Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007

Federal Research and Development
Funding: FY2007
Updated March 13, 2007
Michael E. Davey (Coordinator)
Christine M. Matthews, John D. Moteff, Daniel Morgan,
and Wendy H. Schacht
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Pamela W. Smith
Domestic Social Policy Division
Wayne A. Morrissey
Knowledge Services Group

Federal Research and Development
Funding: FY2007
Summary
On February 15, 2007 President Bush signed into law P.L. 110-5 (H.J.Res 20),
which provides funding for the nine outstanding regular appropriations bills through
September 30, 2007.The 109^th Congress passed two appropriations bills, the
Department of Defense (P.L. 109-289, H.Rept. 109-676) and the Department of
Homeland Security (P.L. 109-295, H.Rept. 109-699). P.L. 110-5 will fund most
agencies at FY2006 levels through September 30, 2007. However, P.L. 110-5
contains some exceptions to those guidelines, including the centerpiece of the
President’s proposed FY2007 R&D budget, the American Competitiveness Initiative
(ACI). Agencies are required to report their estimated FY2007 R&D funding levels
to Congress by March 15, 2007.
The Bush Administration had requested $137.7 billion in federal research and
development (R&D) funding for FY2007. That sum represented a 2.4% increase over the
estimated $134.5 billion that was approved in FY2006. National Aeronautics and Space
Administration’s (NASA’s) space vehicles development program.
The centerpiece of the President’s proposed FY2007 R&D budget was the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). The President proposed this initiative in response to
growing concerns about America’s ability to compete in the technological global market
place. Over the next 10 years, the $136 billion initiative would have committed $50
billion for research, science education, and the modernization of research infrastructure.
The remaining $86 billion would have financed a revised permanent R&D tax incentive
over the next 10 years. The current Research and Experimental Federal tax credit expires
at the end of 2007.
As part of the $50 billion for research, the President called for doubling federal
R&D funding over10 years. That increase would have included the physical sciences and
engineering research in three agencies: the National Science Foundation (NSF), the
Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Science, and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). Based on P. L. 110-5, H.J.Res. 20, both the House
and Senate FY2007 appropriations actions would partially fund the President’s ACI
request. Based on House and Senate actions DOE's Office Science would would receive
$200 million of ACI funding, NSF $212 million, and NIST an estimated $37 million for
FY2007.
Despite the ACI proposal, total federal basic research funding for FY2007 would
have been flat at $28.2 billion (in real dollars). Five agencies accounted for 90% of all
federal basic research expenditures in FY2006. Total federal research funding (the sum
of basic and applied research) was projected to decline 2.6% in FY2007. That decline
was due to a 6.6% drop in applied research funding. The Department of Defense (P. L.
109-289) and the Department of Homeland Security (P .L. 109-295) are the only two
agencies that have enacted FY2007 appropriations bills.

Contents
Recent Developments.................................................1
Department of Agriculture (USDA)......................................2
Department of Energy (DOE)...........................................5
Department of Defense (DOD)..........................................7
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)....................11
National Institutes of Health (NIH)......................................13
National Science Foundation (NSF).....................................18
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) R&D............................21
Department of Commerce (DOC).......................................25
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)..............25
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)..................26
Department of Transportation (DOT)....................................29
Department of the Interior (DOI)........................................30
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).................................31
List of Tables
Table 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D.............................4
Table 2. Department of Energy R&D.....................................7
Table 3. Department of Defense RDT&E..................................9
Table 4. NASA R&D................................................12
Table 5. National Institutes of Health....................................17
Table 6. National Science Foundation...................................21
Table 7. Department of Homeland Security R&D..........................24
Table 8. NOAA R&D Estimates........................................26
Table 9. NIST......................................................29
Table 10. Department of Transportation R&D.............................29
Table 11. Department of Interior R&D...................................31
Table 12. Environmental Protection Agency.............................32

Federal Research and Development
Funding: FY2007
Recent Developments
On February 15, 2007 President Bush signed into law P.L. 110-5 (H.J.Res 20), which
provides funding for the nine outstanding regular appropriations bills through September^th
30, 2007.The 109 Congress passed two appropriations bills, the Department of Defense
(P.L. 109-289, H.Rept. 109-676) and the Department of Homeland Security (P.L. 109-
295, H.Rept. 109-699). P.L. 110-5 will fund most agencies at FY2006 levels through
September 30, 2007. However, P.L. 110-5 contains some exceptions to those guidelines,
including the centerpiece of the President’s proposed FY2007 R&D budget, the
American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). Agencies are required to report their
estimated FY2007 R&D funding levels to Congress by March 15, 2007.
The Bush Administration had requested $137.7 billion in federal research and
development (R&D) funding for FY2007. That sum represented a 2.4% increase over the
estimated $134.5 billion that was approved in FY2006. As in the recent past, the FY2007
increase over the FY2006 estimated funding levels was due to significant funding
increases for the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration’s (NASA’s) space vehicles development program.
The centerpiece of the President’s proposed FY2007 R&D budget was the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). The President had proposed this initiative in response
to growing concerns about America’s ability to compete in the technological global
market place.¹ Over the next 10 years, the $136 billion initiative would commit $50
billion for research, science education, and the modernization of research infrastructure.
The remaining $86 billion would finance a revised permanent research and
experimentation (R&E) tax incentive over the next 10 years. The current Research and
Experimental Federal tax credit expires at the end of 2007
As part of the $50 billion for research initiatives, the President called for doubling
the federal R&D funding over 10 years. This increase would include the physical sciences
and engineering research in three agencies: the National Science Foundation (NSF), the
Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Science, and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). Based on P. L. 110-5, H.J.Res. 20, both the House
and Senate FY2007 appropriations actions would partially fund the President’s ACI
request. Based on House and Senate actions DOE's Office Science would would receive

¹ See Rising Above The Gathering Storm and Energizing and Employing America for a
Brighter Economic Future, The National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, The National Academies, 500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001, 2005.

$200 million of ACI funding, NSF is expected to receive an estimated $217 million of
ACI funding, while NIST is estimated to receive $37 million of ACI funding in FY2007.
Based on current legislative actions, CRS estimates that funding for nondefense
R&D expenditures will decline 2%, to an estimated $57.2 billion. Spending for defense
R&D (the sum of DOD’s and DOE’s defense programs) will increase over 4%, to an
estimated $80.1 billion. Most of the defense increase is due to significant increases in
DOD development funding.
Despite the ACI proposal, total federal basic research funding for FY2007 would
have been flat at $28.2 billion (in real dollars). Five agencies accounted for 90% of all
federal basic research expenditures in FY2006. Total federal research funding (the sum
of basic and applied research) was projected to decline 2.6% in FY2007. That decline
was due to a 6.6% drop in applied research funding. The Department of Defense (P. L.
109-289) and the Department of Homeland Security (P .L. 109-295) are the only two
agencies that have enacted FY2007 appropriations bills. Funding for NIH in FY2007
would be flat in real dollars.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
The FY2007 request for research and education in the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) was $2,259.9 million, a 12.7% decrease ($329.7 million) from the
FY2006 estimate. (See Table 1.) The USDA conducts in-house basic and applied
research. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the lead federal agency for
nutrition research, operating five major laboratories in this area, including the world’s
largest multidisciplinary agricultural research center, located at Beltsville, Maryland.
There are approximately 100 research facilities throughout the United States and abroad.
The ARS laboratories focus on efficient food and fiber production, preservation of genetic
resources, 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
FY2007 was $1,027.8 million for ARS, an 18.8% decrease ($238.4 million) from
FY2006. The Administration had proposed reductions of $146.0 million in all projects
earmarked by Congress — $50.0 million in project terminations and approximately $49.0
million in formally unrequested projects. These amounts were to be redirected to high-
priority Administration initiatives that included livestock production, food safety, crop
protection, human nutrition, and new products/value-added. Included in the FY2007
request for ARS was $8.4 million for buildings and facilities, a significant reduction from
the FY2006 level of $129.9 million. The $8.4 million request by the Administration was
to fund the design and site preparation of the Classical Chinese Garden of the U.S.
National Arboretum. The Garden is a joint project between the governments of the
United States and China.
The FY2007 request supported several research priority areas and strategic goals.
The USDA assigned priority to the mapping and sequencing projects funded by USDA,
such as sequencing genomes of agriculturally important species. The sequencing projects
were to be coordinated with ongoing genomics initiatives supported by other federal
agencies and facilitated by interagency working groups. Increases were provided for

research involving animal and plant genomes. Also, the FY2007 request provided support
for research on emerging and exotic diseases as part of the infrastructure to enhance
homeland security. USDA has stated that this research is significant in protecting the
nation from the deliberate or unintentional introduction of an agricultural health threat.
The USDA has biocontainment complexes, where research and diagnostic work is done
on organisms that pose serious threats to the crop, poultry, and livestock industries. Other
research areas that were supported in the FY2007 request included bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, air and water quality, food safety, obesity/nutrition, biobased
products/bioenergy research, and agricultural information.
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
distributes funds to State Agricultural Experiment Stations, State Cooperative Extension
Systems, land-grant universities, and other institutions and organizations that conduct
agricultural research. Included in these partnerships is funding for research at 1862
institutions, 1890 historically black colleges and universities, and 1994 tribal land-grant
colleges. Funding is distributed to the states through competitive awards, statutory
formula funding, and special grants. The FY2007 request for CSREES was $997.0
million, a decrease of $124.5 million from the FY2006 level. Funding for formula
distribution in FY2007 to the state Agricultural Experiment Stations (and other eligible
institutions) was $273.2 million, almost level with FY2006. The FY2007 request provided
$37.9 million for the 1890 formula programs, again almost level with FY2006. The
FY2007 request was to modify the Hatch formula program by expanding the multistate
research programs from 25% to 55.6%. A portion of the funds would be redirected to
nationally, competitively awarded grants. It was anticipated that such an approach would
continue the matching requirement and leverage nonfederal resources.
The FY2007 request would have funded the National Research Initiative (NRI)
Competitive Grants Program at $247.5 million, $66.3 million above the FY2006 level.
The proposed increase would have supported initiatives in agricultural genomics,
emerging issues in food and agricultural security, the ecology and economics of biological
invasions, plant biotechnology, and water security. In addition to supporting fundamental
and applied science in agriculture, USDA contends that the NRI makes a significant
contribution to developing the next generation of agricultural scientists. The FY2007
request included approximately $7.0 million for grants to educational institutions and
community-based organizations to benefit socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
These grants are intended to encourage greater participation of black farmers, tribal
groups, and Hispanic and other minority groups in the USDA portfolio of commodity,
loan, education, and grant offerings.
The Economic Research Service (ERS) is the principal intramural economic and
social science research agency in USDA. The FY2007 request for ERS was $82.5
million, a $7.3 million increase over FY2006. The proposed increase would have
continued the development of a consumer data and information system that provides
USDA with, among other things, current food prices, food purchases, sales volumes, and
information on consumer characteristics and purchasing behavior. In addition, the
increase would support a comprehensive data collection and research program to examine
the changing economic health of farm and nonfarm households in rural areas. The
multiyear, longitudinal data generated by this initiative would support the programs
administered by the Rural Development mission area. The National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS) conducts the Census of Agriculture and provides current data

on agricultural production and economic indicators of the well-being of the farm sector.
The FY2007 request for the NASS was $152.6 million, $13.3 million above the FY2006
level. Funding would have helped improve the quality of the principal economic
indicators used by the Council of Economic Advisors and would support the analysis
required to develop the upcoming 2007 Farm Bill. NASS would continue to develop the
USDA Enterprise Architecture and the USDA Enablers initiatives.
On May 23, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5384, the Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration and Related Appropriations Act, 2007 (H.Rept. 109-463).
The bill would have provided a total of $2535.9 million for research and education
activities in FY2007, $276.0 million above that which was requested by the
Administration, and $53.7 million below the FY2006 estimate. H.R. 5384 would have
provided $1,197.6 million for ARS in FY2007. Included in the funding for ARS was
$140.0 million for buildings and facilities. The Administration had requested $8.4
million. The bill supported CSREES at $1,108.6 million, $111.6 million above the
request, $12.9 million below the FY2006 estimate. Included in the total for CSREES was
$183.3 million for payments under the Hatch Act. The Committee recommended funding
level was 3% above FY2006, and would have been the first time that this program had
increased since 1999. The Senate reported its version on June 22, 2006, and provided a
total of $2,580.9 million for research and education in FY2007 (S.Rept. 109-266).
Included in the Senate version was $1,211.0 million for ARS, $1,145.2 million for
CSREES, $76.0 million for ERS, and $148.7 million for NASS. (CRS Contact:
Christine M. Matthews.)
Table 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D
($ in millions)
^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^f^Sena^t^e
^Act.^Act.^Req.^Hou^s^e^C^o^mm.
^{Agric. Res}^e^{arch Service (ARS)}
^P^r^odu^{ct Qu}^ality^/Valu^e^A^dded^$104.6^105.4^$93.8
^Lⁱ^v^e^s^t^ock^Produ^ctⁱ^oⁿ^84.1^85.1^69.8
^C^r^{op Produ}^ctⁱ^oⁿ^196.8^201.4^150.8
^F^{ood S}^a^f^e^t^y^102.7^104.6^108.1
^Lⁱ^v^e^s^t^ock^Prot^ectⁱ^oⁿ^78.5^89.7^98.0
^C^r^{op Prot}^ectⁱ^oⁿ^193.0^197.2^181.6
^Hu^m^aⁿ^Nu^tr^itioⁿ^83.7^84.8^84.4
^En^vⁱ^ron^m^en^t^a^l^S^t^ew^ards^hⁱ^p^219.4^223.3^172.3
^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^A^g^ri^cu^l^t^u^ral^Lⁱ^brary^21.5^21.8^25.0
^R^e^pai^r^&^Maiⁿ^t^eⁿ^aⁿ^c^e^17.8^17.7^17.7
^Subt^o^t^a^l^1,102.0^d^1,123.7¹^,001.4¹^,057.6^g^1,127.6
^B^u^ildin^g^s^&^Facilities^186.3^129.9⁸^.4^140.0^83.4
^T^r^u^s^t^F^uⁿ^d^s^18.0⁰^.0^18.0⁰^.0^0.0
^T^o^tal^,^A^R^S^1,306.3¹^,253.6¹^,027.8¹^,197.6¹^,211.0
^Co^o^p^{. St}^{. Res. Ed. & Ext}^.⁽^C^SREES)^Resea^{rch a}^{nd Educa}^t^ioⁿ
^H^a^t^c^h^A^c^t^F^o^rm^u^l^a^178.7^177.0^176.9^183.3^185.8
^C^ooperatⁱ^v^{e F}^o^res^t^ry^R^e^s^earch^22.2^22.0^22.0^22.7^23.3
^{1890 C}^o^l^l^e^g^e^s^an^{d T}^u^s^k^eg^{ee U}ⁿⁱ^v^.^12.3^37.2^37.9^38.3^39.1
^S^p^eci^al^R^e^s^earch^G^r^an^t^s^135.5^126.9^18.1^103.5^119.3
^NR^{I C}^o^m^p^etitiv^{e Gran}^ts^179.6^181.2^247.5^190.0^190.2
^Aⁿ^im^{al Health}^&^Dis^eas^{e R}^e^s^.^5.1⁵^.0^0.0⁵^.0^5.0
^F^e^deral^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^42.5^50.0⁹^.2^39.5^41.3

^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^f^Sena^t^e
^Act.^Act.^Req.^Hou^s^e^C^o^mm.^b
^Hⁱ^ghe^r^E^d^uc^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^50.7^55.0^69.7^79.3^73.1^c^d
^T^o^{tal, Coop. Res}^.^{& E}^duc.^655.5^670.1^566.3^651.6^678.1
^Ext^e^nsio^{n Act}ⁱ^vⁱ^tⁱ^es
^S^mⁱ^t^h^-^L^ev^{er S}^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^3b&^c^275.5^273.0^273.2^281.4^286.6
^S^mⁱ^t^h^-^L^ev^{er S}^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^3d^86.7^92.0^91.5^64.0^65.8
^R^eⁿ^e^w^a^{ble R}^e^s^o^u^r^ces^Ex^ten^s^ion⁴^.1^4.0⁴^.1^4.1⁴^.2
^Iⁿ^teg^r^ated^A^c^tiv^ities⁵⁴^.⁷⁵⁵^.²¹⁹^.¹⁵⁵^.²⁵⁸^.⁷
^{1890 R}^e^s^earch^&^Ex^t^eⁿ^sⁱ^oⁿ^16.8^16.6^16.6^34.1^35.2
^O^t^h^e^{r Ex}^t^eⁿ^sⁱ^oⁿ^Prog^{. &}^A^d^mⁱⁿ^.^7.8^14.7^26.2^18.2^16.6^c
^T^o^tal^,^E^x^ten^sⁱ^oⁿ^Acti^vi^ti^es^445.6^451.4^430.7^457.0^467.1^c
^To^t^a^l,^C^S^R^EES^1,101.1¹^,121.5^997.0¹^,108.6¹^,145.2
^Econ^omⁱ^c^R^e^s^earch^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e^74.2^75.2^82.5^81.0^76.0
^Natioⁿ^a^{l A}^g^rⁱ^cu^ltu^r^a^{l Statistics}^128.4^139.3^152.6^148.2^148.7
^Ser^v^ice
^To^t^a^{l, Resea}^{rch, Educa}^t^io^{n &}^$2,610.0^$2,589.6^$2,259.⁹^$2,535.9^$2,580.9
^E^c^on^omⁱ^c^s
^{a. F}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^l^e^v^e^l^s^{are con}^t^ai^ne^dⁱⁿ^U^.^S^.^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^A^g^ri^cu^l^t^u^{re F}^Y^{2007 Bu}^dg^et^S^u^m^m^a^ry^an^{d ot}^h^e^r
^docu^m^en^tsⁱⁿ^tern^{al to th}^{e ag}^en^cy^.
^{b. Hig}^h^e^{r edu}^cationⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^pay^m^en^ts^{to 1994 in}^s^titu^tion^s^an^{d 1890 C}^a^pacity^B^u^ildin^g^Gran^ts^prog^ram^,
^th^{e Nativ}^{e A}^m^er^ic^aⁿ^Iⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^s^En^d^o^w^m^eⁿ^t^Fuⁿ^d^{, an}^d^th^{e A}^l^ask^a^Nativ^{e an}^d^Nativ^{e Haw}^a^iian^-
^Ser^vⁱⁿ^g^Iⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^s^Ed^u^catioⁿ^Gr^an^ts.
^{c. Prog}^ram^t^o^t^a^l^s^m^a^y^ref^l^ect^s^e^t^-^asⁱ^d^es⁽ⁿ^on^-^a^{dd) or con}^tⁱⁿ^g^eⁿ^cⁱ^e^s^.^T^h^{e C}^S^R^EES^t^o^t^a^lⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^es^s^u^pport
^f^o^{r In}^teg^r^{ated A}^c^tiv^ities^,^C^o^m^m^uⁿ^ity^{Food P}^r^oj^ects^,^an^{d th}^{e Org}^aⁿⁱ^{c Agr}ⁱ^c^u^ltu^{re R}^e^s^earch^an^d
^Ed^u^catioⁿ^Iⁿ^itiativ^e.
^{d. T}^o^tals^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add du}^{e to rou}ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^R^e^s^earch^activ^ities^{carried ou}^{t in}^s^u^pport^of^Hom^e^lan^d^Secu^rity
^{are i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^{e i}ⁿ^F^{ood S}^a^f^e^t^y^{, L}ⁱ^v^e^s^t^ock^Prot^ectⁱ^oⁿ^,^an^{d C}^r^{op Prot}^ectⁱ^oⁿ^port^f^olⁱ^o^s^.
^{e. A}^g^g^r^eg^at^e^s^u^{pport f}^o^{r Hom}^e^lan^d^Secu^rity^{— FY2005, $30.2 m}^illion^,^{FY2006, $35.6 m}^illion^,^an^d
^{FY2007, $81.}^{5 m}^illion^.
^f^.^H^.^R^.^5384,^A^g^ri^cu^l^t^u^r^e^,^R^u^r^a^l^D^e^v^e^l^o^p^m^eⁿ^t^,^F^{ood an}^{d D}^r^u^g^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d R}^e^l^a^t^e^{d A}^g^en^ci^es
^A^ppropriation^s^{bill, 2007 (H.R}^{ept. 109-}^463).
^g.^Fundⁱ^{ng l}^e^ve^l^s^fo^r^sp^e^cⁱ^fi^c^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^w^e^r^e^no^t^a^v^aⁱ^l^a^b^l^e^.
^h^.^H^.^R^.^{5384, S}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^266.
Department of Energy (DOE)
The Department of Energy had requested $9.154 billion for R&D in FY2007,
including activities in three major categories: Science, National Security, and Energy.
(For details, see Table 2.) That request was 3.5% above the FY2006 level of $8.848
billion. The House had provided a net increase of $241 million (H.R. 5427). The Senate
committee had recommended a net increase of $738 million. (S.Rept. 109-274).
The requested funding for Science was $4.102 billion, a 14% increase from FY2006.
That unusually large increase reflected the ACI, which the President announced in
February 2006 in his State of the Union address. Over the next 10 years, the ACI would
have doubled R&D funding for the DOE Office of Science and two other agencies.
About $200 million of the requested increase in FY2007 would have supported an
increased operating time for facilities managed by the Basic Energy Sciences program;
the House and Senate appropriations reports for FY2006 both called for increased funding
for this purpose. In the Fusion Energy Sciences program, the request included $60
million for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), whose
estimated U.S. total cost remains at $1.12 billion through FY2014. The House would

have provided the requested amount for Science, plus $30 million additional to fund
earmarks in the Biological and Environmental Research program. The Senate committee
had recommended increases of $49 million to fund earmarks, $25 million for water
technology R&D, and $24 million for national laboratory support for primary and
secondary math and science education, and a transfer of $39 million from a National
Security program (along with internal Science transfers) to create a program in High
Energy Density Science.
The requested funding for R&D in National Security was $3.188 billion, a 7.4%
decrease. Most of the reduction resulted from the completion of construction projects and
the elimination of items funded at congressional direction in FY2006. The House would
have provided an increases totaling $143 million, including additional funds for Inertial
Confinement Fusion and for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. The Senate
committee recommended a net increase of $152 million, with additional funds for most
weapons programs including the Reliable Replacement Warhead but a transfer of $39
million out of Inertial Confinement Fusion as noted above.
The requested funding for R&D in Energy was $1.864 billion, up 3.0% from
FY2006. Within this total, R&D on nuclear, biomass, and solar energy would have
increased, while natural gas and oil technology programs would have been terminated.
Termination of the gas and oil technology programs was also proposed in FY2006, but
was rejected by Congress. For FY2007, the House would have provided no funding for
gas technology and just $3 million for oil technology, but it rejected the request for
additional nuclear energy R&D funding, and it increased funding for R&D on fossil
energy, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. The net House increase for R&D in
Energy would have been $68 million. The Senate committee had recommended a total of
$27 million for the gas and oil technology programs and recommended other increases
including $65 million for biomass, $100 million for nuclear energy, and $100 million for
coal. The Senate increase for nuclear energy R&D would have nearly doubled the
program relative to FY2006. The net Senate committee recommendation for R&D in
Energy would have been an increase of $447 million. (CRS Contact: Daniel Morgan.)

Table 2. Department of Energy R&D
($ in millions)
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Co^m^p^rbl^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Sen.
^.^Co^m^p^rbl.^Request^Hou^s^e^Cm^te.
^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^3635.6^3596.4^4101.7^4131.7^4241.1
^Basⁱ^{c En}^erg^y^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^ces^1083.6^1134.6^1421.0^1421.0^1445.9
^Hⁱ^g^h^En^erg^y^Ph^y^sⁱ^c^s^722.9^716.7^775.1^775.1^766.8
^Bⁱ^olog^{ical an}^{d En}^vⁱ^ron^m^en^tal^566.6^579.8^510.3^540.3^560.0
^R^e^s^earch
^N^u^cl^{ear Ph}^y^sⁱ^c^s^394.5^367.0^454.1^454.1^434.1
^F^u^sⁱ^on^En^erg^y^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^ces^266.9^287.6^319.0^319.0^307.0
^A^d^v^aⁿ^ced^Scien^tif^{ic Co}^m^p^u^tin^g^226.2^234.7^318.7^318.7^318.7
^Rsr^c^h.
^Hⁱ^{gh E}ⁿ^e^r^gy^D^e^nsi^t^y^Scⁱ^e^nc^e^—^—^—^—⁷⁹^.⁹
^O^t^h^e^r^374.9^276.0^303.5^303.5^328.7
^N^a^ti^on^al^S^ecu^ri^ty^3406.9^3442.2^3188.0^3331.1^3339.6
^W^eap^oⁿ^{s A}^c^tiv^ities^a^2327.5^2311.7^2102.6^2196.5^2240.2
^Nav^a^{l R}^eactors^801.4^781.6^795.1^795.1^795.1
^Noⁿ^p^r^o^lif^er^atioⁿ^an^d^Verⁱ^fⁱ^catioⁿ^219.8^318.8^268.9^308.1^282.9
^R&D
^D^e^fe^nse^E^nvi^r^o^nm^eⁿ^t^a^l^Cl^e^a^nup^58.2^30.1^21.4^31.4^21.4
^TD^&^D
^Eⁿ^ergy^1727.4^1809.0^1863.8^1931.5^2310.8
^F^o^s^sⁱ^l^En^erg^y^R^&^D^560.9^592.0^469.7^558.2^644.3
^En^erg^y^Ef^fⁱ^cien^cy^an^{d R}^eⁿ^e^w^a^ble^b^908.9^857.0^951.4^1051.6^1119.1
^En^erg^y
^N^u^cl^{ear En}^erg^y^R^&^D^168.4^223.7^347.1^224.1^446.7
^{Electric T}^r^an^s^mⁿ^.^an^{d Dis}^t^ribn^.^89.2^136.3^95.6^97.6^100.7
^R&D
^T^o^tal^8769.9^8847.6^9153.5^9394.3^9891.5
^{a. In}^cl^u^d^es^S^t^ock^pⁱ^l^e^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^R^&^D^S^u^pport^,^S^t^ock^pⁱ^l^e^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^R^&^D^C^e^rtⁱ^fⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d S}^a^f^e^t^y^{, R}^e^lⁱ^a^bl^e
^R^e^placem^en^{t W}^a^rh^{ead, Scien}^{ce C}^a^m^p^aigⁿ^s^{, En}^gⁱⁿ^eerin^g^C^a^m^p^aigⁿ^s^ex^{cept En}^h^aⁿ^c^e^d^S^u^r^e^ty^an^d
^En^h^aⁿ^ced^Su^r^v^eill^aⁿ^c^e^,^Iⁿ^er^{tial Co}ⁿ^fⁱⁿ^em^en^{t Fu}^sioⁿ^{, A}^d^v^aⁿ^ced^Sim^u^latioⁿ^an^d^Co^m^p^u^tin^g^,^an^d^a
^p^r^o^r^a^t^ed^sh^ar^{e o}^f^Readⁱⁿ^{ess in}^T^echⁿⁱ^{cal B}^a^se^an^d^{Facilities. A}^d^d^itioⁿ^a^{l R&}^{D activ}^{ities m}^a^y^tak^e
^{place in}^th^{e s}^u^bprog^ram^s^of^Directed^Stock^p^{ile W}^o^rk^th^{at are dev}^o^{ted to s}^p^ecifⁱ^{c w}^eapon^s^y^s^t^em^s^,
^bu^{t th}^es^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^{are n}^o^{t in}^clu^d^{ed in}^th^{e table becau}^s^e^{detailed f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^s^c^h^e^du^les^f^o^{r th}^os^{e s}^u^bprog^ram^s
^{are clas}^sⁱ^fⁱ^ed.
^b^.^Ex^clu^dⁱⁿ^g^W^eath^e^rⁱ^zatioⁿ^an^d^Iⁿ^ter^g^o^v^erⁿ^m^en^{tal A}^c^tiv^ities.
Department of Defense (DOD)
Nearly all of what the Department of Defense (DOD) spends on Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) is appropriated in Title IV of the defense
appropriation bill (see Table 3). For FY2007, the Bush Administration requested $73.2
billion for DOD’s baseline Title IV RDT&E. The baseline Title IV RDT&E request was
$2.0 billion more than the total obligational authority available for Title IV in FY2006.
RDT&E funds were also requested as part of the Defense Health Program ($131 million)

and the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program ($231 million). The
five-year budget plan projects spending $366.5 billion for RDT&E through FY2011. The
Administration’s FY2007 budget projection for RDT&E through FY2011 is nearly $22
billion more than its projection last year.
While the FY2007 RDT&E request represents an increase in RDT&E funding over
last year, Science and Technology (S&T) funding would decrease. S&T consists of basic
and applied research and advanced development (6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 activities in the
RDT&E account). Although the FY2007 S&T budget request ($11.1 billion) was
approximately $600 million more than the amount requested by the Administration for
FY2006, the FY2007 S&T request was $2.2 billion less than the amount Congress
appropriated for S&T in FY2006. The difference between the FY2007 S&T request and
the amount appropriated by Congress for FY2006 roughly equals the amount the
Administration claims was earmarked by Congress in the FY2006 S&T appropriation.
The FY2006 request for basic research ($1.4 billion) was $70 million less than what
Congress appropriated in FY2006 for basic research, but is over $100 million more than
what the Administration requested for basic research in FY2006. 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. The FY2007 S&T request was
approximately 2.6% of the overall baseline DOD budget request. This amount is below
the 3% target that the Bush Administration and Congress have set. The FY2007 budget
request for Missile Defense RDT&E was $9.3 billion (an increase of $1.7 billion from the
amount available for Missile Defense in FY2006).
The House approved its defense appropriation bill (H.R. 5631) on June 20. The
House voted to appropriate $75.3 billion for Title IV RDT&E, about $2.2 billion above
what was requested. The increase went primarily to the S&T portion of the program,
which was funded at $13.3 billion. The S&T amount roughly equals 3.2% of the total
appropriation for DOD (this includes the $50 in additional war-related appropriations
allocated in Title IX — no RDT&E funds were included in Title IX). The House also
approved $231 million for the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program. In
a separate appropriation bill (H.R. 5385, the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs
and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2007), the House approved $444 million for
RDT&E within the Defense Health Program. This includes $115 million for the peer
reviewed breast cancer research program and $80 million for the prostrate cancer
program.
The Senate approved its defense appropriation bill on September 7. The Senate
voted to appropriate $73.0 billion for Title IV RDT&E, about $200 million less than the
Administration’s request and about $2.4 billion less than what the House approved. The
Senate did approve more S&T funding than was requested, but was not as generous as the
House. At just under $12.0 billion, the Senate’s S&T appropriation represents a little less
than 3% of the total amount they appropriated for DOD (this does not consider the
additional appropriations of $50 billion allocated for continuing operations in the global
war on terror). Of the $50 billion allocated by the Senate for the Global War on Terror,
$298 was allocated to RDT&E. In addition, the Senate approved $468 million in RDT&E
funds for the Defense Health Program (including $150 million for the peer reviewed
breast cancer program and $80 million for the peer reviewed prostrate cancer program).
The Senate also approved $231 for RDT&E in the Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction Program. The Senate appropriated about $400 million less for DARPA than

was requested, making cuts in nearly all of DARPA’s line items. The Senate approved
$9.4 billion for missile defense RDT&E, about $62 million more than was requested.
The conference committee approved $75.4 billion for Title IV RDT&E. (See P.L.
109-289.) This includes a general reduction of $287 million due to improved economic
assumptions (see Section 8106 of the conference report). The conference committee also
approved $13.3 billion for S&T. This does not include S&T’s share of the general
reduction. In Title IX of the conference bill, providing for additional funds for the war
on terrorism, another $408 million was added for RDT&E. In addition, Title IX provided
$1.9 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund. The Secretary may
transfer funds to those budget activities, including RDT&E, as necessary to accomplish
the purposes of defending troops against such devices. The conference committee also
approved $231 million in RDT&E for the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction
program. However, it also, as part of the general reduction cited above reduced Title VI
funding by $9.5 million. The $231 million figure mentioned above does not include the
program’s share of this general reduction. (CRS Contact: John Moteff.)
Table 3. Department of Defense RDT&E
F Y 2006^e F Y 2007^g F Y 2007 F Y 2007 F Y 2007
Estimate RequestHouseSenateConf.
Apprn. Apprn. Apprn.
AccountsBillions $
Army11,026 10,856 11,835 11,245 11,055
Navy18,734 16,912 17,655 17,048 18,674
Air Force21,671 24,397 24,457 23,974 24,516
Defense Agencies19,555 20,810 21,208 20,543 21,291
(DARPA)(2,979) (3,294)(3,327)(2,893)(3,135)
(MDA^a)(7,682) (9,310)(8,955)(9,372)(9,421)
Dir. Test & Eval166 182 182 188 185
Adjustments
ⁱ^m^pr^ove^{d e}^c^o^nomⁱ^c^as^s^u^m^p^tⁱ^ons-317 -286
Total Obligational Authority71,152 73,157 75,337 72,998 75,435
Budget Activity
Basic Research1,470 1,422 1,571 1,479 1,552
Applied Research5,168 4,478 5,276 4,805 5,282
Advanced Dev.6,603 5,183 6,461 5,702 6,494
Advanced Component13,913 15,387 15,163 15,246 15,785
Dev. and Prototypes
Systems Dev. and Demo19,343 19,277 19,255 19,072 19,190
Mgmt. Support^b4,025 3,938 4,171 4,131 4,197
Op. Systems Dev20,630 23,471 23,440 22,563 23,221

F Y 2006^e F Y 2007^g F Y 2007 F Y 2007 F Y 2007
Estimate RequestHouseSenateConf.
Apprn. Apprn. Apprn.
Adjustments
ⁱ^m^pr^ove^{d e}^c^o^nomⁱ^c^as^s^u^m^p^tⁱ^ons-317-286
Total Obligational Authority ^c71,152 73,156 75,337 72,998 75,435
Other Defense Programs
Defense Health Program536 131 444 468n/a^h
Chemical Agents and Munitions67 231 231 231231
Destruction
Adjustments-94 -9
ⁱ^m^pr^ove^{d e}^c^o^nomⁱ^c^adj^u^s^t^m^e^nt^s
Title IX Additional51^f 0298408
Appropriations for the Global
War on Terror
^Sources^:^Fⁱ^g^u^r^es^bas^e^{d on}^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^e^Bu^dg^et^{, F}^Y^{2007 R}^D^T^&^{E Prog}^ram^s^(R^-¹^{), F}^e^bru^a^ry^{2006. F}ⁱ^g^u^r^es
^f^o^{r t}^h^{e D}^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e H}^eal^t^h^Prog^ram^are^t^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^t^h^{e D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e Bu}^dg^et^{, F}^Y^{2007 O}^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s^an^{d Mai}ⁿ^t^eⁿ^aⁿ^c^e
^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^s⁽^O^-¹⁾^d^o^c^u^m^en^{t an}^d^th^{e Ch}^em^{ical A}^g^en^{ts, an}^d^Muⁿ^itioⁿ^s^Destr^u^ctioⁿ^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^fⁱ^g^u^r^{es ar}^e^tak^eⁿ^f^r^o^m^th^e
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e Bu}^dg^et^{, F}^Y^{2007 Procu}^r^em^en^t^Prog^ram^s^(P-¹^{) doc}^um^eⁿ^t^.^Bot^h^rel^eas^{ed i}ⁿ^F^e^bru^a^ry^2006.
^T^o^t^a^l^s^m^a^yⁿ^o^t^{add du}^{e t}^o^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^F^Y^{2007 H}^o^u^s^{e appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^fⁱ^g^u^r^es^t^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{504, an}^{d f}^o^r^t^h^e
^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e H}^e^a^l^t^h^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^t^o^t^a^l^s^{, f}^r^om^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{464. S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^fⁱ^g^u^r^es^t^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^S^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^292.
^C^oⁿ^f^eren^{ce f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^t^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^676.
^{a. I}ⁿ^clu^d^{es o}ⁿ^ly^B^M^{D RDT}^&^{E. Do}^{es n}^o^{t in}^clu^d^{e p}^r^o^c^u^r^em^en^{t an}^d^m^ilitar^y^coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ^.
^{b. In}^clu^d^es^f^uⁿ^d^s^f^o^{r Dev}^e^lopm^en^{tal an}^{d Operation}^a^{l T}^e^s^t^an^{d Ev}^alu^a^tion^.
^{c. Nu}^m^b^er^{s m}^a^yⁿ^o^{t ag}^r^{ee w}^ith^A^cco^uⁿ^t^T^o^{tal Ob}^lig^atioⁿ^a^{l A}^u^th^o^r^ity^d^u^{e to}^r^o^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
^{d. T}^h^{e FY2005 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^th^{e R}^-^{1 ref}^l^{ect th}^{e FY2005 Su}^pplem^en^{tal (P}^.L^.109-^{13) w}^h^ichⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed $587 m}^illion^f^o^r
^R^D^T^&^{E. T}^h^ey^{do n}^o^{t in}^clu^d^{e an}^y^res^c^is^sⁱ^on^s^pas^s^e^{d as}^{part of}^th^{e FY2007 appropriation}^bills^.
^{e. T}^h^{e FY2006 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^ref^l^{ect th}^{e 1% acros}^s^th^{e board cu}^{t called f}^o^{r in}^th^e^FY2006^{DOD A}^ppropriation^s^{bill (P}^.L^{. 109-}
^{148). T}^h^{e FY2006 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^{do n}^o^{t in}^clu^d^{e th}^{e $782 m}^illion^requ^es^{ted f}^o^{r R}^D^T^&^Eⁱⁿ^t^h^e^$72.4^b^illion^FY2006
^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^pplem^en^{tal requ}^es^{t of}^Febru^a^ry^16,^2006,ⁿ^o^r^th^{e approx}^im^ately^{$19.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r R}^D^T^&^{E in}^clu^d^ed
ⁱⁿ^an^ot^h^e^{r K}^a^t^rⁱⁿ^a-^rel^a^t^e^{d s}^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^,^al^s^o^requ^es^t^e^{d F}^e^bru^a^ry^16,^{2006. N}^o^{r do t}^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^e
^an^y^res^c^is^sⁱ^on^s^pas^s^e^{d as}^{part of}^th^{e FY2007 appropriation}^bills^.
^f^.^{It is}ⁿ^o^t^clear^if^th^e^{FY2006 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^th^{e R}^-^{1 ref}^l^{ect th}^{e $91.9 m}^illionⁱⁿ^addition^a^{l R}^D^T^&^{E f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^T^itle
^{IX (Div}^is^ion^A)^a^{nd T}^{itle IX (Div}^is^ion^B⁾^of^th^{e FY2006 DOD A}^ppropriation^s^{. Div}ⁱ^sⁱ^on^A^appropriated
^contⁱ^nge^nc^y^funds^f^o^{r th}^{e Global W}^a^{r on}^T^e^{rror th}^atⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed $50.6 m}^illion^f^o^{r s}^p^ecifⁱ^{ed R}^D^T^&^{E prog}^ram^s^.
^Divⁱ^sⁱ^on^B^prov^{ided em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^d^s^f^o^{r h}^u^r^rⁱ^c^aⁿ^e^r^e^lief^th^{at in}^clu^d^{ed $41.6 m}^illion^f^o^{r s}^p^ecifⁱ^{ed R}^D^T^&^E
^activ^ities^.^T^h^{e $51 m}^illion^lis^{ted h}^e^{re repres}^en^ts^th^{e Div}ⁱ^sⁱ^on^A^f^uⁿ^d^s^,^an^{d, th}^eref^ore^m^a^y^lead^{to dou}^{ble cou}ⁿ^tin^g^.
^g^.^Itⁱ^sⁿ^o^t^cl^{ear i}^f^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2007 R}^-^{1 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{e an}^y^R^D^T^&^{E f}^uⁿ^d^s^as^s^o^ci^at^{ed w}ⁱ^t^h^an^ot^h^e^{r requ}^es^t^by^t^h^e
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^{r con}^tⁱⁿ^g^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^d^s^f^o^{r t}^h^{e G}^l^obal^{War on}^T^e^rror^t^o^{be i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed as}^part^of^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2007 D}^O^D
^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^b^ill.
^h^.^T^h^is^is^f^uⁿ^d^{ed as}^{part of}^th^{e Military}^Qu^ality^-^V^eteran^’^s^A^f^f^a^irs^A^ppropriation^(H.R^{. 5385)}

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA)
NASA had requested $12.336 billion for R&D in FY2007. (For details, see
Table 4.) That request was a 7.5% increase over FY2006, in a total NASA budget
that would have increased by just 1.0%. Within the increase for NASA R&D overall,
however, a large increase for Constellation Systems (primarily the new Crew
Exploration Vehicle and its launch vehicle) would have been offset by decreases for
Human Systems and Aeronautics and an increase for Science that was substantially
less than previously projected. The House would have provided $12.260 billion (H.R.

5672). The Senate committee had recommended $12.300 billion (S.Rept. 109-280).

Both the House and Senate provided less than requested for Exploration Systems
and more for Aeronautics and Science.
Budget priorities throughout NASA are being driven by the Vision for Space
Exploration. Announced by President Bush in January 2004 and endorsed by
Congress in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155), the Vision
includes returning the space shuttle to flight status, then retiring it by 2010;
completing the space station, but discontinuing its use by the United States by 2017;
returning humans to the moon by 2020; and then sending humans to Mars and
“worlds beyond.” Constellation Systems, the only R&D program to receive a large
increase in the FY2007 request, is responsible for developing vehicles to return
humans to the moon. The reduced rate of growth in requested funding for the
Science Mission Directorate, a total reduction of $3.1 billion through FY2010
relative to projections in the FY2006 request, is mostly to offset higher than expected
costs for returning the space shuttle to flight status.
The request for Science has been particularly controversial. It includes full
funding for a Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission in early FY2008 (pending
approval by the Administrator), but several robotic missions to Mars are cancelled
or deferred. In addition, no funding was requested for the SOFIA airborne infrared
telescope or the Europa mission to one of Jupiter’s moons. The request for Research
and Analysis, which provides grant funding to individual researchers, was down 15%
from FY2006 in most programs. The House had provided an increase of $75 million
for Science, including $50 million for Research and Analysis. The Senate committee
had recommended an increase of $31.5 million and directed NASA to fund SOFIA
through a reprogramming request.
The request for Aeronautics Research is also of congressional interest.
Although the requested budget for aeronautics is about the same as was projected a
year earlier, the proposed activities have changed significantly. The largest program,
Vehicle Systems, has been renamed Fundamental Aeronautics and will now focus on
“core competencies” in subsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic flight regimes,
including work on rotorcraft. An amendment to the Senate FY2007 budget
resolution (S.Amdt. 3033 to S.Con.Res. 83) increased the recommended funding for
NASA aeronautics by $179 million. The House would have provided an increase of
$100 million. The Senate committee also recommended an increase of $35 million.
(CRS Contact: Daniel Morgan.)

Table 4. NASA R&D
($ in millions)
^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Estⁱ^m^a^t^e^d^a^Request^Hou^s^e^{Sen. Cm}^t^e^.
^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^c^e⁵^,253.7⁵^,330.0⁵^,404.8⁵^,361.5^d
^Sol^ar^Sys^t^em^Expl^or^atⁱ^oⁿ¹^,582.3¹^,610.2^—^c^1,610.2^d
^T^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^ver^s^e^1,507.9¹^,509.2^—^c^1,509.2^d
^Ear^t^{h-Sun Sys}^t^em^s²^,163.5²^,210.6^—^c^2,242.1^d
^Ex^pl^oratⁱ^oⁿ^S^y^s^t^em^s³^,050.1³^,978.3³^,827.6³^,921.5^d
^C^ons^t^e^l^l^a^tⁱ^{on Sys}^t^em^s¹^,733.5³^,057.6³^,041.6²^,960.8^d
^Expl^or^atⁱ^{on Sys}^t^em^s^Res^e^ar^{ch and}^692.5^646.1^511.4^686.1^d
^T^echnol^ogy
^H^u^m^{an Sys}^t^em^s^Res^e^ar^{ch and}^624.1^274.6^274.6^274.6^d
^T^echnol^ogy
^A^e^ron^a^u^tⁱ^c^s^R^e^s^earch^884.1^724.4^824.4^759.4^d
^C^r^os^s^-^A^g^en^cy^S^u^pport^Prog^ram^s^533.5^491.7^425.2^491.7^d
^In^tern^ation^a^{l S}^p^{ace S}^t^ation¹^,753.4¹^,811.3¹^,777.9¹^,811.3
^Red^u^ctioⁿ^sⁿ^o^{t A}^llo^cated^—^—^—^{— 4}⁵^.³^d
^Subt^o^t^a^l^R&D^11,474.8^12,335.7^12,259.9^12,300.1
^{Space Sh}^u^ttle^4,777.5^b^4,056.7⁴^,056.7⁴^,056.7
^Retu^rⁿ^to^Flig^h^t^e^—^—^—^1,000.0
^S^p^{ace an}^{d F}^lig^h^t^S^u^pport^338.8^366.5^358.9^366.9
^Hu^rrican^{e Katrin}^a^e^—^—^—⁴⁰^.⁰
^In^s^p^ect^{or G}^eⁿ^e^ral^32.0^33.5^33.5^33.5
^T^o^ta^{l NASA}^16,623.0^b^16,792.2^16,709.0^17,797.2^e
^a.^Fⁱ^g^u^r^es^f^o^r^F^Y²⁰⁰⁶^are^f^r^om^N^A^S^A^’^s^Jan^u^a^ry^{2006 operat}ⁱⁿ^g^pl^an^an^{d are n}^o^t^fⁱⁿ^a^l^.^Fⁱ^g^u^r^es^f^o^r
^F^Y^{2005 are n}^o^{t s}^h^owⁿ^becau^s^e^ch^an^g^e^sⁱⁿ^bu^dg^{et s}^t^ru^ct^ur^e^aⁿ^d^prog^ram^s^h^if^ts^betw^een
^accouⁿ^t^s^m^a^k^e^com^p^aris^on^s^betw^een^F^Y^{2005 an}^{d F}^Y^{2007 dif}^fⁱ^cu^lt.
^b.^In^clu^d^es^{$349.8 m}^illionⁱⁿ^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^pplem^en^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r Hu}^rrican^{e Katrin}^a^res^pon^s^e^an^d
^recov^e^ry^.
^{c. T}^h^{e Hou}^s^{e did n}^o^{t s}^p^ecif^y^am^ouⁿ^t^s^{at th}^{e “}^t^h^e^m^{e” lev}^e^{l w}^ithⁱⁿ^Scien^ce.
^d^.^T^h^{e Sen}^a^{te co}^m^m^{ittee d}ⁱ^dⁿ^o^{t sp}^ecif^y^am^o^uⁿ^t^{s w}^ithⁱⁿ^th^{e Scien}^{ce, A}^e^r^oⁿ^a^u^{tics, an}^d^Ex^p^l^o^r^atioⁿ
^{appropriation}^s^accouⁿ^t^{. T}^h^es^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^th^{e table a}^r^e^e^s^tⁱ^m^a^t^e^d^by^C^R^S^bas^e^{d on}^th^e
^requ^es^{ted am}^ouⁿ^t^s^an^{d th}^{e prog}^ramⁱⁿ^creas^es^an^d^decreas^es^s^p^ecifⁱ^{ed in}^th^{e com}^m^ittee^report
^(S^.R^ept^.^109-^{280). T}^h^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^s^h^owⁿ^as^“^R^edu^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^sⁿ^o^t^A^l^l^o^cat^{ed” i}^s^cal^cu^l^a^t^e^{d by}^C^R^S^as
^th^{e dif}^f^e^ren^{ce betw}^een^th^{e recom}^m^eⁿ^d^{ed ov}^era^{ll decreas}^{e f}^o^{r th}^{e accou}ⁿ^t^aⁿ^d^t^h^e^s^u^m^of^th^e
^s^p^ecifⁱ^{ed prog}^ramⁱⁿ^creas^es^an^{d decreas}^es^.
^e^.^Th^e^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^c^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^e^e^r^e^c^o^m^m^eⁿ^d^e^d^t^w^oⁿ^e^w^a^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^on^s^accouⁿ^t^s^,^R^e^t^u^rⁿ^t^o^F^lⁱ^g^h^t^aⁿ^d
^H^u^r^rⁱ^c^aⁿ^e^K^a^t^rⁱⁿ^a^,^b^o^t^{h o}^f^w^hⁱ^c^{h w}^o^ul^d^b^e^e^m^e^r^ge^nc^y^fundⁱ^ng.^E^x^c^l^udⁱ^ng^e^m^e^r^ge^nc^y^fundⁱ^ng,
^th^{e Sen}^a^{te com}^m^{ittee total f}^o^{r NA}^SA^is^{$16,757.2 m}^illion^.^Neith^e^rⁿ^e^w^accouⁿ^t^w^o^u^l^{d f}^uⁿ^d
^R&D^.

National Institutes of Health (NIH)
The President requested a program level budget of $28.487 billion for NIH
for FY2007, essentially equal to the FY2006 final budget and $66.8 million (0.2%)
lower than the FY2005 level of $28.553 billion (see Table 5). The FY2006 amount
was the first decrease in NIH’s appropriation since 1970. (NIH lost an additional
$19.5 million in FY2006 funds in June 2006 when the HHS Secretary exercised his
transfer authority to give the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services a total of
$40 million from other HHS discretionary accounts, dropping the NIH program level
to $28.468 billion.) The House and Senate Appropriations Committees reported
separate FY2007 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bills (H.R. 5647, H.Rept.

109-515 and S. 3708, S.Rept. 109-287), but neither chamber scheduled floor action.

The House committee recommended funding most of the NIH accounts at the same
level as the request. The Senate bill would have provided a program level of $28.688
billion, an increase of about $220 million (0.8%) over the revised FY2006 amount
and $200 million above the request and the House amount. The Senate committee
gave every NIH account a modest increase over FY2006, reversing the cuts to
institute and center budgets proposed in the request. Currently, NIH is operating at
the FY2006 rate under the continuing resolution (P.L. 109-383) that runs through
February 15, 2007.
The bulk of NIH’s budget comes through the Labor-HHS-Education
appropriation ($28.350 billion in the request). An additional small amount for
environmental work related to Superfund comes from the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriation (H.R. 5386, H.Rept. 109-465 and S.Rept. 109-275).
Those two sources constitute NIH’s discretionary budget authority. In addition, NIH
receives $150 million preappropriated in separate funding for diabetes research and
$8.2 million from a transfer within the Public Health Service (PHS). As in past
years, the budget request proposed that $100 million of the NIH appropriation be
transferred to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. (The
“NIH program level” cited in the Administration’s budget documents, however, did
not reflect that transfer.) The House Appropriations Committee did not include the
requested bill language for the transfer, which would have come from the
appropriation for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
Instead, the committee report noted that it provided increased funding for HIV/AIDS
activities in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Health
Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). The Senate committee included the
$100 million transfer as in the request.
FY2003 was the final year of the five-year effort to double the NIH budget from
its FY1998 base of $13.7 billion to the FY2003 level of $27.1 billion. The annual
increases for FY1999 through FY2003 were in the 14%-15% range each year. For
FY2004 and FY2005, faced with competing priorities and a changed economic
climate, Congress and the President gave increases of between 2% and 3%, levels
that were below the then-estimated 3.5% and 3.3% biomedical inflation index for
those two years. (The index was subsequently updated to show inflation of 3.7% for
FY2004 and 3.8% for FY2005.) The research advocacy community had originally
urged that the NIH budget grow by about 10% per year in the post-doubling years.
They modified their recommendation to 6% for FY2006 and 5% for FY2007,

maintaining that such increases would be needed to continue the momentum of
scientific discovery made possible by the increased resources of the doubling years.
With the projected biomedical inflation index at 3.5% for FY2006 and 3.4% for
FY2007, the NIH budget has been losing ground in real terms each year since the end
of the doubling in FY2003. In constant 2006 dollars, the FY2003 NIH budget was
$30.2 billion, the FY2004 level was $30.0 billion, FY2005 was $29.6 billion,
FY2006 was $28.5 billion, and the FY2007 request level was $27.5 billion. In
inflation-adjusted terms, the FY2006 budget was 5.7% below the FY2003 level, and
the FY2007 request was 8.7% below the FY2003 level.
The agency’s organization consists of the Office of the NIH Director and 27
institutes and centers. The Office of the Director (OD) sets overall policy for NIH
and coordinates the programs and activities of all NIH components. The individual
institutes and centers (ICs), each of which focuses on particular diseases, areas of
human health and development, or aspects of research support, plan and manage their
own research programs in coordination with the OD. As shown in Table 5, Congress
provides a separate appropriation to 24 of the 27 ICs, to OD, and to a buildings and
facilities account. (The other three centers, not included in the table, are funded
through the NIH Management Fund, financed by taps on other NIH appropriations.)
Although the FY2007 President’s budget requested the same overall level of
funding for NIH as in FY2006 (not taking into account the later reduction in
FY2006), there were variable increases and decreases among the ICs and among the
different funding mechanisms. Most of the IC budgets would have decreased by
0.5%-0.8%, with several of the larger institutes losing between $10 million and $40
million. In the request, two accounts gained funds over FY2006: NIAID, up $12
million (0.3%), largely due to pandemic influenza funding, and the Office of the
Director (OD), up $140 million (26.6%). The OD increase included a program
formerly in NIAID for advanced development of biodefense countermeasures (up
$110 million) and the OD contribution to the NIH Roadmap (up $29 million). Both
programs are discussed below. In the House committee recommendation, funding
for NIAID dropped 2.6% below FY2006 because the $100 million Global Fund
money was removed, as was $25 million for construction and renovation of biosafety
laboratories. The biodefense facilities construction money was moved to the more
general extramural construction program in the National Center for Research
Resources (NCRR), giving that account a 2.2% increase. The Senate committee bill
did not move the laboratory construction funds.
Specific priorities highlighted in the budget request included several trans-NIH
initiatives involving multiple institutes with coordination by OD. Biodefense
activities were slated to receive a total of $1.9 billion, a net increase of $110 million
(6.2%) over FY2006. The request planned for a $160 million fund in OD (up $110
million) for the advanced product development of vaccines and drugs that are priority
targets for acquisition by Project BioShield. The activity would involve NIH more
extensively than usual in working with academia and industry to bridge the research
gap between investigational testing of a new drug and full product development.
Also in OD was $96 million for research on countermeasures against
nuclear/radiological threats and chemical threats, the same as in FY2006.

The NIH Roadmap for Medical Research Program, launched in September
2003, has identified critical scientific gaps that may be constraining rapid progress
in biomedical research. Consequently, the agency has developed a list of 28 NIH-
wide initiatives to address the gaps. NIH planned to fund Roadmap initiatives at
$443 million for FY2007 ($332 million from the institutes and centers and $111
million from the Director’s Discretionary Fund), up $113 million (34%) from
FY2006. Three core themes focus on new paths to biological discoveries ($181
million), building multidisciplinary research teams ($81 million), and improving the
clinical research enterprise ($181 million).
The Genes, Environment, and Health initiative would have received a total of
$68 million (up $49 million) for its second year of funding. It will look for genetic
and environmental interactions that might increase the risk of common chronic
diseases and will work on new technologies for assessing the role of diet, physical
activity, and environmental exposures in disease. On the other hand, a long-term
(25+ year) environmental health study called the National Children’s Study, after five
years of planning, was proposed for cancellation in the request. The multi-agency
study, mandated by the Children’s Health Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-310), plans to
examine the effects of environmental influences on the health and development of
more than 100,000 children across the United States, following them from before
birth until age 21. Its planned cost for FY2007 was $69 million (up from $10 million
in FY2006), and the overall projected cost for the whole study is about $2.7 billion.
The House committee rejected the termination and included bill language directing
NIH to spend $69 million on the study. The Senate committee report directed NIH
to continue with the study, noting that extra funding had been included in OD (the
Senate OD total was $20 million higher than the request).
The new Pathway to Independence Award program ($15 million in the request)
addresses NIH concerns about the support of new investigators, particularly younger
scientists making the transition from training to independent research. The average
age at which they receive their first independent grant has been increasing. In
January 2006, NIH announced the new program to support promising postdoctoral
scientists. The five-year awards will have a two-year mentored phase and a three-
year independent phase. NIH expected to support 150-200 awards beginning in Fall
2006, and a similar number in each of the following five years, for a total
commitment of almost $400 million. The new Clinical and Translational Science
Award (CTSA) program, administered by the National Center for Research
Resources (NCRR), has been developed to foster transdisciplinary clinical research
and training, with the goal of speeding the translation of the findings of “discovery”
research into clinical practice. Begun in FY2006, the program will transition
elements of existing clinical research programs into CTSAs. Funding was estimated
at $361 million for FY2007, including an additional $3 million requested in NCRR,
sponsor of the current General Clinical Research Centers program.
In addition to showing the appropriation by institute, the other common way to
describe the NIH budget is by “funding mechanism.” On average, the ICs devote
more than 80% of their budgets to supporting peer-reviewed extramural research by
awarding research project grants, research center grants, contracts, training grants,
construction grants, and many other types of funding to researchers in universities
and other institutions around the country. The remaining 15%-20% of the IC budgets

supports their intramural research programs and research management costs. Budget
data displayed by funding mechanism reveals the balance between extramural and
intramural funding, as well as the relative emphasis on support of individual
investigator-initiated research versus funding of larger projects, comprehensive
research centers, agency-directed research contracts, research career training,
facilities construction, and so forth.
The largest category, “research project grants” (RPGs), represented 53% of the
total NIH request, or $15.1 billion. NIH estimated it would support a total of 37,671
RPGs in FY2007, which was 656 fewer grants than the estimate for FY2006. The
main reason for the drop was that a large number of grants that were started toward
the end of the doubling years were completing their funding cycles. (The average
length of an RPG award is just under four years, but each year’s funds are awarded
separately from that year’s appropriation.) Within the RPG total, about one quarter
(9,337, for $3.3 billion) were to be “competing” (new or competing renewal) grants,
and the remaining three-quarters were to be noncompeting (continuation) grants. The
estimated number of competing RPGs would have been 275 more than the FY2006
number. The request proposed that the average cost of a competing RPG would not
increase over the FY2006 level, and that noncompeting grants would receive no
inflationary increases. NIH expected that the “success rate” of applicants receiving
funding for competing RPGs would be about 19%, the same as FY2006, compared
with 22% in FY2005. During the doubling years, the success rate averaged 30%-

32%.

In the request, support for research centers would have grown by 2.3% to $2.8
billion; research training grants would have remained at the FY2006 level ($760
million); research and development contracts would have increased by $44 million
(1.6%) to $2.7 billion because of the Genes, Health, and Environment initiative; the
intramural research program ($2.8 billion) was slated to decrease by $9 million
(0.3%); research management and support would have increased by $14 million
(1.3%) to $1.1 billion; extramural research facilities construction would have
supported only the $25 million for biosafety labs, with no funds (same as FY2006)
for non-biodefense extramural construction; and funding for NIH’s own buildings
and facilities remained at $89 million. As noted above, by moving the $25 million
in facilities construction money from NIAID to NCRR, the House bill made the
funds available for open competition instead of being limited to biodefense facilities.
The NIH and other Public Health Service agencies within HHS are subject to
a budget “tap” called the PHS Program Evaluation Transfer (section 241 of the PHS
Act), which has the effect of redistributing appropriated funds among PHS agencies.
The FY2005 and FY2006 Labor-HHS appropriations set the tap at 2.4%, as did the
FY2007 Senate bill. The House bill returned the maximum tap to 1.0%, the level
specified in the PHS Act. NIH, with the largest budget among the PHS agencies, is
the largest “donor” of program evaluation funds and is a relatively minor recipient.
At the end of the 109^th Congress, the House and Senate agreed on the first NIH
reauthorization statute enacted since 1993, the NIH Reform Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-
482). The law made managerial and organizational changes in NIH, focusing on
enhancing the authority and tools for the NIH Director to do strategic planning,
especially to facilitate and fund cross-institute research initiatives. It required

detailed tracking of the research portfolio and periodic review of NIH’s
organizational structure. The measure authorized, for the first time, overall funding
levels for NIH, although not for the individual ICs, and established a “common fund”
for trans-NIH research. For further information on NIH, see CRS Report RL33695,
The National Institutes of Health: Organization, Funding, and Congressional Issues,
by Pamela W. Smith. (CRS Contact: Pamela Smith.)
Table 5. National Institutes of Health
($ in millions)
^Inst^it^ut^{es a}^{nd Cent}^{ers (}^I^Cs)^FY²⁰⁰⁵^actu^al^a^FY²⁰⁰⁶^{rev appr}^b^FY²⁰⁰⁷^request^FY²⁰⁰⁷^H^.^C^o^mm.^FY²⁰⁰⁷^S^.^C^o^mm.
^C^aⁿ^{cer (N}^C^I⁾^$4,828.2^$4,790.1^$4,753.6^$4,753.6^$4,799.1
^H^e^a^r^t^/^L^ung/^B^l^{ood (N}^H^L^BI)²^,941.2²^,919.⁸²^,901.0²^,901.0²^,924.3
^D^eⁿ^t^al^/^C^ranⁱ^of^aci^al^R^e^s^(N^ID^C^R⁾^391.8^389.1^386.1^386.1^389.7
^Diabetes^/Dig^es^/Kidn^e^y^(NIDDK)^1,713.6¹^,703.8¹^,694.3¹^,694.3¹^,707.8
^N^e^u^r^{o. D}ⁱ^s^o^rders^/^S^t^rok^e^(N^IN^D^S⁾¹^,539.4¹^,533.7¹^,524.8¹^,524.8¹^,537.7^c
^A^l^l^e^rg^y^/^In^f^ectⁱ^o^u^s^Di^s^(NIA^ID)^4,402.8⁴^,380.3⁴^,395.5⁴^,270.5⁴^,395.5
^G^eⁿ^e^ral^Medi^cal^S^cⁱ^(N^IG^MS⁾¹^,944.1¹^,934.3¹^,923.5¹^,923.5¹^,934.9
^C^hⁱ^l^d^H^eal^t^h^(N^IC^H^D⁾^1,270.3¹^,263.9¹^,257.4¹^,257.4¹^,264.5
^Ey^{e (N}^EI)^669.1^666.3^661.4^661.4^666.9
^En^vⁱ^ron^H^eal^t^h^S^cⁱ^(N^IEH^S⁾^644.5^640.7^637.3^637.3^641.3
^A^gⁱⁿ^g^(N^IA⁾¹^,052.0¹^,045.9¹^,039.8¹^,039.8¹^,048.9
^A^r^th^ritis^/Mu^s^cu^lo/Skⁱⁿ^(NIA^MS)^511.2^507.6^504.5^504.5^508.6
^D^eafⁿ^e^s^s^/^C^o^m^m^’ⁿ^Dⁱ^s^(N^ID^C^D⁾^394.3^393.2^391.6^391.6^395.2
^N^u^rsⁱⁿ^g^R^e^s^earch^(N^IN^R⁾^138.1^137.2^136.6^136.6^137.8
^Al^c^o^h^o^l^Ab^u^s^e⁽^N^I^AAA)^438.3^435.6^433.3^433.3^436.6
^D^r^u^g^A^b^u^s^{e (N}^ID^A⁾^1,006.4^999.3^994.8^994.8¹^,000.3
^Men^t^al^H^eal^t^h^(N^IMH⁾^1,411.9¹^,402.6¹^,394.8¹^,394.8¹^,403.6
^Hu^m^aⁿ^Gen^o^m^e^R^e^s^(NHGR^I)^488.6^485.7^482.9^482.9^486.3
^Bi^{o Im}^agⁱⁿ^g^/^Bi^oen^g^r^g^(N^IBIB)^298.2^296.6^294.9^294.9^297.6
^R^e^s^earch^R^e^s^o^u^r^ces^(N^C^R^R⁾¹^,115.1¹^,098.3¹^,098.2¹^,123.2¹^,104.3
^C^o^m^p^l^e^mⁿ^t^/^A^l^t^{Med (N}^C^C^A^M)^122.1^121.4^120.6^120.6^122.0
^Miⁿ^o^ri^t^y^H^l^t^h^/^Dⁱ^s^pari^t^y^(N^C^M^H^D⁾^196.2^195.3^194.3^194.3^196.8
^F^o^g^a^rt^y^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^C^eⁿ^t^{er (F}^IC⁾^66.6^66.3^66.7^66.7^66.8
^Lⁱ^brary^of^Medi^ciⁿ^e^(N^L^M⁾^315.1^314.7^313.3^313.3^315.3^d
^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^{Director (OD)}^405.1^527.2^667.8^667.8^687.8
^B^u^ildin^g^s^&^Facilities^(B^&^F⁾^110.3^81.0^81.1^81.1^81.1
^Subt^ot^al^{, L}^abor^-H^H^S^-ED^Appr^op^$28,^414.5^$28,329.8^$28,350.⁰^$28,250.0^$28,550.7
^S^u^perf^uⁿ^d^(In^t^e^ri^or/^Eⁿ^v^A^pprop)^e^79.8^79.1^78.4^79.4^79.4
^T^o^{tal, NI}^{H dis}^{cr budget auth}^$28,^494.4^$28,409.0^$28,428.⁴^$28,329.4^$28,630.1
^Pre-^{approp T}^y^{pe 1 di}^abet^es^f^150.0^150.0^150.0^150.0^150.0
^N^L^{M prog}^ram^ev^al^u^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^g^8.2⁸^.2^8.2⁸^.2^8.2
^T^o^tal^,^N^I^{H p}^r^ogram^l^e^vel^$28,^652.6^$28,567.2^$28,586.⁶^$28,487.6^$28,788.3
^Glo^b^a^{l HIV/A}^I^{DS Fu}ⁿ^d^tran^sf^er^c^-^99.2^-^99.0^-^100.0⁰^.0^-^100.0
^T^o^tal^,^N^I^{H p}^r^{og l}^e^vel^w^/^tran^s^f^er^$28,553.4^$28,468.2^$28,^486.6^$28,487.6^$28,688.3
^Sources^:^F^Y^{2007 N}^I^H^bu^dg^et^j^u^s^tⁱ^fⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^,^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{515, an}^{d S}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^287.
^No^te:^{FY2007 f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^w^a^s^con^tin^u^e^{d at th}^{e FY2006}^{rate u}ⁿ^{til Febru}^a^ry^{15, 2007 by}^P^.^L^.^109-^383.
^a.^R^e^f^l^ect^s^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board redu}^ctⁱ^oⁿ^(0.8%⁾^of^$229.390m^{, L}^a^bor-^H^H^S^-^E^D^redu^ctⁱ^oⁿ^of^$6.787m
^f^o^{r s}^a^laries^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es^{, an}^{d an}^addition^a^{l $2.987m}^f^r^om^NC^{I breas}^{t can}^{cer s}^t^am^{p f}^uⁿ^d^s^.
^b.^R^e^f^l^ect^s^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^(1%⁾^of^$285.974m^{, In}^t^e^ri^or/^Eⁿ^v^redu^ctⁱ^oⁿ^of^$0.382m^,^an^d
^H^H^S^t^r^an^s^f^{er of}^$19.462m^t^o^C^eⁿ^t^ers^f^o^{r Medi}^{care an}^{d Medi}^cai^{d S}^e^rvⁱ^ces^(mⁱ^d^-^J^uⁿ^e^2006).

^{c. NI}^A^I^{D to}^{tals in}^clu^d^{e f}^uⁿ^d^{s f}^o^r^tr^an^sf^er^to^Glo^b^a^{l Fu}ⁿ^d^to^Fig^h^t^HI^V/A^I^{DS, T}^B^{, an}^d^Malarⁱ^{a (}ⁿ^o^t
ⁱⁿ^{FY2007 Hou}^s^{e bill). FY2006 in}^clu^d^es^$18.0m^s^u^pplem^en^tal^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^P^u^blic^Health^an^d
^S^o^ci^al^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^Em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^F^uⁿ^d^(PH^S^S^E^F⁾^f^o^{r pan}^d^emⁱ^c^f^l^u^(P.L^{. 109-}^148),^an^d^a^com^p^arabl^e
^t^r^an^s^f^{er of}^$49.5m^f^r^om^N^I^A^I^D^t^o^O^D^f^o^{r A}^d^v^aⁿ^{ced D}^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t^of^couⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es^.
^{d. O}^D^h^a^s^R^o^adm^a^{p f}^uⁿ^d^s^f^o^{r di}^s^t^ri^bu^tⁱ^oⁿ^t^o^IC^s^(F^Y^2005,^$59.520m^;^F^Y^2006,^$82.170m^;^F^Y^2007,
^$110.700m⁾^.^F^Y^{2005 i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^es^$47.021m^t^r^an^s^f^{erred f}^r^om^PH^S^S^E^F^f^o^{r n}^u^c^l^ear/^r^adi^o^l^o^gⁱ^cal
^couⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es^{. F}^Y^{2006 i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^es^t^h^{e $49.5m}^com^p^arabl^e^t^r^an^s^f^{er f}^r^om^N^I^A^I^D^.
^{e. Separate accou}ⁿ^tⁱⁿ^th^e^In^terior/En^vⁱ^ron^m^en^t/R^{elated A}^g^en^cies^{appropriation}^f^o^r^NIEHS^res^earch
^activ^{ities m}^aⁿ^d^atedⁱⁿ^Su^p^e^rf^uⁿ^d^legⁱ^slatioⁿ^(f^o^r^m^e^rlyⁱⁿ^VA^{/HUD ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ⁾^.
^f^.^P^r^e-^appropriated^f^uⁿ^d^s^av^{ailable to NIDDK f}^o^r^diabetes^res^earch^(P^.L^{. 106-}^{554 an}^{d P}^.^L^.^107-^360).
^g^.^F^uⁿ^d^s^f^r^om^P^H^S^prog^ram^ev^alu^a^tion^s^e^t-^as^ide^{(§ 241 of}^th^{e P}^H^S^A^c^{t), $8.2m}^f^o^{r NL}^{M each}^y^ear.
National Science Foundation (NSF)
The FY2007 request for the National Science Foundation (NSF) was $6,020.0
million, a 7.9% increase ($438.8 million) over the FY2006 level of $5,581.2 million.
(See Table 6). President Bush’s ACI proposed to double the NSF budget over the
next 10 years. The FY2007 request was to be the first installment toward that
doubling effort. The FY2007 request for NSF was designed to support several
interdependent priority areas: broadening participation in the science and engineering
enterprise, providing world-class facilities and infrastructure, advancing research at
the frontier, and bolstering K-12 education. NSF was to invest approximately $640.0
million in programs targeted at those groups underrepresented in the science and
engineering workforce. Total support for providing world-class facilities would have
approached $1.7 billion. Across the agency, activities for advancing research at the
frontiers of science were anticipated to reach $4.7 billion.
The NSF asserts that international research partnerships are critical to the nation
in maintaining a competitive edge, addressing global issues, and capitalizing on
global economic opportunities. To address these particular needs, the Administration
requested $40.6 million for the Office of International Science and Engineering.
Also, in FY2007, NSF continued in its leadership role in planning U.S. participation
in observance of the International Polar Year, which spans 2007 and 2008. A first-
year investment of $62.0 million was provided to address major challenges in polar
research. Other proposed FY2007 highlights included funding for the National
Nanotechnology Initiative ($373.2 million), investments in Climate Change Science
Program ($205.3 million), continued support for homeland security ($384.2 million),
and funding for Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
($903.7 million). Also, a new effort in the FY2007 request was to be a $20.0 million
program of fundamental research on new technologies for sensor systems that detect
explosives.
Included in the FY2007 request was $4,666.0 million for Research and Related
Activities (R&RA), a 7.7% increase ($334.5million) over the FY2006 level of
$4,331.5 million. R&RA funds research projects, research facilities, and education
and training activities. Partly in response to concerns in the scientific community
about the imbalance between support for the life sciences and the physical sciences,
the FY2007 request had provided increased funding for the physical sciences —
$248.5 million, a 6.6% increase ($15.4 million) over the FY2006 estimate. Research
in the physical sciences often leads to advances in other disciplines. R&RA includes
Integrative Activities (IA) and is a source of funding for the acquisition and
development of research instrumentation at U.S. colleges and universities. IA also

funds Partnerships for Innovation, disaster research teams, and the Science and
Technology Policy Institute. The FY2007 request for IA was $131.4 million, a 4.2%
decrease ($5.8 million) from the FY2006 estimate. The Office of Polar Programs
(OPP) is funded in the R&RA. In FY2006, responsibility for funding the costs of
icebreakers that support scientific research in polar regions was transferred from the
U.S. Coast Guard to the NSF. The NSF will continue to operate and maintain the
three icebreakers. The OPP was funded at $438.1 million in the FY2007 request,
12.5% above the FY2006 level. Significant increases in OPP for FY2007 were
directed at the programs for arctic and antarctic sciences.
Research project support in the FY2007 would have totaled $2,413.7 million.
This support is provided to individuals and small groups conducting disciplinary and
cross-disciplinary research. Included in the total for research projects was support
for centers, proposed at $259.8 million. The NSF supports a variety of individual
centers and center programs. The FY2007 request provided $67.5 million for Science
and Technology Centers, $55.7 million for Materials Centers, $62.8 million for
Engineering Research Centers, $37.4 million for Nanoscale Science and Engineering
Centers, and $6.5 million for Centers for Analysis and Synthesis.
The Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account
would have been funded at $240.5 million in the FY2007, a 26% increase ($49.6
million) over the FY2006 level. The MREFC supports the acquisition and
construction of major research facilities and equipment that extend the boundaries
of science, engineering, and technology. Of all federal agencies, NSF is the primary
supporter of “forefront instrumentation and facilities for the academic research and
education communities.” First priority for funding is directed to ongoing projects.
Second priority is directed at projects that have been approved by the National
Science Board for new starts. NSF requires that in order for a project to receive
support, it must have “the potential to shift the paradigm in scientific understanding
and/or infrastructure technology.” NSF stated that the projects scheduled for support
in the FY2007 request met that qualification. Five ongoing projects and two new
starts were proposed for funding in the FY2007 request: Atacama Large Millimeter
Array Construction ($47.9 million), EarthScope ($27.4 million), Ice Cube Neutrino
Observatory ($28.7 million), National Ecological Observatory Network ($12.0
million), Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel ($42.9 million), Alaskan Region Research
Vessel ($56.0 million), and Ocean Observatories Initiative ($13.5 million).
The FY2007 request had also supported several NSF-wide investments in:
biocomplexity in the environment ($42.6 million), human and social dynamics ($41.5
million), and mathematical sciences ($78.5 million). Additional priority areas
included those of strengthening core disciplinary research, continuing as lead federal
agency in networking and information technology R&D, and sustaining
organizational excellence in NSF management practices. The NSF maintained that
researchers need not only access to cutting-edge tools to pursue the increasing
complexity of research, but funding to develop and design the tools critical to 21^st
century research and education. An investment of $596.8 million in
cyberinfrastructure would have allowed for funding of modeling, simulation,
visualization, and data storage and other communications breakthroughs. NSF
anticipated that this level of funding would make cyberinfrastructure more powerful,
stable, and accessible to researchers and educators through widely shared research

facilities. Increasing grant size and duration has been a long-term priority for NSF.
The funding rate for research grants applications has declined from approximately

30% in the late 1990s to an estimated 23% in FY2006.

The FY2007 request for the Education and Human Resources Directorate (EHR)
was $816.2 million, a 2.5% increase ($19.5 million) over FY2006. The EHR
portfolio is focused on, among other things, increasing the technological literacy of
all citizens, preparing the next generation of science, engineering, and mathematics
professionals, and closing the achievement gap in all scientific fields. Support at the
various educational levels in the FY2007 request was to be as follows: precollege,
$215.0 million; undergraduate, $196.8 million; and graduate, $160.6 million.
Priorities at the precollege level include research and evaluation on education in
science and engineering ($41.2 million), informal science education ($65.6 million),
and a new program, Discovery Research K-12 ($104.1 million). Discovery Research
was structured to combine the strengths of three existing programs and encourage
innovative thinking in K-12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education.
At the undergraduate level, approximately 72% of the funding was to be in
support of new awards and activities. Priorities at the undergraduate level included
the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program ($9.8 million), Course, Curriculum and
Laboratory Improvement ($86.5 million), STEM Talent Expansion Program ($26.1
million), the National STEM Education Digital Library ($16.0 million), the Federal
Cyber Service ($11 million), and Advanced Technological Education ($45.9 million).
The Math and Science Partnership Program (MSP) was transferred to the
undergraduate level in the FY2007 request.
MSP was to be supported at $46.0 million, a 27.2% decrease from the FY2006
estimate. Funding in the FY2007 request was to provide support for ongoing awards,
in addition to data collection, evaluation, knowledge management, and
dissemination. No new partnership awards were proposed in the budget request. The
MSP has made approximately 80 awards, with an overall funding rate of about 9%.
At the graduate level, priorities were those of Integrative Graduate Education and
Research Traineeship ($24.6 million), Graduate Research Fellowships ($88.0
million), and the Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education ($46.8 million).
Added support was given to several programs directed at increasing the number of
underrepresented minorities in science, mathematics, and engineering. Among these
targeted programs in the FY2007 request were the Historically Black Colleges and
Universities Programs ($29.7 million), Tribal Colleges and Universities Program
($12.4 million), Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation ($39.7 million),
and Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology ($24.9 million).
Funding for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)
was supported at $100.0 million in the FY2007 request, a slight increase of $1.3
million over FY2006. Approximately 55% of the FY2007 request for EPSCoR was
to be available for new awards and activities, with the balance supporting awards
made in previous years.
On June 29, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5672, Science-State-Justice-
Commence Appropriation Bill, FY2007 (H.Rept. 109-520). The bill would have
provided $6,020.0 million for the NSF in FY2007, the amount requested by the

Administration. Included in the funding was $4, 646.4 million for R&RA, again, the
same as the request. The MREFC was to be funded at $237.3 million, $3.0 million
below the Administration’s request. The House bill did not include the $3.0 million
reimbursement to Judgement Fund of the U.S. Treasury for a settlement related to the
Polar Aircraft Upgrades project. The EHR was to be funded at $832.4 million,
approximately $16.2 million above the request. Included in the amount for the EHR
was $105.0 for EPSCoR, $5.0 million above the amount requested. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations reported its version of H.R. 5672 on July 13, 2006
(S.Rept. 109-280). The Senate provided a total of $5, 991.7 million for the NSF in
FY2007, $28.3 million below the request and the House bill. R&RA was funded at
$4,646.4 million, $19.6 million below the Administration’s request and the House
version. Other funding levels included in the Senate version were $237.3 million for
MREFC, $835.8 million for EHR, and $110.0 million for EPSCoR. (CRS Contact:
Christine Matthews.)
Table 6. National Science Foundation
($ in millions)
FY2007
F Y 2005 F Y 2006 F Y 2007 F Y 2007 Senat e
Ac t . Es t . Re q. House Comm.
^{Res. & Rela}^{ted Act.}
^Bi^ol^ogⁱ^cal^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^ces^$576.8^$576.7^$607.9
^C^o^m^p^u^t^{er &}^In^f^o^rm^{. S}^cⁱ^.^&^En^g^.^490.2^496.4^526.7
^En^gⁱⁿ^eeriⁿ^g^557.1^580.9^628.6
^G^e^os^ci^en^ces^697.2^702.8^744.9
^Mat^h^&^Ph^y^sⁱ^cal^S^cⁱ^.^1,069.4¹^,085.5¹^,150.3
^S^o^ci^al^{, Beh}^a^v^.^&^Econ^{. S}^cⁱ^.^196.8^199.9^213.8
^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^C^y^beriⁿ^f^ras^t^ru^ct^u^r^e^123.4^127.1^182.4
^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^S^cⁱ^.^&^En^g^.^43.4^34.5^40.6
^U^.^S^.^Pol^a^{r Prog}^ram^s^349.7^390.5^439.6
^In^teg^r^ativ^{e A}^c^tiv^ities^130.9^137.2^131.4
^{Subtotal Res}^.^{& Rel. Act}^$4,234.8^$4,331.5^$4,666.0^$4,666.0^c^$4,646.4^c
^{Ed. &}^H^u^m^.^R^e^s^r^.^843.5^796.7^816.2^832.4^835.8
^Maj^o^{r R}^e^s^.^Equⁱ^{p. &}^F^aci^l^.^C^oⁿ^s^t^r^.^165.1^190.9^240.5^237.3^237.3
^S^a^l^a^ri^es^&^Ex^pen^s^es^223.5^246.8^281.8^268.6^256.5
^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^{ce Board}^3.7⁴^.0^3.9³^.9^3.9
^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^In^s^p^ect^{or G}^eⁿ^e^ral^10.2^11.4^11.9^11.9^11.9^a
^To^t^a^{l N}^S^F^$5,480.8^$5,581.2^$6,020.⁰^$6,020.0^$5,991.7
^{a. T}^h^e^totals^doⁿ^o^{t in}^clu^d^{e carry}^ov^ers^{or retir}^em^en^{t accru}^a^ls^{. T}^o^tals^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add du}^{e to rou}ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
^{b. A}^ddition^a^{l f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^res^u^ltⁱ^ng^fr^o^m^H^-^1B^Nonⁱ^m^mⁱ^g^r^an^{t P}^e^tition^e^{r R}^eceipts^is^{$26 m}^illionⁱⁿ
^{FY2005, an}^es^tim^{ated $100 m}^illionⁱⁿ^{FY2006, an}^{d a proj}^{ected $100 m}^illionⁱⁿ^FY2007.
^c.^Sp^ecifⁱ^c^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^allo^catioⁿ^s^f^o^{r each}^dⁱ^recto^r^{ate o}^r^f^o^{r in}^dⁱ^vⁱ^d^u^{al p}^r^o^g^ram^s^an^d^activ^ities^w^e^reⁿ^o^t
^d^e^ter^mⁱⁿ^ed^.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) R&D
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested $1.552 billion for R&D
in FY2007, an increase of 4.5% from FY2006. This total included $1.002 billion for
the Directorate of Science and Technology, $536 million for the Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office (DNDO), and $14 million for Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation (RDT&E) in the U.S. Coast Guard. (For details, see Table 7.) The
request for DNDO was a 70% increase. The request for the S&T Directorate was a

13% decrease. The House provided $956 million for the S&T Directorate; $500

million for DNDO; and $14 million for Coast Guard RDT&E. The Senate provided
$818 million for the S&T Directorate (less a rescission of $200 million in
unobligated prior-year funds); $442 million for DNDO; $18 million for Coast Guard
RDT&E; and $92 million for R&D in TSA (transferred from S&T). The final bill
provided $973 million for S&T (less $125 million in rescinded prior-year funds);
$481 million for DNDO, and $17 million for Coast Guard RDT&E. The final total
of $1.371 billion (excluding the rescission of unobligated funds) was an overall 9%
reduction from FY2006, made up of a 16% decrease for S&T, a 53% increase for
DNDO, and a 6% decrease for Coast Guard RDT&E.²
For individual portfolios within the S&T Directorate, comparing FY2007 with
previous years is difficult because of several accounting factors. Certain expenses
previously funded by each R&D portfolio were requested in the Management and
Administration account in FY2007. Funds for DNDO were requested separately
rather than as part of S&T. The former Transportation Security Administration R&D
program, which was merged into S&T and funded in the R&D Consolidation line in
FY2006, constituted part of the Explosives Countermeasures and Support of
Components portfolios in the FY2007 request. The request indicated that some
activities, most notably the Counter MANPADS program to protect commercial
aircraft against portable ground-to-air missiles, would continue at their current level
of effort in FY2007 but required little additional budget authority because prior-year
funds remained unspent. After accounting for these factors, it appeared that the
FY2007 request would reduce net funding for the Standards, Rapid Prototyping,
SAFETY Act, and Critical Infrastructure Protection portfolios, and increase net
funding for Cyber Security and the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility.
Several of the requested net changes would have offset changes that Congress made
in FY2006 relative to the FY2006 request. For congressional changes relative to the
FY2007 request, see Table 7.
Both committee reports (H.Rept. 109-476 and S.Rept. 109-273) were highly
critical of the S&T Directorate. The House committee reduced the Management and
Administration account by $5 million “for lack of responsiveness” to its information
requests. It made $98 million of that account unavailable for obligation until S&T
provided budgetary information “with sufficient detail.” The Senate bill made $60
million of the Management and Administration account unavailable for obligation
pending the submission and approval of an expenditure plan. In the S&T
Directorate’s main RDA&O account, the House committee made $400 million
unavailable for obligation until the Under Secretary reported on progress in
addressing financial management deficiencies. The Senate transfer of S&T activities
back to TSA was because “the Committee has repeatedly requested a breakout of
funding ... which S&T has failed to provide.” The House committee report objected
that the budget justification contains “no details of how risk assessment was used in
its formulation or even which DHS agency was tasked with prioritizing risks and
assigning them resources.” The Senate committee report described the S&T
Directorate as “a rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course.” The

² DNDO was funded within the S&T Directorate in FY2006. The percentage increases
given here for DNDO are relative to its FY2006 funding within S&T. The percentage
decreases for S&T are relative to its FY2006 funding exclusive of DNDO.

conference report (H.Rept. 109-699) did not include such critical language, but
language in the final bill did make $60 million from Management and Administration
and $50 million from RDA&O unavailable for obligation pending congressional
approval of an expenditure plan and a report on financial management. The
President’s signing statement construed these provisions on constitutional grounds
as “calling solely for notification.”³
The FY2007 budget request marked the end of a period of consolidation for
DHS R&D programs. In the FY2004 appropriations conference report
(H.Rept.108-280), Congress directed the department to consolidate its R&D activities
into the S&T Directorate. This process began with several small programs in
FY2005, but a proposed move of the Coast Guard RDT&E program was rejected by
the Senate. In FY2006, the much larger R&D program of the Transportation Security
Administration was moved into S&T, but again the Senate rejected moving the Coast
Guard program. The FY2007 request proposed no further consolidations; conversely,
it proposed dividing out DNDO funding into a separate account, which would
comprise more than one-third of the department’s R&D budget. The House
committee report expressed puzzlement and dissatisfaction with the transfer but
approved it anyway, because of the “critical importance of the DNDO mission” and
“the liability [DNDO] would face” if left in S&T. The committee directed S&T to
work with DNDO and support its R&D-related needs. The Senate committee made
no comment on the separation of DNDO, but proposed transferring some S&T
activities back to TSA. This Senate proposal was rejected in conference. (CRS
Contact: Daniel Morgan.)

³ “President’s Statement on H.R. 5441”, White House press release October 4, 2006, online
at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/print/20061004-10.html].

Table 7. Department of Homeland Security R&D
($ in millions)
^FY²⁰⁰⁶^a^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Rqst.^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Fin^a^l
^S^c^ien^{ce an}^d^T^echⁿ^o^{logy Direct}^orate^1467.1^1002.3^956.3^618.4^848.1
^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^80.3^195.9^180.9^106.4^135.0
^R^&^{D, A}^c^qu^is^ition^,^an^{d Operation}^s^1386.8^806.4^775.4^512.0^713.1
^Bi^ol^ogⁱ^cal^C^o^uⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es^376.2^337.2^337.2^327.2^350.2
^C^h^emⁱ^cal^C^o^uⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es^94.0^83.1^45.1^75.0^60.0
^Ex^pl^osⁱ^v^es^C^o^uⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es^43.6^86.6^76.6⁵^.0^86.6
^R^a^diolog^ical/Nu^c^{lear C}^o^uⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es^b^18.9^-^-^-^-
^Dom^e^s^{tic Nu}^{clear Detection}^Of^fⁱ^ce^b^314.8^-^-^-^-
^T^h^{reat A}^w^aren^es^s^c^42.6^39.9^39.9^35.0^35.0
^S^t^an^dards^34.6^22.1^22.1^27.1^22.1
^S^u^pport^of^D^H^S^C^o^m^pon^en^t^s^d^79.2^88.6^85.6^80.0^85.6
^Uⁿⁱ^v^ersⁱ^t^y^an^{d F}^e^l^l^o^w^s^hⁱ^{p Prog}^ram^s^62.4^52.0^52.0^50.0^50.0
^Em^erg^eⁿ^t^an^{d P}^r^ototy^p^{ical T}^echⁿ^o^log^y^e^42.6^19.5^19.5^12.5^19.5
^C^o^uⁿ^t^{er MA}^N^P^A^D^S^108.9⁴^.9^4.9^40.0^40.0
^SA^FET^Y^A^c^t⁶^.9^4.7⁴^.7^4.7⁴^.7
^Of^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^Iⁿ^ter^o^p^.^an^d^Co^m^p^atib^ility²⁶^.²²⁹^.⁷²⁹^.⁷²⁵^.⁰²⁷^.⁰
^C^rⁱ^tⁱ^cal^In^f^r^as^t^r^u^c^t^u^{re Prot}^ectⁱ^oⁿ^40.4^15.4^35.4^12.5^35.4
^C^y^{ber S}^ecu^ri^t^y^16.5^22.7^22.7^18.0^20.0
^P^acifⁱ^{c North}^w^es^{t Nation}^a^{l L}^a^boratory^-^-^-^-²^.0
^R&^{D Co}ⁿ^s^o^lid^atioⁿ^f^98.9^-^-^-^-
^R^e^s^cⁱ^s^{. of}^Uⁿ^{obd. F}^uⁿ^d^s^f^r^om^Pri^o^{r Y}^r^s^.^-^20.0^-^-^-^200.0^-^125.0
^T^r^an^s^p^ortati^on^S^ecu^ri^ty^Admⁱ^{nistrn. R&D}^f^-^-^-^91.6^-
^Dom^e^s^t^{ic Nuclear Detection Office}^c^-^535.8^500.0^442.5^481.0
^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^-^30.5^30.5^30.5^30.5
^R^e^s^earch^{, D}^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t^,^an^{d O}^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s^-^327.3^291.5^234.0^272.5
^Sy^s^t^em^s^A^c^qu^is^ition^-^178.0^178.0^178.0^178.0
^U^.^S^.^C^oas^{t G}^u^ard^R^D^T^&^E^18.1^13.9^13.9^17.6^17.0
^T^o^tal^D^H^S^R^&^D^1485.2^1552.0^1470.2^1370.1^1246.1
^T^o^tal^(E^x^c^l^u^dⁱⁿ^g^Pri^o^r-Y^e^{ar R}^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^s⁾^1505.2^1552.0^1470.2^1570.1^1371.1
^{a. T}^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 en}^act^{ed f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^h^a^v^e^been^redu^{ced by}^t^h^e^1%^g^eⁿ^e^ral^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^(P.L^{. 109-}^{148) an}^d
ⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{e a s}^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^of^{$525,000 f}^o^{r C}^o^as^t^G^u^{ard R}^D^T^&^E.
^b^.^Fuⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r th}^{e Do}^m^e^{stic Nu}^{clear Detectio}ⁿ^Of^fⁱ^{ce (DNDO) w}^a^{s in}^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^th^{e b}^u^d^g^{et f}^o^{r th}^e
^Scⁱ^eⁿ^{ce an}^{d T}^echⁿ^o^l^o^g^y^Dⁱ^rect^orat^{e i}ⁿ^F^Y^{2006. It}ⁱⁿ^corporat^{ed m}^o^s^t^of^w^h^at^h^a^d^b^e^eⁿⁱⁿ
^R^a^diolog^ical/Nu^c^{lear C}^o^uⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^esⁱⁿ^F^Y^2005.^In^F^Y^{2007, DNDO h}^a^{d a s}^e^{parate bu}^dg^et
^requ^es^t^.
^{c. T}^h^r^{eat A}^w^ar^en^{ess is also}^kⁿ^o^wⁿ^{as T}^h^r^{eat an}^d^Vu^ln^er^ab^ility^T^e^stin^g^an^d^A^ssessm^en^t.
^{d. S}^u^pport^of^D^H^S^C^o^m^pon^en^t^sⁱ^s^al^s^o^kⁿ^o^wⁿ^as^C^oⁿ^v^eⁿ^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Mi^s^sⁱ^on^s^.
^{e. Em}^erg^eⁿ^t^an^{d P}^r^ototy^p^{ical T}^echⁿ^o^log^y^com^bⁱⁿ^es^tw^{o prev}^iou^s^portf^olios^,^Em^ergⁱⁿ^g^T^h^reats^an^d
^R^a^pi^{d Prot}^ot^y^pⁱⁿ^g^,^w^h^os^{e f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^F^Y^{2006 h}^a^s^been^s^u^m^m^e^{d f}^o^{r t}^hⁱ^s^t^a^bl^e.
^f^.^T^h^{e T}^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^Secu^r^ity^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^R&^{D p}^r^o^g^r^a^m^w^a^s^tr^an^sf^er^r^e^dⁱⁿ^to^th^{e Scien}^{ce an}^d
^T^echⁿ^o^l^o^g^y^Dⁱ^rect^orat^{e i}ⁿ^F^Y^{2006, an}^{d f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r i}^t^w^a^s^requ^es^t^e^{d i}ⁿ^t^h^at^y^{ear i}ⁿ^t^h^{e R}^&^D
^C^oⁿ^s^olⁱ^d^atⁱ^oⁿ^lⁱⁿ^{e. In}^F^Y^{2007, t}^hⁱ^s^actⁱ^vⁱ^t^yⁱ^sⁱⁿ^t^h^e^Ex^pl^osⁱ^v^es^C^o^uⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es^an^{d S}^u^pport
^o^f^{DHS Co}^m^p^oⁿ^en^{ts p}^o^r^tf^o^lio^s,^ex^cep^tⁱⁿ^th^e^Sen^a^te^b^ill,^w^h^ich^w^o^u^l^d^h^a^v^e^r^e^tu^rⁿ^ed^th^{e f}^o^r^m^er
^T^S^A^activ^{ities to}^T^S^A^.

Department of Commerce (DOC)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
For FY2007, the Administration had requested $546 million for NOAA R&D.
That sum represented a 12.6% decline from the $610 million approved by Congress
in FY2006. The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), is NOAA’s
primary research office. In FY2007 the Administration had requested $349 million
for OAR R&D, a 6% decline from FY2006 funding levels. Other R&D funding
requested for FY2007 included $73.1 million for the National Ocean Service (NOS),
$ 46.7 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), $31.7 million for
the National Weather Service (NWS), $25.2 million for the National Environmental
Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS), and $52 million for the Office of
Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO). PAC funding of $11.4 million was
requested for R&D systems acquisition, including $9.4 million for OAR and $2.0
million for NWS, to enhance NOAA supercomputing capabilities.
The House Science, State, Justice, and Commerce (CJS) Appropriations bill for
FY2007 would have funded NOAA R&D $509 million, $101 million below FY2006
estimated level. (H.Rept. 109-520.) NOAA does not analyze R&D funding for
distribution until after final congressional appropriations are known. H.R. 5672 may
have cut funding for research and development activities, especially those deemed
not to be directly serving the agency’s mission. The R&D programs that stood to be
the most affected were federal/university/private sector scientific research
partnerships. As a result, greater funding responsibility would have been shifted to
NOAA’s partners. Applied R&D would have faced fewer reductions and in the case
of NOAA satellites, systems would have increased.
On July 13, 2006 the Senate Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 5672
which included $779 million for NOAA R&D in FY2007. (S.Rept. 109-280). The
committee proposed increases for ocean exploration, the National Centers for Coastal
Science, programs in ocean and human health, and the National Underwater Research
Program as was recommended by the JOCI. The committee recommended $467.2
million for OAR. R&D partnership programs in climate, weather, and ocean and
coastal research activities across the agency would have been funded at traditional
levels and not cut as proposed in House appropriations and the President’s request.
The National Sea Grant College Program, which sponsors marine research and
applied science in cooperation with states, would have received $80 million, 25%
more than in FY2006. PAC funding for systems acquisition and construction
supporting OAR would have been $18.4 million. The NOAA Fisheries
recommendation included $209.6 million for fishery science and habitat restoration
activities, cooperative research, and R&D-related construction. The committee also
recommended $132.4 million for ocean science-related activities in the National
Ocean Service. The committee would have provided $7.5 million for the NWS U.S.
Weather Research Program. NOAA’s satellites program would have received $21.6
million for applied research and $11.9 million for R&D-related system acquisition.
Also, $37.9 million was recommended for (science) education programs, which was
more than the House and the Senate request. The Office of Marine and Aviation
Operations (OMAO) would have been provided $92.7 million for marine data

acquisition (scored as R&D) and $41.9 million to replace or procure new marine
research vessels. The Senate Committee had approved an estimated $779 million for
NOAA R&D, $269 million more than the House recommended.
For information on the agency’s full budget request for FY2007, see CRS
Report RS22410, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Budget
for FY2007: President’s Request, Congressional Appropriations, and Related Issues,
by Wayne A. Morrissey. (CRS Contact: Wayne A. Morrissey.)
Table 8. NOAA R&D Estimates
($ in millions)
NOAAFY2006EstimateFY2007Request HouseSenateComm.
R&D Total610533510779
Office of Oceanic & Atmospheric372349302467
Research (OAR) Line Office Total
^Source:^{U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of^C^o^m^m^e^{rce, Nation}^a^{l Ocean}^{ic an}^{d A}^t^m^o^s^p^h^e^{ric A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^,^Of^fⁱ^ce
^o^f^Fi^na^ncⁱ^a^l^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^o^n,^N^O^A^A^B^u^d^g^e^t^O^ffi^c^e^,^Res^e^a^r^c^h^{and Development Budgets}^FY^2005-
^FY²⁰⁰⁷^{, F}^e^bru^a^ry^{21, 2006. U}^.^S^.^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^,^H^o^u^s^e,^Sci^eⁿ^c^e^,^St^at^{e, Jus}^tⁱ^{ce, and C}^o^m^m^e^r^c^e
^Appr^oprⁱ^a^tⁱ^ons^{, FY}²⁰⁰⁷^(H^.R^ept^.^109-^{520), Ju}ⁿ^e^{22, 2006, “}^H^ou^s^e^R^ecom^m^eⁿ^d^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^{,” Ju}^l^y^{5, 2006.}
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a laboratory of
the Department of Commerce. It is mandated to increase the competitiveness of U.S.
companies through appropriate support for industrial development of precompetitive
generic technologies and the diffusion of government-developed technological
advances to users in all segments of the American economy. NIST research also
provides the measurement, calibration, and quality assurance techniques that
underpin U.S. commerce, technological progress, improved product reliability,
manufacturing processes, and public safety.
The Administration’s FY2007 budget included $581.3 million for NIST, almost
22.7% below the previous fiscal year. Support for internal R&D activities under the
Scientific and Technology Research and Services (STRS) account would increase
18.3% to $467 million (including $8 million for the Baldrige National Quality
Program). There was no funding for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), and
support for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) would decline 55.7%
to $46.3 million. Construction funding would total $68 million, a 60.8% decrease
from FY2006. (See Table 9.)
The FY2007 appropriations bill passed by the House in the 109^th Congress, H.R.
5672, provided NIST with $627 million, a decrease of almost 16.6% from the earlier
fiscal year due primarily to the absence of support for ATP. Financing for laboratory
R&D in the STRS account increased 18.3% to $467 million. MEP funding totaled
$92 million, 12% below FY2006. Funding for the construction budget was $68
million.

The version of H.R. 5672 reported from the Senate Committee on
Appropriations during the 109^th Congress would have funded NIST at $764 million,
1.6% above the previous fiscal year. While there was no financing for ATP, there
was increased support for internal laboratory R&D, the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership program, and construction activities. The STRS account was to receive
$467 million, the same amount included in both the Administration’s request and the
original House-passed bill. Funding for MEP increased 1.3% from FY2006 to $106
million. Construction was to be financed at $191 million, 10% above the earlier
level and almost three times the amount provided by both the Administration’s
budget proposal and H.R. 5672 as passed by the House.
As part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, the Administration stated
its intention to double over 10 years funding for “innovation-enabling research” done
at NIST through its “core” programs (defined as internal research in the STRS
account and the construction budget). To this end, the President’s FY2007 budget
requested an increase of 18.3% for intramural R&D at NIST. H.R. 5672, as passed
by the House during the 109^th Congress, provided this increased funding. It remains
to be seen how support for this effort will evolve and how this might affect financing
of extramural efforts such as ATP and MEP.
For FY2006, the President’s budget requested $532 million in NIST funding,
a 23% decrease from FY2005 due primarily to an absence of support for ATP and a
significant cut in financing for MEP. Included in the total figure was $426.3 million
for the STRS account, which primarily finances the internal R&D activities of the
laboratory. This amount was 12.5% above the previous fiscal year and included $5.7
million for the Quality Program. MEP was to be funded at $46.8 million, 56% below
FY2005 support. The construction budget was $58.9 million.
H.R. 2862, as originally passed by the House, would have provided $548.7
million for NIST, 21% below FY2005 funding. The STRS account was to receive
$397.7 million, 5% more than FY2005 but 6.7% below the President’s request.
Financing for MEP totaled $106 million, a decrease of 1.4% from the earlier fiscal
year and more than twice the Administration’s budget request. There was no funding
for ATP. Construction activities would have received $45 million.
The version of H.R. 2862 initially passed by the Senate would have funded
NIST at $844.5 million, for FY2006, almost 21% above the FY2005 budget.
Included in this amount was $399.9 million for the STRS account (incorporating $7.2
million for the Quality Program), an increase of 5.6% over previous funding. MEP
was to receive $106 million. Support for ATP, absent from both the President’s
budget request and the original House-passed bill, would total $140 million, 2.6%
more than the financing provided in FY2005. The construction budget was to be
funded at $198.6 million, more than double the earlier figure. This construction
funding was more than three times that proposed by the Administration and more
than four times that included in the original House version of the bill.
Subsequently, the final FY2006 appropriations legislation, P.L. 109-108,
provides $752 million for NIST (after the mandated rescissions but not including a
$7 million rescission from unobligated balances in the MEP account). This was
increase of 8.2% over FY2005 funding. Support for the STRS account totaled

$394.8 million, including $7.3 million for the Quality Program. This amount was an
increase of 4.2% over the previous fiscal year. MEP received $104.6 million and
ATP was financed at $79 million. The funding for MEP is a small decrease from
FY2005, whereas support for ATP declines 42% from the earlier figure. The
construction budget more than doubled to $173.6 million.
For FY2005, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-447, provided NIST
with $695.3 million (after a mandated 0.8% across-the-board rescission and a 0.54%
rescission from Commerce, Justice, and State discretionary accounts). This amount
was 14% above FY2004 funding. Internal research and development under the STRS
account was $378.8 million (including funding for the Quality Program), almost 12%
over the previous fiscal year. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership was funded
at $107.5 million, an increase of 178% that brought support for the program up to
pre-FY2004 levels. The Advanced Technology Program was financed at $136.5
million (20% below FY2004), and the construction budget received $72.5 million.
The legislation also rescinded $3.9 million of unobligated balances from prior year
funds in the ATP account.
Continued support for the Advanced Technology Program has been a major
funding issue. ATP provides “seed financing,” matched by private sector investment,
to businesses or consortia (including universities and government laboratories) for
development of generic technologies that have broad applications across industries.
Opponents of the program cite it as a prime example of “corporate welfare,” whereby
the federal government invests in applied research activities that, they argue, should
be conducted by the private sector. Others defend ATP, arguing that it helps
businesses (and small manufacturers) develop technologies that, while crucial to
industrial competitiveness, would not or could not be developed by the private sector
alone. While Congress has maintained support for the Advanced Technology
Program, the initial appropriation bills passed by the House since FY2002 provided
no funding for ATP. Although support was provided again in the FY2006
appropriations legislation, it was 41% below the earlier fiscal year. In the 109^th
Congress, both the House-passed FY2007 appropriations bill and the version
reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations contained no funding for the
program. It remains to be seen how the 110^th Congress will address this issue.
For additional information, see CRS Report 95-30, The National Institute of
Standards and Technology: An Overview; CRS Report 95-36, The Advanced
Technology Program; and CRS Report 97-104, The Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program: An Overview, all by Wendy H. Schacht. (CRS Contact:
Wendy H. Schacht.)

Table 9. NIST
($ in millions)
NIST ProgramFY2005^aFY2006^bFY2007RequestHouseSenateComm.
NIST Total695.3752581.3627764
STRS^c 378.8 394.8 467 467 467
ATP136.579000
MEP 107.5 104.6 46.3 92 106
Const r uct i on 72.5 173.6 68 68 191
^{a. A}^f^ter^m^aⁿ^d^ated^r^e^scissioⁿ^{s (}^b^u^tⁿ^o^{t in}^clu^dⁱⁿ^g^th^o^s^{e to}^uⁿ^o^b^lig^ated^b^a^lan^ces)^.
^b^.^Iⁿ^clu^d^{es m}^aⁿ^d^ated^r^e^scissioⁿ^{s (}^b^u^tⁿ^o^{t a $}⁷^m^illioⁿ^r^e^scissioⁿ^f^r^o^m^uⁿ^o^b^lig^ated^b^a^lan^{ces in}^th^e
^MEP^accouⁿ^t^).
^{c. I}ⁿ^clu^d^{es f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^th^{e B}^a^ld^rⁱ^g^e^Natioⁿ^a^{l Qu}^ality^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^.
Department of Transportation (DOT)
The Bush Administration had requested $767 million for the Department of
Transportation’s (DOT’s) research and development budget in FY2007. That request
represented a decrease of almost 8.5% below the estimated $838 million approved
for R&D in FY2006. (See Table 10.) Funding for the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) would have increased to $397, an increase of 4% for
FY2007. R&D funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would have
declined from $310 million to $235 million in FY2007, a 24% decrease from
FY2006 estimated funding levels. Some of that decline can be attributed to continued
cuts in FFA’s development activities. Finally, funding for DOT’s other R&D
programswould decline 9% below FY2006 funding levels to $135 million.
The House appropriations bill (H.R. 5576) would have restored almost all of the
President’s proposed funding cuts for the FAA. Consequently, that would have
resulted in a funding decrease of only $5 million, rather than the $75 million
proposed by the President. The House bill had matched the President’s $397 million
request for the FHWA. While the Senate would have funded the FHWA at the same
level as the House, it had proposed to fund the FAA at $48 million below the House
approved level. (CRS Contact: Mike Davey.)
Table 10. Department of Transportation R&D
($ in millions)
F Y 2006 F Y 2007 Senat e
Department of TransportationEstimateRequestHouse Comm.
Federal Highway Administration380397397397
Federal Aviation Administration310235305257
Others^a 148 135 105 139
Tot a l 838 767 807 793

^{a. “}^O^th^ers^”ⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^Of^fⁱ^ce^of^th^e^Secretary^,^Fe^d^e^r^a^l^Mo^to^r^Car^r^ier^Saf^e^ty^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^,^Fed^e^r^a^l
^R^a^{ilroad A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^,^Pⁱ^pelin^{e an}^{d Hazardou}^s^Materi^a^l^s^S^a^f^e^ty^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^,^an^{d th}^e
^Re^se^a^r^c^h^aⁿ^d^I^nno^va^tⁱ^v^e^T^e^c^hno^l^o^gy^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^o^n.
Department of the Interior (DOI)
The Administration had requested $598 million for R&D in the Department of
the Interior (DOI), a 5.7% decline from the $634 million the agency estimates it
received in FY2006. (See Table 11.) The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the
primary supporter of R&D (almost 90 % of the total) within DOI. The USGS areas
of research includes mapping, geological resources, water quality, and biological
resources. The proposed FY2007 budget for R&D within the USGS would have
declined from $558 million in FY2006 to $532 million in FY2007, a 4.7% decline.
The USGS is one of the major sponsors of earth science research, along with NSF,
DOE, and NASA.
As indicated in the table, funding for Geological Mineral Resources research
was proposed to decline 8.5%, whereas Water Resources was scheduled to decline
8.7%. The geological hazards program conducts basic and applied research, collects
long-term data, operates a variety of monitoring networks, and helps to warn the
public of impending disasters, such as earthquakes. The geologic resources program
assesses the availability and quality of the nation’s energy and mineral resources.
The geologic processes program researches, monitors, and assesses the landscape to
understand geological processes to help distinguish natural change from those
resulting from human activity. Water resources research focuses on activities aimed
at improving the quality of the U.S. ground water. 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.
Funding for USGS Biological Research would have declined 3.3% below
FY2006- estimated funding levels. This research program develops and distributes
information needed in the conservation and management of the nation’s biological
resources. The program serves as the Department’s research arm, utilizing the
capabilities of 17 research centers and 40 Cooperative Research Units that support
research on fish, wildlife, and natural habitats. Major research initiatives are carried
out by USGS scientists who collect scientific information through research,
inventory, and monitoring investigations. These activities develop new methods and
techniques to identify, observe, and manage fish and wildlife, including invasive
species and their habitats. Nearly 90% of USGS research is performed within
Interior labs to address the science needs of DOI and other agencies, such as the Fish
and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
The House-passed Interior and Environment appropriations bill (H.R. 5386)
included an estimated $630 million for R&D. That amount was $32 million above
the request, but $4 million less than what the agency had received in FY2006. The
Senate Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations
bill (S Rept. 109-275) included an estimated $643 million for the conduct of R&D

in FY2007. That proposed funding amount was $45 million above the President’s
request, and $13 million above the House recommended funding level. (CRS
Contact: Mike Davey.)
Table 11. Department of Interior R&D
($ in millions)
F Y 2006 F Y 2007 Senat e
U. S. Geological SurveyEstimateRequestHouse Comm.
National Mapping40464748
Geological Resources212194218216
Water Resources126115123125
Biological Research179173175177
Enterprise Information1444
USGS total^a558532567570
Other agencies^b76666373
Total all agencies634598630643
^{a. U}^S^G^S^R^&^D^es^tⁱ^m^at^es^{are f}^r^o^m^t^h^e^U^S^G^S^bu^dg^et^of^fⁱ^{ce, an}^{d t}^h^{e U}^S^G^S^F^Y^{2007 Bu}^dg^et
^J^u^stif^icatioⁿ^d^o^c^u^m^en^ts.
^{b. “}^O^the^r^a^g^eⁿ^cies^{” in}^clu^d^es^{, th}^{e B}^u^reau^of^R^eclam^ation^,^th^{e B}^u^reau^of^L^aⁿ^d^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^{, th}^e
^Min^e^r^a^{ls Man}^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^Ser^v^{ice, an}^d^th^{e Natio}ⁿ^a^{l P}^a^r^k^Ser^v^ice.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Science and Technology
(S&T) account incorporates elements of the former research and development
account (also called extramural research) and EPA’s in-house research, development,
and technology work. This account also provides funding for the scientific tools and
knowledge necessary to support decisions relating to preventing, regulating, abating
environmental pollution and to advance the base of understanding on environmental
sciences.
On May 11, 2006, the House Committee on Appropriations (H.R. 5386)
recommended a total of $808 million for EPA’s FY2007 S&T activities. Of that
amount $557million would have been for R&D, $3 million below the FY2006
estimated funding level. (See Table 12.) The House Committee noted that the
FY2007 request included $61.0 million transferred into the S&T account from EPA’s
Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account. That transfer of funds,
which is more than the total S&T increase of the FY2007 request over the FY2006
enacted level, was for rent, security, and utilities costs that were handled previously
in EPA’s EPM account. This shift would have better reflected actual costs for
personnel with S&T funds, according to EPA’s FY2007 Congressional Justification
document.

The Senate-passed Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill (S.Rept. 109-275), approved an estimated $793 for
EPA’s S&T activities. Of that amount, $596 million would be for R&D, $12 million
below the House passed bill.
Following are five noteworthy differences between levels in the budget request
and House recommendations: 1) the FY2007 budget request zeroed the funding level
for the category of congressionally mandated research projects, but the House
Committee recommended $30.0 million, which was approximately the amount
enacted in FY2006 for this category; 2) the FY2007 budget requested $12.5 million
for its Climate Protection Program, approximately $6.0 million less than the FY2006
level, but the House recommended a $6.0 million increase over the FY2007 request
level to restore the program to its FY2006 level; 3) the FY2007 budget request
proposes to discontinue funds for directed Science to Achieve Results Research
Fellowships (which competitively awards stipends and other research support to
graduate students in environmentally related fields), but the House Committee stated
that “funding reductions in this program are not acceptable;” 4) the FY2007 budget
request proposed to discontinue EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification
centers (which verify the performance of innovative clean-up and other
environmental technologies) for a savings of nearly $3.0 million, but the House
Committee recommended $2.4 million to partially restore the program; and 5) the
FY2007 budget requested $44.5 million for homeland security preparedness,
response, and recovery, up from the FY2006 enacted level of approximately $36.0
million, but the House Committee recommended a level of $39.5 million for
FY2007. The Senate also would have restored funding for these programs as well.
(CRS Contact: Michael Davey.)
Table 12. Environmental Protection Agency
($ in millions)
EPAFY2006EnactedFY2007RequestHouse SenateComm.
S&T total730788808793
R& D 600 557 608 596
Transferred from30.2283030.0

Superfund