation and verification R&D to support testing and evaluation of new technologies for
treaty monitoring. Because of the lack of allocation below the account level, it is not yet possible
to identify the enacted FY2011 appropriation for DOE national security R&D. Enacted levels for
some programs are shown in Table 10.
The request for DOE energy R&D was $3.825 billion, up 7.6% from $3.556 billion in FY2010. In
the energy efficiency and renewable energy program, requested changes included a $98 million
increase for solar and wind energy; a $37 million increase for energy efficiency; a $37 million
decrease for hydrogen and fuel cell technologies; and $50 million for the RE-ENERGYSE
program on education and workforce development in energy science and engineering, for which
Congress appropriated no funds in FY2010. The request included an increase of $37 million for
nuclear energy and proposed to restructure the program to focus more on long-term R&D rather
than short-term demonstration projects. In fossil energy R&D, the request provided no funds for
natural gas technologies or unconventional fossil energy technologies; DOE budget documents
described this proposal as “consistent with Administration policy to phase out fossil fuel
subsidies.”44 Because of the lack of allocation below the account level, it is not yet possible to
identify the enacted FY2011 appropriation for DOE energy R&D. Enacted levels for some
programs are shown in Table 10.
The Administration requested $300 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy
(ARPA-E). This agency received no appropriation for FY2010. The bulk of its prior funding was
provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5).45 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.”46 The enacted FY2011 appropriation for ARPA-E was $180 million.
(...continued)
Nature, May 31, 2011.
44 DOE FY2011 budget justification, vol. 3, pp. 701 and 710.
45 For more information on ARPA-E, see CRS Report RL34497, Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy
(ARPA-E): Background, Status, and Selected Issues for Congress, by Deborah D. Stine.
46 H.Rept. 111-203, p. 120.
Congressional Research Service
26
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Table 10. Department of Energy R&D and Related Programs
($ in millions)
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
Enacted
Request
Enacted
Science
4,904 5,121 4,843
Basic
Energy
Sciences
1,636
1,835
n/a
High
Energy
Physics
810
829
n/a
Biological and Environmental Research
604
627
n/a
Nuclear
Physics
535
562
n/a
Fusion Energy Sciences
426
380
n/a
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
394
426
n/a
Other
499
462
n/a
National Security
3,481
3,850
n/a
Weapons
Activitiesa 2,198
2,395
n/a
Naval
Reactors
945
1,070
959
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
317
352
n/a
Def. Envtal. Cleanup Technology Devel.
20
32
n/a
Energy 3,556
3,825
n/a
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energyb 1,973
1,970
n/a
Fossil Energy R&D
672
587
445
Nuclear
Energy
787 824 726
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability R&D
125
144
n/a
Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy
0
300
180
Total 11,941
12,797
n/a
Source: DOE FY2011 budget justification, online at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/11budget/, and P.L. 112-10.
Notes: Some FY2011 enacted amounts are not available (n/a) because P.L. 112-10 did not specify the al ocation
of funds below the appropriations account level.
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.
Congressional Research Service
27
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
National Science Foundation47
The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports basic research and education in the non-medical
sciences and engineering. Congress established the Foundation as an independent federal agency
in 1950 and directed it to “promote the progress of science; to advance the national health,
prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.”48 The NSF is a
primary source of federal support for U.S. university research. It is also responsible for significant
shares of the federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education
program portfolio and federal STEM student aid and support.49
The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10)
provides a total of $6.860 billion for NSF.50 This amount is $112.3 million or 1.6% less than the
FY2010 actual level of $6.927 billion51 and $564.5 million or 7.6% less than the President’s
FY2011 request of $7.424 billion. (See Table 11.)
At the time it was released, the President’s FY2011 request for increased funding at the NSF was
part of an ongoing effort to double funding for the NSF, NIST laboratories and construction
accounts, and the DOE Office of Science (collectively, the “target accounts”).52 The status of the
doubling path policy for NSF and the other targeted accounts is now uncertain. FY2011 enacted
funding for the target accounts was below authorized levels and set a pace for a 15-year
doubling—more than twice the length of time originally envisioned in the America COMPETES
Act and about a third longer than the pace set by the 2010 reauthorization.
Further, it is unclear whether the Obama Administration still intends to support doubling of the
target accounts. The FY2011 version of the President’s Plan for Science and Innovation set an 11-
year doubling path.53 However, following enactment of the 2011 budget, White House
Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer stated on The White House Blog,
47 This section was written by Heather B. Gonzalez and Christine M. Matthews, Specialists in Science and Technology
Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
48 The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-507), Purpose.
49 For more information on the NSF, see CRS Report 95-307, U.S. National Science Foundation: An Overview, by
Christine M. Matthews.
50 This amount includes the across-the-board rescission from P.L. 112-10, Section 1119; funding levels from P.L. 112-
10, Sections 1317 and 1318; and FY2010 enacted levels from P.L. 111-117 for MREFC, AOAM, NSB, and the OIG as
per P.L. 112-10, Section 1101.
51 The FY2010 amount includes a one-time transfer of $54.0 million to U.S. Coast Guard per P.L. 111-117.
52 In 2006, President George W. Bush proposed a 10-year doubling for the target accounts as part of his American
Competitiveness Initiative. In 2007, under the American COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69), Congress authorized funding
for these accounts for fiscal years 2008-2010 and set a more aggressive seven-year doubling pace. Actual
appropriations for target accounts during this period, however, were generally lower than authorized under P.L. 110-69.
In December 2010, the 111th Congress passed the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358).
The new law sets authorization levels for fiscal years 2011-2013 consistent with an 11-year doubling from the FY2006
baseline.
53 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 2012 Budget,” press release, February, 14, 2011,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY12-doubling-fs.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
28
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Even though we will no longer double the funding of key research and development
agencies, you will still see strong investments in National Institute of Standards and
Technology, National Science Foundation and the [DOE] Office of Science.54
The NSF organizes its budget into six major accounts: Research and Related Activities (R&RA),
Education and Human Resources (EHR), Major Research Equipment & Facilities Construction
(MREFC), Agency Operations and Award Management (AOAM), Office of the Inspector General
(OIG), and the National Science Board (NSB).55 The R&RA, EHR, and MREFC accounts
represent the core of the NSF’s research and education program activities and funding.
The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10)
appropriates to NSF at the major account level. Accordingly, information below the major
account level is not available for comparison or analysis. However, Section 1322 of P.L. 112-10
directs the NSF to prepare a spending plan and submit it to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations within 60 days of enactment. Such a spending plan may provide budgetary
information below the major account level for FY2011. This section will be updated as additional
information becomes available.
The FY2011 enacted level for R&RA is $5.564 billion, $51.5 million or 0.9% below the FY2010
actual level of $5.615 billion and $455.0 million or 7.6% below the President’s FY2011 budget
request of $6.019 billion. R&RA primarily supports basic research. Typically the Mathematics
and Physical Sciences Directorate receives the most funding in R&RA—about a quarter ($1.410
billion) of the FY2011 request would have gone to this directorate. The R&RA directorate with
the largest annual percentage increase in the FY2011 request—over the FY2010 estimate—was
the Office of Polar Programs at 17.0% ($528.0 million total).
Most R&RA funds are distributed through a merit-based, peer review system to U.S. colleges and
universities. Questions about NSF’s research-related activities include whether NSF-supported
research is sufficiently high-risk, whether the peer review process favors certain institutions or
investigators, whether the Foundation receives enough funding to support the number of
competitive proposals it receives, and whether there is appropriate balance between basic and
applied research in the NSF portfolio. Congress has responded to these questions in a variety of
ways. These include directing NSF to pursue high-risk, high-reward basic research and research
in particular fields, such as climate change.56 Similarly, Congress established the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research program (EPSCoR, $154.4 million in FY2011
request) in response to concerns about the geographic distribution of NSF’s research grants.57
54 Dan Pfeiffer, The White House Blog, “Details of the Bipartisan Budget Deal,” April 9, 2011,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/09/details-bipartisan-budget-deal.
55 Although these accounts exist in isolation in standard budget tables, funds from different accounts may be merged at
the program level and in many cases NSF’s education, facilities, and research activities are deeply integrated as a
matter of practice.
56 Congress has directed the NSF to increase its high-risk, high-reward investments in both statutory and appropriations
authorizations acts. For example, see U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, Departments of Transportation, Housing
and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, conference report to accompany H.R. 3288,
111th Cong., 1st Sess., H.Rept. 111-366 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2009), p. 766. H.R. 3288 became the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-117).
57 For more information, see CRS Report RL30930, U.S. National Science Foundation: Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), by Christine M. Matthews.
Congressional Research Service
29
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
The NSF asserts that international research partnerships are critical to maintaining a competitive
advantage, 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). OISE serves as a liaison with research institutes and foreign agencies, and
facilitates coordination and implementation of NSF research and education efforts.
The FY2011 request for NSF also supported several interagency R&D priorities, including the
National Nanotechnology Initiative ($401.3 million), 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 FY2011 enacted funding level for EHR is $861.0 million.58 This amount is $11.7 million or
1.3% less than the FY2010 actual level of $872.8 million and $31.0 million or 3.5% less than the
President’s FY2011 request of $892.0 million. The President’s FY2011 EHR budget request
included $107.6 million in support of its goal of tripling the number of new Graduate Research
Fellowship program awardees by FY2013.59 Other FY2011 requests for EHR programs included
Discovery Research K-12 ($118.7 million), Mathematics and Science Partnership ($58.2 million),
Robert Noyce Scholarship Program ($55.0 million), Integrative Graduate Education and Research
Traineeship ($29.5 million),60 and Informal Science Education ($64.4 million).
NSF’s FY2011 budget request proposed a realignment of the Foundation’s minority-serving
institution (MSIs) programs (e.g., Historically Black Colleges and Universities—Undergraduate
Program). NSF’s MSI programs include both educational and R&D components.61 Under the
Administration’s proposal, NSF’s different MSI programs would have been consolidated into the
Comprehensive Broadening Participation of Undergraduates (CBPU) in STEM program.
Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) would have been eligible for CBPU funds.62 The FY2011
request for the consolidated program was $103.1 million, $13.0 million more than combined
funding for NSF’s MSI programs in FY2010 (estimated). Some analysts objected to this change
and argued for keeping NSF’s MSI programs as separate programs, noting that MSIs serve
different populations with different needs. However, keeping the programs separate might result
in less availability of funds for HSIs because NSF has not established, and Congress has not
specifically appropriated funds for, a separate HSI program at the Foundation.63 Congressional
58 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. Among the questions raised about NSF’s STEM education programs are
those that center on how to evaluate program effectiveness or respond to student achievement gaps; on coordination of
and funding levels for the federal STEM education effort; and on support for STEM students and STEM education
programs at minority-serving institutions (MSIs) of higher education.
59 The Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) program also receives funds from other NSF accounts. The total
Administration Request for GRF in FY2011 was $158.2 million.
60 The Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) also receives R&RA funds. The FY2011
request for IGERT included $29.5 million from EHR and $32.3 million from R&RA, for a total of $61.8 million.
61 For example, the HBCU program offers Research Initiation Awards (RIA) for HBCU faculty in STEM fields. RIA
awards, “are intended to help further the faculty member’s research capability and effectiveness, to improve research
and teaching at his or her home institution, and to involve undergraduate students in research experiences.” National
Science Foundation, “Historically Black Colleges and Universities-Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP)” National
Science Foundation Website, January 6, 2011, http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5481.
62 Of NSF’s MSI programs, HSIs may only apply for the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation program.
Under the CBPU, HSIs would have also been eligible for funds now reserved for other MSIs.
63 Sec. 7033 of the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) directed the NSF to establish a program for HSIs.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
30
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
appropriators and authorizers rejected the Administration’s FY2011 request to consolidate NSF’s
MSI programs.64
The FY2011 enacted level for MREFC is $117.1 million. This amount is $48.8 million or 29.4%
less that the FY2010 actual level of $165.9 and $48.1 million or 29.1% less than the President’s
FY2011 request for $165.2 million. In its FY2011 budget request, NSF anticipated construction
of the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON, $20.0 million)65 and sought continued
support for 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).
MREFC funds the acquisition and construction of major research facilities and equipment that
support research intended to extend the boundaries of science, engineering, and technology. 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 requires
MREFC projects to have “the potential to shift the paradigm in scientific understanding and/or
infrastructure technology.”66 There has been considerable debate in the academic and scientific
communities and in Congress about the management and oversight of major MREFC projects and
the prioritization of potential projects. One continuing question has focused on the process for
including major projects in the upcoming budget cycle. In a management report on major
projects, NSF contended that because of the changing nature of science and technology, it is
necessary to have the flexibility to reconsider facilities at the various stages of development.67 In
addition, NSF asserts that it must be able to respond effectively to possible changes in
interagency participation, international and cooperative agreements, or co-funding for major
facilities. NSF maintains that while some concepts may evolve into major research projects,
others may prove infeasible for project support.
FY2011 enacted appropriations for the AOAM, NSB, and OIG accounts are the same as FY2010
levels, less the 0.2% rescission. The FY2011 enacted funding levels for AOAM, NSB, and OIG
are $299.4 million, $4.5 million, and $14.0 million, respectively. These amounts are $29.3, $.5,
and $.4 million less than the Administration’s FY2011 request.
Table 11. National Science Foundation
(in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
Actuala
Request
Enactedb
Biological Sciences
714.8
767.8
(...continued)
However, the Foundation has not yet done so.
64 See Senate Committee on Appropriations, Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2011, 111th Congress, 2nd Sess., Report to accompany S. 3636, S.Rept. 111-229, July 22,
2010, p. 138; and, Sec. 512 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358).
65 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.
66 National Science Foundation: FY2011 Budget Request to Congress, February 1, 2010.
67 See, for example, National Science Foundation, Large Facilities Manual, NSF10-4, September 2009, 66 pp.
Congressional Research Service
31
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
Actuala
Request
Enactedb
Computer & Information Sci. & Eng.
618.7
684.5
Engineering 775.9
825.7
Geosciences 891.9
955.3
Math & Physical Sciences
1,368.0
1,409.9
Social, Behavioral, & Economic Sciences
255.3
268.8
Office of Cyberinfrastructure
214.7
228.1
Office of International Sci. & Eng.
47.8
53.3
U.S. Polar Programs
451.8
528.0
Integrative Activities
274.9
295.9
U.S. Arctic Research Comm.
1.6
1.6
Subtotal Res. & Rel. Act
5,615.3
6,018.8
5,563.9
Education & Human Resources
872.8
892.0
861.0
Major Research Equipment & Facilities Construction 165.9
165.2 117.1
Agency Operations & Award Management
299.9
329.2
299.4
National Science Board
4.4
4.8
4.5
Office of Inspector General
14.0
14.4
14.0
Total NSFc
6,972.2 7,424.4 6,859.9
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 and $600.2 million in America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5) funds.
b. P.L. 112-10 appropriates to NSF at the major account level and directs the Foundation to prepare additional
budgetary information within 60 days of enactment.
c. The totals do not include carryovers or retirement accruals. Totals may not add due to rounding.
Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology68
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.
68 This section was written by Wendy H. Schacht, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
32
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
The final FY2011 appropriations legislation, P.L. 112-10, funds NIST at $750.1 million, 12.4%
below the FY2010 appropriation of $856.6 million and 18.4% below the President’s budget
request of $918.9 million. Support for primarily in-house R&D under the Scientific and Technical
Research and Services (STRS) account (including the Baldrige National Quality Program) totals
$507.0 million, 1.6% less than the FY2010 figure of $515.0 million and 13.3% less than the
$584.5 million the Administration proposed. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)
program receives $128.4 million, 3.0% more than the FY2010 appropriation of $124.7 million
and 1.0% below the Administration’s budget proposal figure of $129.7 million. The $44.8 million
for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) represents a decrease of 35.9% from the $69.9
million appropriated in FY2010 and is 43.9% less than the $79.9 million the President requested.
The construction budget declines 52.4% from FY2010 funding of $147.0 million to $69.9 million
and is 44.0% below the Administration’s proposal of $124.8 million. (See Table 12.)
Continued support for NIST extramural programs—currently the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership and the Technology Investment Program—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 Advanced Technology Program (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.69
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, President Obama stated his decision to
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.70
Table 12. NIST
(in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2011
(P.L. 111-
(P.L. 112-
NIST
117)
FY2011
10)
Program
Enacted
Request
Enacted
STRSa
515.0 584.5 507.0
69 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.
70 For additional information on NIST, see CRS Report 95-30, The National Institute of Standards and Technology: An
Appropriations Overview.
Congressional Research Service
33
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
(P.L. 111-
(P.L. 112-
NIST
117)
FY2011
10)
Program
Enacted
Request
Enacted
TIP
69.9
79.9
44.8
MEP 124.7
129.7
128.4
Construction 147.0 124.8
69.9
NIST Totalb
856.6 918.9 750.1
Sources: NIST website (available at http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/budget.htm), P.L. 111-117, P.L. 112-10,
and Administration’s Budget Request.
a. Includes funding for the Baldrige National Quality Program.
b. Figures may not add up because of rounding.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration71
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. 4.72 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 requested $734.0 million in R&D
funding for NOAA, a 7.2% increase in funding from the FY2010 level of $684.7 million. R&D
accounted for 13.2% of NOAA’s total FY2011 discretionary budget request of $5.543.5 billion.
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. The FY2011 request would have provided
OAR with $430.1 million for R&D, 58.6% of the total NOAA FY2011 R&D request and 92.5%
of the total OAR request. The OAR request would have been a 6.1% increase from the FY2010
appropriation of $405.5 million. The OAR R&D FY2011 request included $77.1 million for R&D
equipment. Table 13 provides FY2010 enacted and FY2011 requested R&D funding levels for
other NOAA line offices. At this time NOAA R&D funding in the FY2011 enacted (P.L. 112-10)
NOAA budget are not available. NOAA funding for FY2011 has only been identified at the
account level while NOAA R&D funding is for specific activities or programs. NOAA budget
71 This section was written by Harold F. Upton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
72 “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
34
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
totals for FY2010 enacted, FY2011 requested, and FY2011 enacted are included in Table 13 to
provide context in lieu of R&D FY2011 enacted funding levels.
R&D activities highlighted by NOAA included 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.73
Table 13. NOAA R&D
(in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
NOAA Line Office
Actual
Request
Enacted
NOS 71.9
80.8
NMFS 54.6
69.2
OAR
405.5
430.1
NWS 41.2
27.0
NESDISa 25.7
37.8
OMAO
85.8
89.1
Total R&D
684.7
734.0
Total NOAA
4,737.5
5,543.5
4,586.0
Sources: Emily Larkin, NOAA Budget Office, personal communication, February 23, 2010.
Note: 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).
a. NOAA at the direction of OMB, is no longer including four Joint Polar Satellite System (formerly NPOESS)
sensors in NESDIS R&D.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration74
The Administration requested $16.190 billion for NASA R&D in FY2011. This amount was
18.3% more than the $13.687 billion appropriated for FY2010. The NASA Authorization Act of
2010 (P.L. 111-267) authorized FY2011 R&D funding of $15.429 billion. The final FY2011
appropriation was $14.863 billion. (See Table 14.) The greater share of NASA’s budget devoted
to R&D in FY2011, relative to FY2010, results primarily from the planned retirement of the
space shuttle, which is considered an operational program, not R&D.
For several years, budget priorities throughout NASA were driven by the Vision for Space
Exploration. The Vision was announced by President Bush in January 2004 and endorsed by
73 Ibid.
74 This section was written by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
35
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
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 was to return humans to the
Moon by 2020. To implement this goal, NASA’s Constellation Systems program initiated
development of the Orion crew vehicle and 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. In 2009, the Augustine committee conducted an independent review
of NASA’s human spaceflight activities.75 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 FY2011 request for Exploration, the account that funded Constellation
Systems, was $4.263 billion, a 12.8% increase from $3.780 billion in FY2010. But the request
proposed to end Constellation Systems and cancel the goal of returning humans to the Moon.
Instead of Orion and Ares I, the Administration proposed $812 million to spur development of
commercial crew transport services to low Earth orbit. Instead of Ares V and the lunar systems, it
proposed $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 resource
production. In the 2010 authorization act, Congress agreed to support commercial services for
crew access to low Earth orbit, but it directed NASA to develop spacecraft for human exploration
beyond Earth orbit—a Multipurpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and a heavy-lift launch vehicle called
the Space Launch System (SLS)—not just technology to enable such missions. The final FY2011
appropriation for Exploration was $3.801 billion, including funds for the MPCV and SLS; the act
did not specify whether this total also included funds for commercial crew development.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117) prohibited 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.76
Some analysts and policy makers expressed concern that NASA contracting decisions and other
actions during FY2010 were in violation of the appropriations provision.77 NASA officials replied
that they were continuing the Constellation program during FY2010 in full compliance with the
law, even though they intended to terminate the program in FY2011. During the first half of
FY2011, the restriction on terminating Constellation remained, as NASA operated under a series
of continuing resolutions. The restriction was lifted in the final appropriation.
The requested $5.006 billion for Science in FY2011 was 11.4% more than the FY2010 funding of
$4.493 billion. The largest proposed increase was for Earth science. This included $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.78 The authorization act matched the Administration’s request. The final appropriation was
75 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.
76 P.L. 111-117, Division B, Title III.
77 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.
78 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
36
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
$4.935 billion; it did not specify how that amount should be allocated among Earth science and
other activities.
The Administration proposed $572 million in FY2011 for a new Space Technology program. 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
authorization act authorized $350 million for Space Technology. The final appropriation did not
include a new account for Space Technology, but because some of the activities to be included in
the program were previously funded by other accounts, it is possible that they could continue to
be funded by those accounts in FY2011.
The Administration’s budget proposed extending operation of the International Space Station
(ISS) to at least 2020 and requested increased funding to promote utilization of the existing ISS
national laboratory by paying the launch costs of non-NASA users. The authorization act
supported the extension of operations and authorized funding at the requested level. The final
appropriation did not specify how much of the Space Operations account should be devoted to the
ISS, but its funding for Space Operations overall was nearly the same as the Administration’s
request. The first commercial cargo flights to resupply the ISS are scheduled during FY2011.
Table 14. NASA R&D
(in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
Enacted
Request
Auth.
Enacted
Science
$4,493 $5,006 $5,006 $4,935
Earth Science
1,421
1,802
1,802
n/aa
Planetary Science
1,341
1,486
1,486
n/aa
Astrophysics 1,104
1,076
1,076
n/aa
Heliophysics 627
642
642
n/aa
Aeronautics
507 580 580 534
Space Technology
—
572
350
—
Exploration
3,780 4,263 3,868 3,801
Constellation
Systems
3,325 — — —
Advanced Capabilities
454 — — —
Constellation Transition
—
1,900
—
—
Commercial Spaceflight
—
812
—
—
Exploration R&D
—
1,551
—
—
Multipurpose
Crew
Vehicle
—
— 1,120 1,198b
Space Launch System/Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle
—
—
1,631
1,796b
Other —
—
1,117
807
International Space Station
2,317
2,780
2,780
2,774c
Subtotal
R&D
11,097 13,201 12,583 12,044
Other NASA Programsd
4,084 2,291 2,912 2,905c
Congressional Research Service
37
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
Enacted
Request
Auth.
Enacted
Cross-Agency Supporte
3,095 3,111 3,111 3,105
Associated
with
R&D
2,262 2,651 2,526 2,502
Associated
with
Other
833 460 585 603
Construction & Environmental Compliance & Remediatione
448 397 394 394
Associated
with
R&D
328 339 320 317
Associated
with
Other
121 59 74 77
Total
R&D
13,687 16,190 15,429 14,863
Total
NASA
18,724 19,000 19,000 18,448
Source: FY2010 enacted and FY2011 request from NASA’s FY2011 congressional budget justification, online at
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/. FY2011 authorized from P.L. 111-267. FY2011 enacted from P.L. 112-10.
Notes: n/a = not available.
a. P.L. 112-10 does not specify how much of the FY2011 enacted amount for Science is for each category
within the account.
b. In P.L. 112-10, the FY2011 enacted amounts for Multipurpose Crew Vehicle and Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle
are “not less than” the amounts shown here.
c. Estimated by CRS. P.L. 112-10 does not specify how much of the FY2011 enacted amount for Space
Operations is for International Space Station, Space Shuttle, and Space and Flight Support.
d. Space Shuttle, Space and Flight Support, Education, and Inspector General.
e. Al ocation between R&D and non-R&D is estimated by CRS in proportion to the underlying program
amounts in order to al ow calculation of a total for R&D. The Cross-Agency Support and Construction and
Environmental Compliance and Remediation accounts consist mostly of indirect costs for other programs
assessed in proportion to their direct costs.
Department of Agriculture79
The FY2011 appropriation for research and education activities in the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) is $2.592 billion, a decrease of $403.5 million (approximately 13.5%) from
the FY2010 level of $2.995 billion. (See Table 15.) 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 $1.135 billion for ARS, $58.5 million below the FY2010
level. In ARS, the Administration had proposed 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 Administration had proposed an increase of $3.0 million for improved animal
79 This section was written by Christine M. Matthews, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
38
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
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 targeted for
research to safeguard food supply by developing and validating sensing technologies for
pathogens, toxins, and chemical residues. Neither the Administration nor committee action
designated any amounts for buildings and facilities in FY2011 for the ARS. However, $1.8
million has been set aside 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
FY2011, NIFA will be 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.”80 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 appropriation provides $1.217 billion
for NIFA, a decrease of $268.8 million from the FY2010 level. The NIFA FY2011 appropriation
included the proposed elimination of $141.0 million in congressional add-ons. Funding for
formula distribution in FY2011 to the state Agricultural Experiment Stations has been set at
$236.8 million, $21.8 million above the FY2010 level. One of the primary goals of the
President’s FY2011 NIFA appropriation has been to emphasize and prioritize competitive, peer-
reviewed allocation of research funding. Programs are to be designed 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 has been given for a competitive
program directed at developing training and expanding use of web-based and other technology
applications. Funding has been 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 FY2011 has been 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 appropriation has
provided $265.0 million for AFRI, $3.0 million above FY2010. In addition to supporting
fundamental and applied science in agriculture, USDA has maintained 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 has
been to provide increased opportunities for minority and under-served communities in
agricultural science. AFRI funding has been directed at research involved in developing
alternative methods of biological and chemical conversion of biomass, and research on the impact
80 U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture FY2011 Budget Summary and Annual Performance,
February 2010, p. 116.
Congressional Research Service
39
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
of a renewable fuels industry on the economic and social dynamics of rural communities. The
Administration had proposed support for initiatives in agricultural genomics, emerging issues in
food and agricultural security, the ecology and economics of biological invasions, and plant
biotechnology. Research has also been designed that extends beyond water quality issues to
include water availability, reuse, and conservation.
The FY2011 appropriation for USDA has provided $82.0 million for the Economic Research
Service (ERS), level with FY2010. 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), at $156.8 million in FY2011, is $5.2 million
below the FY2010 level. The appropriation has provided 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 has allowed 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 has been provided to
support the second year of the 2012 Census of Agriculture’s five year cycle. Data from the
Census of Agriculture are 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.
Table 15. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D
(in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
Actual
Request
Enactedd
Agricultural Research Service
Product Quality/Value Added
$105.0
113.0
Livestock Production
81.0
85.0
Crop Production
234.0
220.0
Food Safety
108.0
114.0
Livestock Protection
79.0
83.0
Crop Protection
203.0
213.0
Human Nutrition
86.0
91.0
Environmental Stewardship
202.0
240.0
National Agricultural Library
22.0
23.0
Repair, Maintenance, and Other
Programs 74.0
42.0
Subtotal 1,194.0
1,224.0
1,135.5
Buildings and Facilities
71.0
0.0
0.0
Total, ARS
1,265.0
1,224.0
1,135.5
Congressional Research Service
40
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
Actual
Request
Enactedd
National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA)a
Hatch Act Formula
215.0
215.0
236.8
Cooperative Forestry Research
29.0
29.0
33.0
Earmarked Projects and Grants
141.0
0.0
2.8
Agriculture & Food Research Initiative
262.0
428.8
265.0
Federal Administration
18.0
14.5
18.3
Higher Education Programsb
48.0 61.9 51.0
Other Programs
79.0
94.2
93.2
Total, Research and Education
Activitiesc 792.0
843.4
700.1
Extension Activities
Smith-Lever Sections 3b&c
298.0
297.5
295.0
Extension and Integrated Programs
49.0
42.7
28.6
1890 Colleges, Tuskegee, & West
Virginia State University Colleges
91.0
44.4
66.2
Other Extension Programs
57.0
94.6
90.3
Total, Extension Activities
495.0
479.2
480.1
Integrated Activities
60.0
24.9
37.0
Mandatory Programs
139.0
152.9
0.0
Total, NIFAc 1,486.0
1,500.3
1,217.2
Economic Research Service
82.0
87.2
82.0
National Agricultural Statistics Service
162.0
164.7
156.8
Total, Research, Education, and
Economics 2,995.0
2,976.2
2,591.5
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. Formerly CSREES. NIFA was established in Title VII of the 2008 Farm Bill.
b. 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.
c. Program totals may or may not include set-asides (non-add) or contingencies .
d. FY2011 enacted program levels may change as they are in the process of being set following discussions
with USDA and the Office of Management and Budget. (Per telephone conversation with USDA budget
analyst, May 3, 2011). Please see P.L. 112-10 (H.R. 1473), The Department of Defense and Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
41
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Department of the Interior81
President Obama 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 16.)
The FY2011 appropriations process was completed with enactment of the Department of Defense
and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10), which included the Department
of the Interior and its agencies. At this time, it is possible only to estimate R&D funding for the
U.S. Geological Survey; funding for other DOI agencies will be included as additional
information becomes available.
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
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.
Under President Obama’s budget request, global climate change R&D received the largest boost
in the USGS R&D budget, rising $13.9 million (23.9%) to $72.1 million in FY2011.
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 proposed a $6.5
million increase (113.8%) to $53.7 million.
Funding for USGS geological resources R&D in the FY2011 request included $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,
including research on earthquakes and volcanoes. Enterprise Information conducts information
science research to enhance the National Map and National Spatial Data infrastructure.82
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 proposed 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 proposed 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,
81 This section was written by John F. Sargent, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
82 For additional information see CRS Report RL33861, Earthquakes: Risk, Detection, Warning, and Research, and
CRS Report R41826, Issues and Challenges for Federal Geospatial Information, both by Peter Folger.
Congressional Research Service
42
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
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 was 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 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 16.
On March 21, 2010, the Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010 (H.R. 4899), a FY2010
supplemental funding bill, was introduced in the House and was subsequently passed. The House-
passed version of H.R. 4899 did not appear to contain any funding for R&D or related activities.
On May 14, 2010, the Senate Committee on Appropriations adopted an amendment in the form of
a substitute and reported the bill, accompanied by S.Rept. 111-188. As reported, the Senate
version of H.R. 4899 was named the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010, and included
funding for a variety of agencies and purposes, including funding for R&D and related activities.
These additional funds included $29.0 million for the Department of the Interior for “increased
inspections, enforcement, investigations, environmental and engineering studies, and other
activities related to emergency offshore oil spill incidents in the Gulf of Mexico.” Neither the bill
nor S.Rept. 111-188 specified how much of these funds were to be used to fund R&D.
Table 16. Department of the Interior R&D
(in millions of dollars)
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
Estimated
Enacted
Request
(P.L. 112-10)
U.S. Geological Survey
660.6
679.2
644
Geographic research
47.2
53.7
a
Geological resources
222.0
227.2
a
Water resources
127.1
123.9
a
Biological research
204.9
201.3
a
Global change
58.2
72.1
a
Enterprise information
1.1
1.0
a
Bureau of Land Management
11.0
11.0
a
Bureau of Reclamation
12.8
15.2
a
Congressional Research Service
43
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
Estimated
Enacted
Request
(P.L. 112-10)
Minerals Management Service
44.9
46.2
a
National Park Service
35.3
35.5
a
Fish and Wildlife Service
20.8
25.8
a
Total, DOI R&Db 785.3
812.8
a
Source: CRS analysis of unpublished data provided to CRS by the Department of the Interior budget office,
March 4, 2010, unless otherwise noted.
a. R&D funding for these agencies cannot be determined from P.L. 112-10; R&D funding for these agencies will
be added to the table as additional information becomes available.
b. Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
Environmental Protection Agency83
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.
Title VII of Division B under P.L. 112-10, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011, provided $841.9 million (prior to the 0.2% across-the-board
rescission84), including transfers from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account for FY2011.
The total FY2011 enacted appropriations for the S&T account was $33.0 million (37.7%) below
the FY2010 appropriations of $874.9 million included in P.L. 111-8885 and supplemental funding
in P.L. 111-212.86 The President’s FY2011 budget request included $871.2 million for the EPA
S&T account (including transfers). The FY2011 appropriations included in P.L. 112-10 for the
EPA’s S&T account represented 9.7% of the total $8.70 billion provided for the agency overall for
FY2011. As indicated in Table 17 below, the $26.8 million transferred from the Superfund
83 This section was written by Robert Esworthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
84 P.L. 112-10, Section 1119, Title I, Div. B.
85 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.
86 Title II of P.L. 111-212, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010, signed into law July 29, 2010, provided
additional supplemental FY2010 appropriations for oil spill response and recovery efforts in the Gulf of Mexico
associated with the Deepwater Horizon incident. Of these funds in Title II, $2.0 million was provided for EPA within
the S&T account, as requested by the Administration, for research of the potential long-term human and environmental
risks and impacts from the releases of crude oil, and the application of chemical dispersants and other measures to
mitigate these releases.
Congressional Research Service
44
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
account into the S&T account for FY2011 is the same as FY2010,87 and $2.3 million more than
the $24.5 million proposed in the FY2011 request. FY2011 funding for EPA’s S&T program
activities were not specified at the sub-account level in P.L. 112-10. Within 30 days of April 15,
2011, enactment of P.L. 112-10, EPA and other departments and agencies included under Title VII
of Division B must submit spending, expenditures, or operating plans at a level below the account
level to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate.88 In addition in to the
proposed reduction in the transfer, the FY2011 requested base amount for the S&T account
included both increases and decreases of varying levels for the individual EPA research program
and activity line items identified within the account when compared with the enacted FY2010
appropriations.89 For some activities, the amount requested for FY2011 remained relatively flat
compared to the prior year appropriation.
Examples of programmatic areas within EPA’s S&T appropriations account for which increases
were requested for FY2011 included 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 was $7.8 million above the FY2010 level. Requested funding within this program area
included $17.3 million for the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) fellowships, a $6.4 million
(nearly 60%) increase above FY2010 appropriations; $17.4 million for Endocrine Disruptor
Research, a $6.0 million increase; and $21.9 million for Computational Toxicology research, a
$2.1 million increase. The total within this program activity also included $80.1 million for
Human Health Research, $3.9 million 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.90 The $51.3 million requested for FY2011
was nearly $15.0 million (22.6%) below the FY2010 appropriation of $66.3 million.
The activities typically 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.
87 P.L. 112-10 did not specify the amount to be transferred to the S&T account from the Hazardous Substance
Superfund account. For EPA, under general provisions Sec. 1101(a)(4) and Sec. 1104 in Title I of Division B in P.L.
112-10, unless otherwise expressly provided in Division B of the act, “… requirements, authorities, conditions,
limitations, and other provisions…” in P.L. 111-88, Division A, “…shall continue….”
88 P.L. 112-10, Section 1768, Title VII, Div. B.
89 See EPA’s FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification: Science and Technology,
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/.
90 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.
Congressional Research Service
45
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
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 FY1996.91 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) reports92 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
account. (BA as reported by OMB is included in Table 17 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 ranged from 8% to 11%
of the total S&T account for the FY2008-FY2010 enacted 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 17. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account
(in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2010
FY2011
Environmental Protection
Enacted
Supplemental
FY2011
Enacted
Agency
(P.L. 111-88)
(P.L. 111-212)
Request
(P.L. 112-10)
Science and Technology
91 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.
92 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.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/
index.html.
Congressional Research Service
46
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
FY2010
FY2010
FY2011
Environmental Protection
Enacted
Supplemental
FY2011
Enacted
Agency
(P.L. 111-88)
(P.L. 111-212)
Request
(P.L. 112-10)
Appropriations Account
—Base Appropriations
$846.1
$2.0
$846.7
$815.1
—Transfer in from Hazardous
Substance Superfund Account
$26.8 N/A
$24.5
$26.8
(FY2010 level)
Total Science and
Technology
$872.9
$2.0
$871.2
$841.9
R&D Budget Authority
Report by OMB
$622.0 est.
N/A
$651.0 est.
N/A
Source: Prepared by CRS. The FY2010 appropriation are from the Conference Report (H.Rept. 111-316,
accompanying the FY2010 Interior, Environment and related Agencies appropriations (P.L. 111-88). FY2010
Supplemental amount is from P.L. 111-212, Title II. 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, and FY2011 enacted amounts are as specified in P.L. 112-10. OMB
Budget Authority estimates are as presented in Table 21-1 in Fiscal Year 2011 Budget of the United States:
Analytical Perspectives – Special Topics/Research and Development pgs. 342-343, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/
fy11/index.html.
Department of Transportation93
President Obama 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 18.) Two DOT
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 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 proposed changes in FAA
R&D funding were 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 included 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 included a reduction of $13.0 million
for advanced technology development and prototyping.94
93 This section was written by John F. Sargent, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
94 Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Budget Estimates Fiscal Year2011, February
2010.
Congressional Research Service
47
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
President Obama 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.95 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.96
On July 29, 2010, the House passed H.R. 5850, the Transportation, Housing, and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011. The act would have provided
R&D funding for DOT agencies of approximately $1,013.1 million, roughly equal to the FY2010
and request levels.
The 111th Congress did not complete action on the Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011, or any of the other FY2011
appropriations bills. In April 2011, the 112th Congress passed the Department of Defense and
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10) providing FY2011 funding for all
federal agencies, including the Department of Transportation. In general, the law appropriates
funds to the agencies at the FY2010 level unless otherwise specified. In particular, the law
reduces the FAA’s RE&D account by $20.5 million to $170 million in FY2011. This would
reduce total FAA funding from $412 million in FY2010 to approximately $391 million in
FY2011. The bill also reduces DOT’s Planning, Research and Development account by $6
million from its FY2010 funding level. The level of detail in the law, however, does not allow for
a complete assessment of how the specified changes will affect overall agency and departmental
R&D funding for FY2011. This report will be updated as more information becomes available
from the department, agencies, or Congressional committees. (See Table 18.)
95 Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Budget Estimates Fiscal Year2011, February
2010.
96 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
48
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2011
Table 18. Department of Transportation R&D
(in millions of dollars)
FY2011
FY2011
Enacted
FY2010
FY2011
House
Estimate
Estimate
Request
H.R. 5850
P.L. 112-10
Federal Highway
442.0a 442.0a 442.0
b
Administration
Federal Aviation
411.6c 400.4c 408.4 391
Administration
Other agenciesd 163.3 179.5
162.8
b
Total, DOT
1,016.9
1,021.9 1013.1
b
R&De
Source: DOT FY2011 agency budget justifications; unpublished tables provided by OMB to CRS in February
2010; private communications between OMB and CRS; H.R. 5850; and H.Rept. 111-564; and P.L. 112-10.
Notes: N/A = not available.
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. R&D funding cannot be determined from P.L. 112-10; figures for R&D funding for these agencies will be
added to the table as additional information becomes available.
c. 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.
d. “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.
e. 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
49