Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008

Federal Research and Development
Funding: FY2008
Updated February 5, 2008
John F. Sargent (Coordinator),
Christine M. Matthews, John D. Moteff, Daniel Morgan,
Robert Esworthy, and Wendy H. Schacht
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Pamela W. Smith
Domestic Social Policy Division
Wayne A. Morrissey
Knowledge Services Group

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) was the measure
used by Congress and the President to wrap up action on the regular appropriations
acts in late 2007. On December 19, 2007, Congress completed action on the act, and
it was signed into law by President Bush on December 26, 2007. Previously, action
had been completed on only one of the regular appropriations acts, the Defense
Appropriations Act, FY2008 (P.L. 110-116) which was signed into law by President
Bush on November 13, 2007. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 provides
appropriations covered in the eleven outstanding appropriations acts. To ensure
continuity of government operations, Congress had passed four continuing
resolutions (P.L. 110-92, P.L. 110-116 Division B, P.L. 110-137, and P.L. 110-149)
that provided funding for all agencies that had not received appropriations from the
beginning of FY2008 through passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act.
The Bush Administration requested $142.7 billion in federal research and
development (R&D) funding for FY2008. Total federal R&D funding for FY2008
provided in P.L. 110-161 and P.L. 110-116 is estimated to be $142.7 billion, a 1.2%
increase over FY2007.
FY2008 funding for the American Competitive Initiative (ACI) fell short of the
President’s ten-year doubling target for innovation-related research at the National
Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science, and
National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) core laboratory programs.
It also falls short of the authorization levels set by Congress that put R&D funding
for these agencies on a seven-year doubling pace. Funding for DOE’s Office of
Science increased by 5.8% in FY2008 to $4.0 billion. NIST’s core laboratory
programs increased 1.4% in FY2008 to $441 million. Total FY2008 funding for
NSF was increased by 2.5%. NSF’s research and related activities increased by only
1.1%, joining other R&D agencies (notably the Environmental Protection Agency
(-2.4%) and National Institutes of Health (0.5%)) whose R&D budgets decreased or
received increases below the rate of inflation.
In total, DOE received $9.9 billion for R&D in FY2008, a 7.7% increase over
FY2007, led by a 24.0% increase in its energy programs. Total funding for NIST
increased by 11.7% in FY2008 to $755.8 million due in large measure to increases
in its construction budget. NASA’s FY2008 R&D budget increased to $12.8 billion,
a 7.5% increase over FY2007, due primarily to increases in two initiatives: the
international space station and the crew launch vehicle/crew exploration vehicle
combination. FY2008 research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) funding
for the Department of Defense increased by 1.1%. DOD’s science and technology
research programs received $12.8 billion for FY2008, though DOD had requested
$10.8 billion. DOD’s request for a $3.9 billion RDT&E increase under its Global
War on Terror initiative was not included in P.L. 110-116 or P.L. 110-161.

Overview ........................................................1
Department of Energy (DOE)........................................3
Department of Defense (DOD).......................................5
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).................12
National Institutes of Health (NIH)...................................13
National Science Foundation (NSF)..................................19
Department of Agriculture (USDA)..................................24
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)..............................26
Department of Commerce (DOC)....................................30
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ..........30
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)...............32
Department of Transportation (DOT).................................34
Department of the Interior (DOI).....................................36
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)..............................37
List of Tables
Table 1. Department of Energy R&D..................................3
Table 2. Department of Defense RDT&E...............................9
Table 3. Department of Defense RDT&E, FY2007 Emergency Supplemental.11
Table 4. NASA R&D.............................................12
Table 5. National Institutes of Health.................................18
Table 6. National Science Foundation................................23
Table 7. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D..........................25
Table 8. Department of Homeland Security R&D.......................29
Table 9. NOAA R&D ............................................31
Table 10. NIST..................................................34
Table 11. Department of Transportation R&D..........................35
Table 12. Department of the Interior R&D.............................37
Table 13. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account................40

Federal Research and Development
Funding: FY2008
Congress continues to take a strong interest in the health of the U.S. research
and development (R&D) enterprise, and in providing sustained support for federal
R&D activities. The federal government has played an important role in supporting
R&D efforts that have led to scientific breakthroughs and new technologies, from jet
aircraft and the Internet to defenses against disease and communications satellites.
Most of the research funded by the federal government is in support of specific
activities of the federal government as reflected in the unique missions of the funding
agencies. The federal government has become the largest supporter of long term
fundamental basic research, primarily because the private sector asserts it cannot
capture an adequate return on long-term fundamental research investments. Some of
the major agencies funding basic research include the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and Department of Defense (DOD).
The Bush Administration requested $142.7 billion in federal R&D funding for
FY2008.1 Total R&D funding for FY2008 is approximately $142.7 billion, a 1.2%2
increase over the enacted FY2007 total of $141.1 billion. Funding for FY2008 is
provided for in the Defense Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-116), signed into law
by President Bush on November 13, 2007, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2008 (P.L. 110-161), signed into law on December 26, 2007. P.L. 110-161 provides
funding covered in the eleven appropriations acts on which action had not been

1 The President’s FY2008 R&D request was released before final passage of the Revised
Continuing Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 110-5), which contains estimated agencies’
funding levels for FY2007. Actual FY2007 appropriations levels were not specified by P.L.
110-5. Estimated funding levels for different agencies have become available as the agencies
reported their FY2007 operating plans. Tables in this report reflect the agencies’ FY2007
estimates derived from the CR. Unless otherwise indicated, all funding data are in current
2 American Association for the Advancement of Science, [http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/
3 To ensure continuity of government operations, Congress passed, and the President signed,

The President’s FY2008 proposed R&D increase over the FY2007 funding level
was due primarily to requested increases for NASA’s space vehicles development
program, the Department of Defense, and continuation of the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). While NASA received increased funding for the
International Space Station ($2.2 billion, up 24.6%) and the Constellation program
(3.0 billion, up 17.3%), DOD and the ACI did not receive the increases requested by
the President. The President’s proposed FY2008 increase for DOD RDT&E funding
resulted almost entirely from its request for $3.9 billion for RDT&E in support of its
Global War on Terror (GWOT) initiative. Congress chose not to address the GWOT
request in P.L. 110-116 or P.L. 110-161, and has not completed action on separate
The ACI was proposed by President Bush in response to growing concerns
about America’s ability to compete in the global market place. The $136 billion ACI
funding request included $50 billion for additional research, science education, and
the modernization of research infrastructure from FY2007 through FY2016. These
funds were intended to double physical sciences and engineering research in three
agencies — NSF, DOE’s Office of Science, and NIST — over ten years.4 Congress
established authorization levels for FY2008-2010 that would put funding for R&D
at these agencies on track to double in approximately seven years. However, FY2008
R&D funding provided in P.L. 110-161 for these agencies falls below these doubling
targets. Total FY2008 funding for NSF was increased by 2.5%, though NSF’s
research and related activities increased by only 1.1%. The DOE Office of Science
received a 5.8% increase for FY2008. NIST’s FY2008 core laboratory R&D
increased by 1.4%. The NIST construction and research facilities account increased
173.4% to $160.5 million in FY2008.5 In addition, the ACI proposed $86 billion to
finance a revised and permanent Research and Experimentation (R&E) tax credit
over the 10-year period. Action to make the R&E tax credit permanent was not

3 (...continued)
the first of four continuing resolutions (P.L. 110-92), which extended funding for all
agencies from October 1, 2007, through November 16, 2007. The act became law on
September 29, 2007, ahead of the start of FY2008. Congress subsequently passed three
additional continuing resolutions (P.L. 110-116, P.L. 110-137, and P.L. 110-149), providing
funding through enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008.The Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act of 2008 was passed by Congress, but vetoed by the President. Congress attempted, but
failed, to override the President’s veto of this act.
4 The ACI proposes to double “innovation-enabling physical science and engineering
research” at the three agencies over ten years, and states that “individual agency allocations
remain to be determined.” (The American Competitiveness Initiative: Leading the World in
Innovation, Office of Science and Technology Policy/Domestic Policy Council, The White
House, February 2006.)
5 NIST states that only $79.2 million of these funds is directed at “construction and major
renovation and repair of NIST facilities.” According to NIST, the balance of the increase
in its construction and research facilities account is for “congressionally directed
construction projects” and a construction grant program. [http://www.nist.gov/

completed in 2007, nor was the credit extended. As a result, the R&E tax credit
expired at the end of calendar year 2007.6
Funding levels for three federal multiagency research initiatives varied in the
President’s FY2008 request. Funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative
(NNI) would have increased by 4.0% to $1.447 billion (see CRS Report RS20589,
Manipulating Molecules: Federal Support for Nanotechnology Research, by Michael
E. Davey). Funding for the Networking and Information Technology R&D (NITRD)
program would have remained essentially at the same level with funding at $3.057
billion (see CRS Report RL33586, The Federal Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development Program: Funding Issues and Activities, by
Patricia Moloney Figliola). The administration proposed $1.544 billion for the
Climate Change Science Program, a decrease of 7.4%, primarily due to a decrease
in NASA’s funding7 (see CRS Report RL33817, Climate Change: Federal Funding
and Tax Incentives, by Jane A. Leggett). FY2008 funding for these initiatives has not
been determined.
Department of Energy (DOE)
The Department of Energy requested $9.781 billion for R&D in FY2008,
including activities in three major categories: science, national security, and energy.
(For details, see Table 1.) This request was 6% above the FY2007 level of $9.236
billion. The House provided $10.448 billion, or $667 million more than the request.
The Senate committee recommended $10.566 billion, or $785 million more than the
request. The final appropriation was $9.947 billion, or $166 million more than the
Table 1. Department of Energy R&D
($ in millions)
FY2007 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008
estima te request House Sena t e enacted
Science 3 ,797 4,398 4,514 4,497 4,018
Basic Energy Sciences1,2501,4981,4981,5121,270
High Energy Physics752782782782688
Biological and Environmental Researcha483532582605544
Nuclear Physics423471471471433
Fusion Energy Sciences319428428427287
Advanced Scientific Computing Research283340340335351

6 Since its enactment in 1981, the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit has been
extended 12 times. Several bills have been introduced in the 110th Congress that would
extend or make permanent the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit. For further
information, see CRS Report RL31181, Research Tax Credit: Current Status and Selected
Issues for Congress, by Gary Guenther.
7 Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008, Office
of Management and Budget, The White House, 2007.

FY2007 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008
estima te request House Sena t e enacted
Other 287 346 412 363 445
National Security3,2363,1323,2453,2853,199
Weapons Activitiesb2,1622,0371,8822,0992,015
Naval Reactors782808808808775
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D270265446322387
Defense Environmental Cleanup TD&D21211085521
Energy 2 ,203 2,252 2,689 2,785 2,731
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energyc1,1931,0311,5591,4081,440
Fossil Energy R&D593567709808743
Nuclear Energy R&Dd319568335471438
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability99868698110
To tal 9 ,236 9,781 10,448 10,566 9,947
Notes: FY2007 figures are from the DOE operating plan (online at [http://www.doe.gov/media/
FY2007OperatingPlanForDOE.pdf]). FY2008 figures are from the budget justification (online at
[http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/08budget/Start.htm]), H.R. 2641 as passed by the House (and H.Rept.
110-185), S. 1751 as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee (and S.Rept. 110-127), and
P.L. 110-161 (and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H15913-
a. The House proposed splitting this item into two: Biological Research for $424 million and Climate
Change Research for $158 million.
b. Includes Stockpile Services R&D Support, Stockpile Services R&D Certification and Safety,
Reliable Replacement Warhead, Science Campaigns, Engineering Campaigns except Enhanced
Surety and Enhanced Surveillance, Inertial Confinement Fusion, Advanced Simulation and
Computing, and a prorated share of Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities. Additional
R&D activities may take place in the subprograms of Directed Stockpile Work that are devoted
to specific weapon systems, but these funds are not included in the table because detailed
funding schedules for those subprograms are classified.
c. Excludes Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.
d. Includes University Reactor Infrastructure and Education Assistance, Nuclear Power 2010,
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative, Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, and Advanced
Fuel Cycle Initiative.
The request for the DOE Office of Science was $4.398 billion, a 16% increase
from FY2007. This increase reflected the American Competitiveness Initiative
(ACI), which President Bush announced in the 2006 state of the union address. Over
10 years, the ACI would double R&D funding for the Office of Science and two
other agencies. The House provided $4.514 billion, or $116 million more than the
request. The Senate committee recommended $4.497 billion, or $99 million more
than the request. The final appropriation was $4.018 billion, $380 million less than
the request but an increase of 6% from FY2007.
Within the Office of Science, the final amounts for several major programs were
significantly different from either the request or the House and Senate amounts. In
basic energy sciences, the request was a $248 million increase, mostly to expand
facility operating time. The House provided the requested amount, and the Senate
committee recommended an additional $12 million increase, but in the final
appropriation, basic energy sciences received only $20 million more than in FY2007.

The request for fusion energy sciences was a $109 million increase, almost entirely
for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). The House and
the Senate committee both provided approximately the requested amount, but the
final appropriation was $141 million less than requested, with zero funding for the
U.S. contribution to ITER. For high energy physics, the House and the Senate
committee both provided the requested amount, but the final appropriation was $94
million less, which led to announcements of layoffs at Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory (Fermilab) and Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC).8
The requested funding for DOE national security R&D was $3.132 billion, a 3%
decrease. Most of the reduction resulted from the scheduled completion of
construction projects, most notably the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory. The request included $89 million for the reliable
replacement warhead (RRW) program. The House provided $3.245 billion,
including increases for nonproliferation and verification R&D, environmental
cleanup technology development, and inertial confinement fusion, but no funding for
the RRW. The Senate committee recommended $3.285 billion, including increases
in the same areas and partial funding for the RRW. The Senate report noted that the
committee was divided on the RRW and called for a bipartisan congressional
commission “to evaluate and make recommendations on the role of nuclear weapons
in our future strategic posture.” The final appropriation was $3.199 billion, with
increases for nonproliferation and verification R&D and inertial confinement fusion
that were between the House and Senate amounts, no increase for environmental
cleanup technology development, and no funds for the RRW.
The request for DOE energy R&D was $2.252 billion, up 3% from FY2007.
Within this total, R&D on nuclear, hydrogen, biomass, and solar energy were to
increase, while geothermal and natural gas and oil technology programs were to be
terminated. The requested $249 million increase for nuclear energy R&D was mostly
for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. For energy R&D overall, the House provided
$437 million more than the request, and the Senate committee recommended $533
million more than the request. Both included additional funds for energy efficiency,
renewable energy, and fossil energy, and both included smaller increases than
requested in nuclear energy, with less emphasis on the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative. The final appropriation was $2.731 billion, or $479 million more than the
request and 24% more than FY2007, with allocations generally intermediate between
the House and the Senate. (CRS Contact: Daniel Morgan.)
Department of Defense (DOD)
Congress supports research and development in the Department of Defense
(DOD) through its Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E)
appropriation. The appropriation primarily supports the development of the nation’s

8 Pier J. Oddone, director of Fermilab, presentation slides from an “all hands” meeting on
December 20, 2007, [http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/files/All_Hands_Meeting_122007.ppt];
Persis S. Drell, director of SLAC, presentation slides from an “all hands” meeting on
January 7, 2008, [http://today.slac.stanford.edu/misc/AllHands-010708.ppt].

future military hardware and software and the technology base upon which those
products rely.
Nearly all of what DOD spends on RDT&E is appropriated in Title IV of the
defense appropriation bill (see Table 2). However, RDT&E funds are also requested
as part of the Defense Health Program and the Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction Program. The Defense Health Program supports the delivery of health
care to DOD personnel and family. Program funds are requested through the
Operations and Maintenance appropriation. The program’s RDT&E funds support
Congressionally directed research in such areas as breast, prostate, and ovarian cancer
and other medical conditions. The Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction
Program supports activities to destroy the U.S. inventory of lethal chemical agents
and munitions to avoid future risks and costs associated with storage. Funds for this
program are requested through the Army Procurement appropriation. Typically,
Congress has funded both of these programs in Title VI (Other Department of
Defense Programs) of the defense appropriations bill. More recently, RDT&E funds
have also been requested and appropriated as part of DOD’s separate funding to
support the Global War on Terror (GWOT). These appropriations have been located
in Title IX of the defense appropriations bill. The Joint Improvised Explosive Device
Defeat Fund also contains additional RDT&E monies. The Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Office, which now administers the Fund, tracks, but does
not report, the amount of funding allocated to RDT&E.
For FY2008, the Bush Administration requested $75.1 billion for DOD’s
baseline Title IV RDT&E, roughly $800 million less than the total obligational
authority available for Title IV in FY2007. The FY2008 requests for RDT&E in the
Defense Health Program and the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction
program were $134 million and $221 million, respectively. This year’s request for
the Global War on Terror included both a FY2008 Title IX request and a FY2007
Title IX Supplemental request, with $2.9 billion and $1.4 billion being requested for
RDT&E, respectively.
Since FY2001, funding for RDT&E in Title IV has increased from $42 billion
to $76 billion in FY2007. In constant FY2008 dollars, the increase is roughly 58%.
Historically, RDT&E funding has reached its highest levels in constant dollars,
dating back to 1948.9 Congress has appropriated more for RDT&E than has been
requested, every year, since FY1996.
RDT&E funding can be broken out in a couple of ways. Each of the military
services request and receive their own RDT&E funding. So, too, do various DOD
agencies (e.g., the Missile Defense Agency and the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency), collectively aggregated within the Defensewide account. RDT&E
funding also can be characterized by budget activity (i.e. the type of RDT&E
supported).Those budget activities designated as 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 (basic research,

9 This historical data can be found in DOD’s National Defense Budget Estimates for the
FY2008 Budget (also known as the “Green Book”). Office of the Under Secretary for
Defense (Comptroller).March 2007.pp 62-67. See [http://www.defenselink.mil/
comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/fy2008_greenbook.pdf]. Last viewed May 10, 2007.

applied research, and advanced development) constitute what is called DOD’s
Science and Technology Program (S&T) and represents the more research-oriented
part of the RDT&E program. Budget activities 6.4 and 6.5 focus on the development
of specific weapon systems or components (e.g. the Joint Strike Fighter or missile
defense systems), for which an operational need has been determined and an
acquisition program established. Budget activity 6.7 supports system improvements
in existing operational systems. Budget activity 6.6 provides management support,
including support for test and evaluation facilities.
S&T funding is of particular interest to Congress since these funds support the
development of new technologies and the underlying science. Assuring adequate
support for S&T activities is seen by some in the defense community as imperative
to maintaining U.S. military superiority. This was of particular concern at a time
when defense budgets and RDT&E funding were falling at the end of the Cold War.
As part of its 2001 Quadrennial Review, DOD established a goal of stabilizing its
base S&T funding (i.e., Title IV) at 3% of DOD’s overall funding. Congress has
embraced this goal. The FY2008 S&T funding request in Title IV is $10.8 billion,
about $2.5 billion less than what was available for S&T in Title IV in FY2007 (not
counting S&T funding requested as part of the GWOT request). Furthermore, the
S&T request for Title IV is approximately 2.2% of the overall baseline DOD budget
request (not counting funds for the Global War on Terror), short of the 3% goal. The
ability for the Administration to meet its 3% goal has been strained in recent years
as the overall Defense budget continues to rise. In the FY2007 defense authorization
bill (P.L. 109-364, Sec. 217), Congress reiterated its support for the 3% goal,
extended it to FY2012, and stipulated that, if the S&T budget request does not meet
this goal, DOD submit a prioritized list of S&T projects that were not funded solely
due to insufficient resources.
Within the S&T program, basic research (6.1) receives special attention,
particularly by the nation’s universities. DOD is not a large supporter of basic
research, when compared to the National Institute of Health or the National Science
Foundation. However, over half of DOD’s basic research budget is spent at
universities and represents the major contribution of funds in some areas of science
and technology (such as electrical engineering and material science). The FY2008
request for basic research ($1.4 billion) is roughly $140 million less than what was
available for Title IV basic research in FY2007.
In Congressional action to date, Congress approved, and the President signed,
the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 110-28). The bill contained
emergency supplemental funds, including additional FY2007 RDT&E funds in
support of the Global War on Terror. As noted above, the RDT&E-related FY2007
GWOT supplemental request was $1.4 billion. Congress provided $1.1 billion. In
addition, the act provided supplemental FY2007 RDT&E funds for the Defense
Health Program to support additional trauma-related research. See Table 3 below.
The House passed H.R. 3222, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2008, on August 5. The bill provided $1.1 billion more in Title IV RDT&E funding
than requested. The bill provided $12.2 billion in S&T funding (2.7% of the total
funds appropriated for the Department), $1.4 billion more than requested. The House

chose not to address the FY2008 GWOT request in this bill. It is not possible to
compare directly the House figures with FY2007 numbers in Table 2, since the latter
include GWOT (Title IX) funds from the FY2007 appropriations bill and the House
figures do not yet include any FY2008 GWOT funds. In addition to the general
increases in the S&T accounts, the House made some notable changes in the
President’s systems development requests, providing less funds for the Army’s
Future Combat System ($406 million less) and providing more funds for the Joint
Strike Fighter (a total of $705 million more split between the Navy and the Air
Force). The House provided $319 million more in RDT&E-related funds for the
Defense Health Program, including $127 million for breast cancer and $80 million
for prostate cancer research. Also, Section 8105 of the bill includes a provision
limiting the use of appropriations to pay negotiated indirect cost rates on basic
research grants, contracts or other agreements to 20% of the direct costs. This may
have an impact on university grants.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of H.R. 3222 (see
S.Rept. 110-155) on September 14, 2007. The net effect of the Committee’s
recommendations was to reduce Title IV RDT&E by approximately $102 million.
While increasing Title IV RDT&E by $265 million in the body of the bill, it reduced
Title IV funds by $367 million in the General Provisions part of the bill, as part of
a general reduction to account for revised economic assumptions. Similar to the
House, the Senate Appropriations Committee did not include the FY2008 GWOT
request in the bill. The Committee recommended $11.6 billion for the S&T portion
of the program (before allocating the general reduction). This is roughly 2.6% of the
total amount recommended for the Department (before accounting for the reduction).
The Committee recommended roughly $196 million more than requested for the
Joint Strike Fighter programs of the Navy and Air Force (reducing program funds in
some areas, but increasing funding for a competitive engine development by $480
million). The Committee did not recommend cuts to the Army’s Future Combat
System programs. The Committee recommended $477 million for the RDT&E
portion of the Defense Health Program, including $150 million for peer-reviewed
breast cancer and $80 million for peer-reviewed prostate cancer research. It also
included $50 million for additional unspecified peer-reviewed medical research. The
Committee also increased funding for the RDT&E portion of the Chemical Agents
and Munitions Destruction Program.
The conference committee filed its report (H.Rept. 110-434) on November 6,
2007. The conferees recommended $76.9 billion for Title IV RDT&E (this includes
the $367 million general reduction to Title IV related to improved economic
assumptions). The conferees recommended $12.8 billion for S&T (including $1.6
billion for basic research). The S&T appropriation represents approximately 2.8%
of the total amount appropriated for the department (before considering the general
reductions). The conferees approximately split their differences on the Future
Combat System and the Joint Strike Fighter programs. The conferees recommended
$536 million for RDT&E within the Defense Health Program (including peer
reviewed research for breast cancer ($138 million), ovarian cancer ($10 million),
prostate cancer ($80 million), and other medical research ($80 million). The
conferees recommended $313 million for RDT&E within the Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction program. On the issue of indirect costs on government
contracts, grants and cooperative agreements for basic research, the conferees

accepted the House proposal, but raised the ceiling to 35% and grandfathered those
awards entered into before enactment of this act. The conferees also provided $11.6
billion to help accelerate the development and deployment of Mine Resistant
Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, to help protect against the improvised
explosive devices being use in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is in addition to $5.2
billion provided earlier for the same purpose in H.J.Res. 52 (P.L. 110-92), which
made continuing appropriations for FY2008. In both cases, Congress instructed the
Secretary of Defense to transfer these funds to appropriate accounts, including the
RDT&E account. Both chambers approved the conference report on November 8,

2007. The President signed the bill (P.L. 110-116) on November 13, 2007.

To address the FY2008 GWOT funding request, the House passed H.R. 4156
on November 14, 2007. It only considered about $50 million of the total request,
those activities considered by the House to be in most immediate need of additional
funds. The bill did not include any of the funding for RDT&E, although some of
those projects could be supported with the MRAP funds appropriated above. H.R.
4156 also allowed the Secretary to transfer certain funds (e.g. those allocated to the
Iraqi Security Forces Fund, and others) to RDT&E accounts, or other accounts, to
accomplish the purposes of those funds. On November 16, a Senate vote to end
debate on the House bill (and on a Senate Republican alternative, S. 2340) failed.
(CRS Contact: John Moteff.)
Table 2. Department of Defense RDT&E
($ in millions )
F Y 2007d F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008
estimate requestHouseSenateenacted
Title IV
By Account
Army 10,963 10,590 11,510 11,355 12,127
Navy 18,880 17,076 17,719 17,472 17,919
Air Force24,42126,71226,16326,07026,255
Defense Agencies21,50720,56020,65920,30420,791
Dir. Test & Eval184180180180180
Total Ob. Auth.a75,95575,11876,23175,38177,272
By Budget Activity
6.1 Basic Research1,5641,4281,5551,5661,634
6.2 Applied Research5,3294,3575,0744,5605,096
6.3 Advanced Development6,4324,9875,5625,5206,039
6.4 Advanced Component
Development and Prototypes15,78915,66215,90014,99415,745
6.5 Systems Dev. and Demo19,25818,09818,37418,12818,321
6.6 Management Supportb4,2164,1294,2044,3914,274
6.7 Op. Systems Devc23,36726,45525,56126,22426,163
Total Ob. Auth.a75,95575,11776,23075,38377,272

F Y 2007d F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008
estimate requestHouseSenateenacted
Title IV Adjustments-367i -367i
Adjusted Total Ob. Auth.75,95575,11776,23075,01676,905
Additional Appropriationseghhseeh,j
- Global War On Terror4083,872see notesee notenotes
Other Defense Programs
Defense Health Program348f134454477536
Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction231221221312313
Grand Total76,94279,34476,90575,80577,754
Source: Except as mentioned below, the FY2007 estimate and the FY2008 budget request figures are
based on Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2008 RDT&E Programs (R-1), February 2007.
The FY2007 figure for Defense Health Program is based on P.L. 110-5 (H.J.Res. 20). Figures for
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program are based on Department of Defense Budget,
Fiscal Year 2008, Procurement Programs (P-1), February 2007. The budget request figure for the
Additional Appropriations for Global War on Terror (GWOT) is based on President’s Budget,
Appendix, Additional 2007 and 2008 Proposals, February 2007. The House figures are based on
H.Rept. 110-279 accompanying H.R. 3222, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2008. The
Senate figures are based on S.Rept. 110-155, accompanying H.R. 3222. The conference figures are
based on H.Rept. 110-434.
a. Total Obligational Authority for Account and Budget Activity may not agree due to rounding.
b. Includes funds for Developmental and Operational Test and Evaluation.
c. Includes funding for classified programs.
d. Does not include the FY2007 Supplemental, P.L. 110-28 (H.R. 2206, U.S. Troop Readiness,
Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007). See
Table 3, below.
e. This is the enacted (not the estimated) level of funding for RDT&E-related FY2007 GWOT
provided in Title IX of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 109-289).
f. This is the enacted (not the estimated) level of funding for RDT&E-related Defense Health Program
activities, provided by P.L. 110-5 (H.J.Res. 20).
g. The original FY2008 GWOT request for RDT&E was $2.89 billion. On July 31, 2007, as part of
a budget amendment adding $5.3 billion to the FY2008 GWOT request for the purpose of
accelerating the development and deployment of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP)
vehicles, the Administration requested an additional $30 million in RDT&E funds. On October
22, 2007 the Administration submitted another amendment to the FY2008 GWOT request which
included another $985 million for FY2008 GWOT-related RDT&E projects (bringing the total
FY2008 GWOT RDT&E-related request, including the July amendment, to $3.9 billion).
h. The House and Senate chose not to address the FY2008 GWOT request in its FY2008 defense
appropriations bill (H.R. 3222, P.L. 110-116). Both planned to take up that request in a separate
bill. The House passed H.R. 4156 that considered only a portion of the FY2008 GWOT
request. The bill focused on areas in immediate need of additional funds. The bill included no
RDT&E funding. The President threatened to veto the bill and the Senate did not end debate
on the bill. Subsequently, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (H.R. 2764,
P.L. 110-161), Congress provided $70 billion in emergency FY2008 GWOT funding. No
RDT&E funds were specifically included. However, Congress authorized the Secretary of
Defense to transfer funds from the Iraqi Freedom Fund, the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund,
the Iraq Security Forces Fund, and the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund to other
appropriations, including RDT&E. Such transfers are not captured here. (Also, see Note j

I. Section 8098 of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s reported bill recommended a general
reduction to various Titles based on revised economic assumptions. The reduction for Title IV
RDT&E was $367 million, to be distributed proportionately across all program elements,
projects, and activities. The conferees agreed. See Section 8104 of the final bill.
j. As part of a resolution to make continuing appropriations for FY2008 (H.J.Res. 52, P.L. 110-92),
Congress provided $5.2 billion for MRAP. Also, in the defense appropriations bill (H.R. 3222,
Sec. 8121), Congress provided an additional $11.6 billion for MRAP. In both instances, the
Secretary was instructed to transfer these funds to various accounts, including the RDT&E
account. The figures here do not reflect any such transfers.
Table 3. Department of Defense RDT&E, FY2007 Emergency
($ in millions )
F Y 2007 F Y 2007 F Y 2007 F Y 2007
Suppl e- Suppl e- Suppl e- Suppl e-
mental mentalmental mental
Request House Senate Enacted
Additional Appropriations — Global War On Terror (GWOT)
By Account
Navy 460 296 308 299
Air Force221133234187
Defense Agencies651546523513
Dir. Test & Eval
Total Ob. Auth.a1,4481,0351,1901,098
By Budget Activity
6.1 Basic Research
6.2 Applied Research
6.3 Advanced Development4040
6.4 Advanced Component
Development and Prototypes7394217
6.5 Systems Dev. and Demo869398107
6.6 Management Supportb160102
6.7 Op. Systems Dev1,2699341,037973
Total Ob. Auth.a1,4481,0361,1911,099
Other Defense Programs
Defense Health Program50072332
Grand Total1,4481,15361,2631,431
Source: Figures for the FY2007 Supplemental Request are based on the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, Fiscal Year 2007 Emergency Supplemental Request, Exhibits for FY2007, pp. 13-14.
House, Senate and Enacted figures are taken from H.Rept. 110-107, Making Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 20, 2007, and Other Purpose, Conference
Report, to accompany H.R. 1591. H.R. 1591 was vetoed by the President. The House failed to
overturn the Presidents veto. Both houses then passed and the President signed H.R. 2206 (U.S.
Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act,
2007 (P.L. 110-28)). There is, as yet, no report accompanying H.R. 2206. However, the figures
approved for each account (i.e. the Services and Defense Agencies) in H.R. 2206 agree with those
approved in H.R. 1591. The table assumes the breakdown of those accounts by budget activity
reported in H.Rept. 110-107 are valid for H.R. 2206.
a. Account vs. Budget Activity Total Obligational Authority numbers may not agree due to rounding.
b. Includes funds for Developmental and Operational Test and Evaluation.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA requested $12.7 billion for R&D in FY2008. (For details, see Table 4.)
This request was a 7.3% increase over FY2007, in a total NASA budget that was to
increase by 6.4%. The House provided $13.1 billion (H.R. 3093 and H.Rept. 110-
240). The Senate provided $12.9 billion (H.R. 3093 and S.Rept. 110-124
accompanying S. 1745). The final appropriation was $12.8 billion (P.L. 110-161 and
explanatory statement, Congressional Record, December 17, 2007).
Table 4. NASA R&D
($ in millions)
F Y 2007 F Y 2008request F Y 2008House F Y 2008Senat e F Y 2008enacted
Science 5,371 5,516 5,696 5,618 5,547
Astrophysics 1,611 1,566 1631 1,555 1,579
Earth Science1,4091,4971,5721,6241,524
Heliophysics 1,012 1,057 1,072 1,082 1,057
Planetary Science1,3401,3961,4211,3571,387
Exploration Systems3,4573,9243,9243,9463,821
Constellation Systems2,5503,0683,0683,0982,991
Advanced Capabilities907856856849830
Aeronautics Research717554700550622
Cross-Agency Support Programs540489577518553
International Space Station1,7732,2392,2392,2392,209
Subtotal R&D11,85912,72213,13512,87212,752
Space Shuttle3,9774,0083,9884,0083,981
Space and Flight Support396546466546543
Inspector Genral3235353533
Return to Flight — — — 1,000 —
Total NASA16,26417,30917,62218,46017,309

Source: FY2007 amounts are from NASA briefing charts based on the March 2007 operating plan.
FY2008 amounts are from the NASA budget justification ([http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/]); H.R.
3093 as passed by the House and H.Rept. 110-240; H.R. 3093 as passed by the Senate and S.Rept.
110-124 (accompanying S. 1745); and P.L. 110-161 and explanatory statement, Congressional
Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H15819-H15825. The italicized rows are shown in the categories
NASA uses for FY2008, which are different from those it used for FY2007. In those rows, some
FY2007 amounts have been calculated by CRS to make them comparable with FY2008; the FY2007
amounts for Earth Science and Heliophysics are CRS estimates. For comparability, the House amount
for Education is included in Cross-Agency Support Programs, and unallocated general reductions are
applied proportionally to the affected programs. FY2007 amounts are adjusted to reflectfull cost
simplification accounting changes.
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 regular flight status following the 2003
Columbia disaster, but then retiring it by 2010; completing the International Space
Station, but discontinuing its use by the United States by 2017; returning humans to
the Moon by 2020; and then sending humans to Mars and “worlds beyond.” To
replace the space shuttle and carry astronauts to the Moon, NASA is developing a
new spacecraft and a new launch vehicle, known as Orion and Ares I. Their first
crewed flight is expected in early 2015.
In general, the FY2008 request included substantial increases for programs
related to the Vision and modest increases or even decreases for other programs. The
request for Constellation Systems, the program responsible for developing Orion and
Ares I, was an increase of $518 million or 20.3% relative to FY2007. The request
for the International Space Station was an increase of $466 million or 26.3%.
Meanwhile, among programs not focused on space exploration, the request for
Science was an increase of $145 million or 2.7%, and the request for Aeronautics
Research was a decrease of $163 million or 22.7%. In the final appropriation,
Congress provided smaller increases than requested for Constellation Systems and
the International Space Station, a larger increase for Science, and a smaller decrease
for Aeronautics Research.
The effect of the Vision on science funding is of particular congressional
interest. For example, the House report said that the requested budget would
“sacrifice future missions of discovery to pay for present efforts,” while the Senate
report expressed concern that NASA science “is being left behind rather than being
nurtured and sustained.” Support for Earth Science has been a particular concern in
both Congress and the scientific community. Although the FY2008 request included
increased funding for Earth Science and projected further increases in FY2009 and
FY2010 relative to previous plans, most of the increases were to cover cost growth
and schedule delays in existing missions. In Astrophysics, the FY2008 request
deferred the Space Interferometer mission (SIM) beyond FY2012. The House
provided $180 million more than the request for Science, including $60 million for
new Earth Science missions and a $50 million increase for SIM. The Senate
provided $102 million more than the request for Science, with the bulk of the
increase devoted to Earth Science. The final Science appropriation was an increase
of $31 million, including increases for Earth Science ($27 million) and SIM ($38
million) but partially offsetting these with reductions in other programs. (CRS
Contact: Daniel Morgan.)

National Institutes of Health (NIH)
The President requested a budget of $28.558 billion at the program level for
NIH for FY2008, $480 million (1.7%) below the final level of $29.038 billion for
FY2007 (see Table 5). The FY2008 program level amount provided by the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161, December 26, 2007) was
$29.170 billion, an increase of $131 million (0.45%) over the FY2007 level.
House and Senate actions on the original individual FY2008 appropriations bills
had produced recommendations for increases for NIH above the FY2007 level of
$569 million (2.0%) for the House and $770 million (2.7%) for the Senate, with
program levels of $29.607 billion and $29.837 billion, respectively. Conferees had
settled on a higher level of approximately $29.937 billion, but action could not be
completed on the legislation. The FY2007 level had been derived from P.L. 110-5,
the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution (CR), although actual FY2007
appropriations levels were not specified by the CR. The precise figures became
available as agencies reported their FY2007 operating plans, and the final amount for
NIH was also affected by the FY2007 supplemental appropriations legislation, with
a transfer of $99 million from NIH to the Office of the Secretary of HHS. The
FY2007 NIH appropriation was $570 million (2.0%) more than the FY2006 program
level of $28.468 billion.
The bulk of NIH’s budget comes through the annual Labor-HHS-Education
(Labor/HHS) appropriations legislation, with an additional small amount of funding,
for environmental work related to Superfund, coming from the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies appropriations bill. For the FY2008 Labor/HHS bill, the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees reported H.R. 3043 (H.Rept. 110-231)
and S. 1710 (S.Rept. 110-107), respectively. The eventual conference version of
H.R. 3043 (H.Rept. 110-424) was vetoed by the President, who cited overall funding
levels that were higher than he had requested. Lengthy negotiations between
Congress and the Administration culminated in enactment of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764, P.L. 110-161), which provided funding for
most government programs outside the Department of Defense. (For detailed
tracking of the Labor/HHS appropriations bill, see CRS Report RL34076, Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education: FY2008 Appropriations, coordinated
by Pamela W. Smith.)
Funding from the two regular appropriations bills (Labor/HHS and Interior/
Environment) constitutes NIH’s discretionary budget authority. In addition, NIH
receives $150 million pre-appropriated in separate funding for diabetes research, and
$8.2 million from a transfer within the Public Health Service (PHS). For the past
several years, about $100 million of the annual NIH appropriation has been
transferred to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The
FY2008 budget request proposed to increase the amount to $300 million,
representing the entire U.S. contribution to the Global Fund. The House and Senate
Labor/HHS bills agreed with that approach; in P.L. 110-161, the final amount of the
transfer from the NIH appropriation was $295 million. The total of all funding

available for NIH activities, taking account of add-ons and transfers, is called the
program level.
FY2003 was the final year of a five-year undertaking by Congress 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. The research advocacy community had originally urged that the
NIH budget grow by about 10% per year in the post-doubling years. For FY2004 and
FY2005, however, Congress gave NIH increases of between 2% and 3%, levels
which were below the biomedical inflation index for those two years. The advocates
modified their recommendation to 6% for FY2006 and to 5% for FY2007,
maintaining that such increases would be needed to keep up the momentum of
scientific discovery made possible by the increased resources of the doubling years.
Instead, the NIH appropriation for FY2006 declined 0.3%, marking the first decrease
in the agency’s budget since 1970. The FY2007 final level was a 2.0% increase over
FY2006, compared to a projected biomedical inflation index of 3.7% for the year.
For FY2008, the final funding level is 0.45% above FY2007, whereas the advocacy
community had urged a 6.7% increase in the appropriation as a step towards
reversing the decline in NIH’s purchasing power that has occurred since FY2003.
The FY2008 funding represents an estimated 11% decrease from FY2003 in
inflation-adjusted terms.
The agency’s organization consists of the Office of the NIH Director and 27
institutes and centers. The Office of the Director (OD) sets overall policy for NIH
and coordinates the programs and activities of all NIH components, particularly in
areas of research that involve multiple institutes. The individual institutes and centers
(ICs), each having a focus on particular diseases, areas of human health and
development, or aspects of research support, plan and manage their own research
programs in coordination with the Office of the Director. As shown in Table 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
The FY2008 President’s request was developed prior to congressional
completion of the FY2007 appropriation, and most of the institutes and centers
wound up approximately level-funded from their FY2007 amounts. Several of the
ICs that received increases from Congress in the FY2007 CR were dropped back in
the FY2008 request to levels closer to their FY2006 funding. For example, the
National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) was given $34 million extra in
FY2007 for one-year Shared Instrumentation Grants; the FY2008 request decreased
the NCRR budget by $19 million. The biggest institute, the National Cancer Institute,
would have been cut by over $10 million (0.2%) in the request. The second largest,
the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), would have been
increased by $229 million (5.3%) over FY2007, but only $28 million of that amount
was for NIAID programs. The other $201 million of the increase was for transfer to
the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, mentioned earlier.
The House and Senate Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bills, in contrast,
would have increased funding for most of the institutes and centers over their

FY2007 levels by between 1.4% and 1.7% for the House and between 2.2% and 2.5%
for the Senate. Somewhat larger increases would have gone to several ICs in both
bills, including NCRR and NIAID. In the FY2008 final appropriation, increases for
most of the ICs were considerably below 1%, and three ICs were decreased.
The two biggest changes in the request and in the appropriation were in the
Buildings and Facilities account and in the Office of the Director. Many of the
laboratories, animal facilities, and office buildings on the NIH campus are aging, and
are in need of upgrading to stay compliant with health and safety guidelines and to
provide the proper infrastructure for the Intramural Research program. The budget
requested $136 million for Buildings and Facilities (B&F), an increase of $52 million
(63%). The final appropriation included $119 million for B&F, an increase of $35
million (42%).
For the Office of the Director, the President and Congress handled the funding
in two different ways, with the President requesting a $530 million (51%) drop in the
account, and the appropriation giving a $62 million (5.9%) increase. The difference
reflects a change in the way Congress funds the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research,
which is a set of trans-NIH research activities designed to support high-risk/high-
impact research in emerging areas of science or public health priorities. The
initiatives are funded through a Common Fund that until FY2007 was supported
partially in the OD appropriation and partially by contributions from each IC at a
fixed percentage. The original FY2007 Roadmap total of $443 million required $332
million from the institutes and centers (a 1.2% tap on their budgets) and $111 million
from the Director’s Discretionary Fund. The final FY2007 CR, however,
appropriated $483 million and placed the entire sum in OD, boosting that
appropriation and allowing the ICs to use all of their funding for their own programs
without the Roadmap tap for trans-NIH research. For FY2008, the request divided
a planned total of $486 million for the Roadmap/Common Fund between the IC
budgets ($364 million, a 1.3% tap) and OD ($122 million). The House and Senate
bills supported the Common Fund entirely in OD, with the House bill providing a
2.5% increase to $495 million, and the Senate providing a 10% increase to $531
million. The final amount in P.L. 110-161 was $496 million.
Also in the OD account for the first time in FY2007 was $69 million for the
National Children’s Study. This long-term (25+ year) environmental health study
was proposed for cancellation in the FY2007 request. The multi-agency study,
mandated by the Children’s Health Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-310), plans to examine the
effects of environmental influences on the health and development of more than
100,000 children across the United States, following them from before birth until age

21. The overall projected cost for the whole study is about $2.7 billion. For FY2007,

both appropriations committees directed NIH to continue with the study, and the CR
provided the $69 million. The FY2008 request again included no funding for the
study, but the final appropriation provided $110.9 million to OD for its continued
The NIH’s two major concerns in the face of tight budgets are maintaining
support of investigator-initiated research through research project grants (RPGs), and
continuing to nourish the pipeline of new investigators. The FY2008 request
concentrated resources on supporting research grants, planning to fund 10,188

competing RPGs, one of the highest numbers ever. However, the expected “success
rate” of applications receiving funding would have remained at about 20%, and
scientists with non-competing (continuation) grants would not have received
inflationary increases for their costs. Both committee reports indicated that their
funding would have supported a larger number of grants than the request and would
have funded some increases in the average costs of grants. The explanatory
statement for P.L. 100-161 says that it “provides funding for a low percent increase
in the average cost of new as well as non-competing grants.”
Several efforts were focused on supporting new investigators, to encourage
young scientists to undertake careers in research despite the discouraging financial
climate, and to help them speed their transition from training to independent research.
The request and the bills included increases for new types of awards such as the
Pathway to Independence, the Directors’ Bridge awards, and New Innovator awards
in the Common Fund. The Director’s Pioneer Awards to encourage high risk
research were also supported, as were clinical research training and the new Clinical
and Translational Science Awards. In the final appropriation, the explanatory
statement indicates that the Pioneer, New Innovator, and Bridge awards were funded
at FY2007 levels, and that the Pathways to Independence program received funding
at the level of the President’s request.
The biodefense research portfolio was slated in the request to increase slightly
by cycling one-time extramural construction costs into other research areas. The
Senate bill as reported included legislative language on human embryonic stem cell
research, expanding access to stem cell lines and tightening ethical guidelines for
their use. To avoid controversy, however, the provisions were dropped before the
bill went to the floor.
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 FY2008 appropriation kept the tap at 2.4%, the same as in FY2007. NIH, with
the largest budget among the PHS agencies, becomes the largest “donor” of program
evaluation funds, and is a relatively minor recipient.
At the end of the 109th Congress, the House and Senate agreed on the first NIH
reauthorization statute enacted since 1993, the NIH Reform Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-
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 and reporting on 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 (NIH): Organization, Funding, and Congressional
Issues, by Pamela W. Smith. (CRS Contact: Pamela Smith.)

Table 5. National Institutes of Health
($ in millions)
FY2007 a FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008
Institutes and Centers (ICs)adjustedrequestHouseSenateenacted
Cancer (NCI)$4,792.6$4,782.14,880.44,910.24,805.1
Heart/Lung/Blood (NHLBI)2,922.42,925.42,965.82,992.22,922.9
Dental/Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)389.1389.7395.8398.6389.7
Diabetes/Digestive/Kidney (NIDDK)1,703.01,708.01,731.91,747.81,705.9
Neurological Disorders/Stroke (NINDS)1,533.01,537.01,569.11,573.31,543.9
Allergy/Infectious Diseases (NIAID)b,c4,363.04,592.54,631.84,668.54,560.7
General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)1,932.61,941.51,966.01,978.61,935.8
Child Health/Human Devel (NICHD)1,252.81,264.91,273.91,282.21,254.7
Eye (NEI)666.0667.8677.0682.0667.1
Environmental Health Sci (NIEHS)647.2637.4652.3656.2642.3
Aging (NIA)1,045.51,047.11,062.81,073.01,047.3
Arthritis/Musculoskel/Skin (NIAMS)507.4508.1516.0519.8508.6
Deafness/Commun Disorders (NIDCD)393.0393.7400.3402.7394.1
Nursing Research (NINR)137.2137.8139.5140.5137.5
Alcohol Abuse/Alcoholism (NIAAA)435.6436.5442.9445.7436.3
Drug Abuse (NIDA)1,002.01,000.41,015.61,022.61,000.7
Mental Health (NIMH)1,402.41,405.41,425.51,436.01,404.5
Human Genome Research (NHGRI)508.3484.4494.0497.0486.8
Biomed Imaging/Bioenginrg (NIBIB)296.4300.5303.3304.3298.6
Research Resources (NCRR)1,131.61,112.51,171.11,178.01,149.4
Complementary/Alt Med (NCCAM)121.4121.7123.4124.2121.6
Minority Health/ Disparities (NCMHD)199.1194.5202.7203.9199.6
Fogarty International Center (FIC)66.466.667.668.066.6
Library of Medicine (NLM)321.6312.6325.5327.8321.0
Office of Director (OD)c,d1,047.0517.11,114.41,145.81,109.1
Common Fund (non-add)d(483.0)(121.5)(495.2)(531.3)(495.6)
Buildings & Facilities (B&F)83.6136.0121.1121.1119.0
Subtotal, Labor/HHS Approp$28,899.9$28,621.2$29,669.7$29,899.9$29,228.5
Superfund (Interior approp to NIEHS)e79.178.479.178.477.5
Total, NIH discretionary budg auth$28,979.0$28,699.7$29,748.8$29,978.3$29,306.1
Pre-appropriated Type 1 diabetes fundsf150.0150.0150.0150.0150.0
NLM program evaluationg8.
Global HIV/AIDS Fund transferb-99.0-300.0-299.8-300.0-294.8
Total, NIH program level $29,038.2$28,557.9$29,607.2$29,836.5$29,169.5
Source: Tables in the explanatory statement on H.R. 2764, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008,
in the Dec. 17, 2007 Congressional Record, Book II. For NIH, the Labor/HHS appropriation is in
Division G on p. H16348-H16349, and the Interior/Environment appropriation is in Division F on p.
H16174. H.R. 2764 became P.L. 110-161 on Dec. 26, 2007. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a. FY2007 reflects transfers among NIH ICs made under the Director’s transfer authority. FY2007
also reflects transfer of $99.0m from NIH to the Office of the Secretary, as mandated by the
supplemental appropriations act, P.L. 110-28 (see note c).
b. NIAID totals include funds for transfer to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria.
c. For FY2007, the war/emergency supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 110-28, May 25, 2007)
transferred funding for Advanced Development of Medical Countermeasures to the Public
Health and Social Services Emergency Fund ($49.5m each from NIAID and OD).
d. OD has Roadmap funds for distribution to ICs. In FY2007 and in the FY2008 bills and final
appropriation, all Roadmap/Common Fund money was in OD; in the FY2008 request, IC
budgets included funds that were to be tapped for Roadmap contributions.
e. Separate account in the Interior/Environment/Related Agencies appropriation for NIEHS research
activities related to Superfund.
f. Funds available to NIDDK for diabetes research under PHS Act § 330B (P.L. 106-554 and P.L.
g. Additional funds from program evaluation set-aside (§ 241 of PHS Act).
National Science Foundation (NSF)
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161, H.R. 2764),
provides $6.065 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF) in FY2008,
$147.8 million above the enacted FY2007 level, and $364.0 million below the budget
request. The act funds the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account at
$4.822 billion in FY2008, $53.5 million (1.1%) above the FY2007 level, and $310.2
million below the Administration’s request. Appropriators agreed with the
Administration’s request to transfer the Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (EPSCoR) from the Education and Human Resources
Directorate (EHR) to the R&RA. Report language from conferees directs NSF to
review its polices concerning transformative research, research that is described as
“cutting edge” and revolutionary. Several reports have been released recommending
that NSF allocate funds specifically for this type of research. Appropriators have
directed the agency to issue a report suggesting how transformative research can be
included in NSF’s portfolio of research activities. Additional report language in the
report directs NSF to increase its support for physical infrastructure improvements
of its academic research fleet and for aging facilities. P.L. 110-161 funds the Major
Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) at $220.7 million and the
Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate at $725.6 million in FY2008.
The FY2008 request for the NSF was $6.429 billion, an 8.6% increase ($511.8
million) over the FY2007 estimate of $5.917 billion. (See Table 6.) President
Bush’s ACI has proposed to double the NSF budget over the next 10 years. The
FY2008 request will be another installment toward that doubling effort. The FY2008
request for NSF was designed to support several interdependent priority areas:
discovery research for innovation, preparing the workforce of the 21st century,
transformational facilities and infrastructure, international polar year leadership, and
stewardship. These particular areas of investments, similar to the goals contained in
the President’s proposed ACI, are designed to promote research that will drive
innovation and support the design and development of world-class facilities,
instrumentation, and infrastructure at the frontiers of discovery. The priorities will
support also a portfolio of programs directed at strengthening and expanding the
participation of underrepresented groups and diverse institutions in the scientific and
engineering enterprise.

The NSF asserts that international research partnerships are critical to the nation
in maintaining a competitive edge, addressing global issues, and capitalizing on
global economic opportunities. To address these particular needs, the Administration
had requested $45.0 million for the Office of International Science and Engineering.
Also, in FY2008, NSF continued in its leadership role in planning U.S. participation
in observance of the International Polar Year, which spans 2007 and 2008. The
FY2008 request for addressing the challenges in polar research was $464.9 million.
A major focus of planned polar research would be in climate change and
environmental observations. Other proposed FY2008 highlights included funding
for the National Nanotechnology Initiative ($389.9 million), investments in Climate
Change Science Program ($208.3 million), continued support for homeland security
($375.4 million), and funding for Networking and Information Technology Research
and Development ($993.7 million).
Included in the FY2008 request was $5.131 billion for R&RA, a 7.6% increase
($363.0 million) above the FY2007 estimate of $4.768 billion. R&RA funds
research projects, research facilities, and education and training activities. Partly in
response to concerns in the scientific community about the imbalance between
support for the life sciences and the physical sciences, the FY2008 request provided
increased funding for the physical sciences. Research is multidisciplinary and
transformational in nature, and very often, discoveries in the physical sciences often
lead to advances in other disciplines. R&RA includes Integrative Activities (IA) and
is a source of funding for the acquisition and development of research
instrumentation at U.S. colleges and universities. IA also funds Partnerships for
Innovation, disaster research teams, and the Science and Technology Policy Institute.
The FY2008 request transferred support for EPSCoR from the EHR to IA. It was
determined that placement in IA would allow the research focus and cross-directorate
activities of EPSCoR to be more fully integrated in the agency and give it more
leverage for improving and planning its research agendas. The FY2008 request
provided $263 million for IA. Included in that amount was $107 million for
EPSCoR. The EPSCoR request would support a portfolio of four investment
strategies. Approximately 62.6% of the funding for EPSCoR would be for a
combination of new and continuing awards.
The Office of Polar Programs (OPP) is funded in the R&RA. In FY2006,
responsibility for funding the costs of icebreakers that support scientific research in
polar regions was transferred from the U.S. Coast Guard to the NSF. While the NSF
does not own the ships, it is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and staffing
of the vessels. The OPP was to be funded at $464.9 million in the FY2008 request.
Increases in OPP for FY2008 were directed at research programs for arctic and
antarctic sciences — glacial and sea ice, terrestrial and marine ecosystems, the ocean,
and the atmosphere, and biology of life in the cold and dark. The NSF also serves
in a leadership capacity for several international research partnerships in polar
The NSF supports a variety of individual centers and center programs. The
FY2008 request provided $66.2 million for Science and Technology Centers, $59.2
million for Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers, $52.9 million for
Engineering Research Centers, $42.4 million for Nanoscale Science and Engineering

Centers, $27.0 million for Science of Learning Centers, and $11.5 million for Centers
for Analysis and Synthesis.
Additional priority areas in the FY2008 request included those of strengthening
core disciplinary research, and sustaining organizational excellence in NSF
management practices. NSF maintains that researchers need not only access to
cutting-edge tools to pursue the increasing complexity of research, but funding to
develop and design the tools critical to 21st century research and education. An
investment of $200.0 million in cyberinfrastructure would allow for funding of
modeling, simulation, visualization, and data storage and other communications
breakthroughs. NSF anticipated that this level of funding will make
cyberinfrastructure more powerful, stable, and accessible to researchers and educators
through widely shared research facilities. Increasing grant size and duration has been
a long-term priority for NSF. The funding rate for research grant applications was
21% in FY2006 and 20% in FY2007. NSF planned to return to the 21% funding rate
in FY2008. In addition, the average duration would be lengthened and the average
award size increased.
The FY2008 request for the EHR Directorate was $750.6 million, $55.9 million
(8%) below the FY2007 estimate. The EHR portfolio is focused on, among other
things, increasing the technological literacy of all citizens, preparing the next
generation of science, engineering, and mathematics professionals, and closing the
achievement gap in all scientific fields. Support at the various educational levels in
the FY2008 request was as follows: research on learning in formal and informal
settings (includes precollege), $222.5 million; undergraduate, $210.2 million; and
graduate, $169.5 million. Priorities at the precollege level include research and
evaluation on education in science and engineering ($42.0 million), informal science
education ($66.0 million), and Discovery Research K-12 ($107.0 million). Discovery
Research is structured to combine the strengths of three existing programs and
encourage innovative thinking in K-12 science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics education.
Programs at the undergraduate level are designed to “create leverage for
institutional change.” Priorities at the undergraduate level included the Robert Noyce
Scholarship Program ($10.0 million), Course, Curriculum and Laboratory
Improvement ($37.5 million), STEM Talent Expansion Program ($29.7 million),
Advanced Technological Education ($51.6 million), and Scholarship for Service
($12.1 million). The Math and Science Partnership Program (MSP), a crosscutting
program, was proposed at $46 million in the FY2008 request. The MSP in NSF
coordinates activities with the Department of Education and its state-funded MSP
sites. The MSP in NSF has made approximately 80 awards, with an overall funding
rate of about 9%. At the graduate level, priorities were those of Integrative Graduate
Education and Research Traineeship ($25.0 million), Graduate Research Fellowships
($97.5 million), and the Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education ($47.0
million). Added support was given to several programs directed at increasing the
number of underrepresented groups in science, mathematics, and engineering.
Among these targeted programs in the FY2008 request were the Historically Black
Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program ($30.0 million), Tribal Colleges
and Universities Program ($12.9 million), Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority

Participation ($40.0 million), and Centers of Research Excellence in Science and
Technology ($29.5 million).
The MREFC account was funded at $244.7 million in the FY2008 request, a
28.1% increase ($53.8 million) over the FY2007 estimate. The MREFC supported
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 was
directed to ongoing projects. Second priority was directed at projects that have been
approved by the National Science Board for new starts. NSF required that in order
for a project to receive support, it must have “the potential to shift the paradigm in
scientific understanding and/or infrastructure technology.” NSF stated that the
projects scheduled for support in the FY2008 request met that qualification. Six
ongoing projects and one new start were proposed for funding in the FY2008 request:
Atacama Large Millimeter Array Construction ($102.1 million), Ice Cube Neutrino
Observatory ($22.4 million), National Ecological Observatory Network ($8.0
million), South Pole Station Modernization project ($6.6 million), Alaskan Region
Research Vessel ($42.0 million), Ocean Observatories Initiative ($31.0 million), and
Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory ($32.8 million).
On May 2, 2007, the House Committee on Science and Technology passed H.R.

1867 (H.Rept. 110-114), the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007.

The bill authorizes a total of $21.0 billion for the NSF for FY2008, FY2009, and
FY2010, including $16.4 billion for R&RA, $2.8 billion for EHR, and $787.0 million
for MREFC. Priorities to be addressed in the three-year authorization bill include
those of supporting successful K-12 science, mathematics, and engineering education
programs, promoting university-industry partnerships, balancing funding between
interdisciplinary and disciplinary research, and improving funding rates for new
investigators. (CRS Contact: Christine M. Matthews.)

Table 6. National Science Foundation
($ in millions)
FY2007FY2008 HouseSenateFY2008
request F Y 2008 F Y 2008 enacted
Research & Related Activities
Biological Sciences633.0
Computer & Inform. Sci. & Eng.574.0
Engi neering 683.3
Geosciences 792.0
Math and Physical Sciences1,253.0
Social, Behav., & Econ. Sciences222.0
Office of Cyberinfrastructure200.0
Office of International Sci. & Eng.45.0
U.S. Polar Programs464.9
Integrative Activitiesa263.0
U.S. Arctic Research Commission1.5
Subtotal Res. & Rel. Act4,768.0c5,131.7 5,139.75,156.14,821.5c
Ed. & Hum. Resr.694.7750.6822.6850.6725.6
Major Res. Equip. & Facil. Constr.190.9244.7244.7244.7220.7
Agency Operations & Award
Manage me nt. 248.3 285.6 285.6 285.6 281.8
National Science Board
Office of Inspector General11.412.412.412.411.4
Total NSFb5,917.26,429.06,509.06,553.46,065.0
a. Beginning in the FY2008 request, EPSCoR was transferred from the EHR Directorate to Integrative
b. The totals do not include carry overs or retirement accruals. Totals may not add due to rounding.
c. Specific funding allocations for each directorate or for individual programs and activities are not
yet available.

Department of Agriculture (USDA)
On December 26, 2007, the President signed into law the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161, H.R. 2764). This act includes
appropriations for agencies covered under the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, including
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). P.L. 110-161 provides a total of
$2.603 billion for research and education for USDA in FY2008, $301.6 million
above the budget request and $74.7 million above the FY2007 enacted level.10 (See
Table 7.) The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is USDA’s in-house basic and
applied research agency, and operates approximately 100 laboratories nationwide,
including the world’s largest multidisciplinary agricultural research center, located
in Beltsville, Maryland. The ARS laboratories focus on efficient food and fiber
production, development of new products and uses for agricultural commodities,
development of effective biocontrols for pest management, and support of USDA
regulatory and technical assistance programs. Included in the total support for USDA
in FY2008 is $1.176 billion for ARS, $138.5 million above the request and $47.1
million above the FY2007 enacted level. The Administration had proposed
reductions of $141.0 million in funding add-ons designated by Congress for research
at specific locations. The amounts were to be redirected to high-priority
Administration initiatives that included livestock production, food safety, crop
protection, and human nutrition. Included in the FY2008 appropriation for ARS is
$47.1 million for buildings and facilities. The Administration had requested funding
for the planning and design of the Biocontainment Laboratory and Consolidated
Poultry Research Facility in Athens, Georgia.
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
distributes funds to State Agricultural Experiment Stations, State Cooperative
Extension Systems, land-grant universities, and other institutions and organizations
that conduct agricultural research, education, and outreach. Included in these
partnerships is funding for research at 1862 institutions, 1890 historically black
colleges and universities, and 1994 tribal land-grant colleges. Funding is distributed
to the states through competitive awards, statutory formula funding, and special
grants. P.L. 110-161 provides $1.130 billion for CSREES in FY2008, an increase of
$135.9 million over the budget request and $7.8 million above the FY2007 enacted
level. Funding for formula distribution in FY2008 to the state Agricultural
Experiment Stations is $279.9 million, $5.7 million below the FY2007 level. Support
for the 1890 formula programs is $41.3 million, almost level with FY2007. The
FY2008 budget request proposed, as in previous years, to modify the Hatch formula
program. It would expand the multistate research programs from 25% to
approximately 60% and distribute a portion of the funds through competitively
awarded grants. In previous years, Congress did not accept the Administration’s
proposed changes to the Hatch formula.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act funds the National Research Initiative
(NRI) Competitive Grants Program at $192.2 million, a slight increase over the

10 The funding estimates presented for FY2007 are based on the estimated full year amounts
available under the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (P.L.110-5, as amended).

FY2007 enacted level of $190.2 million. In addition to supporting fundamental and
applied science in agriculture, USDA maintains that the NRI makes a significant
contribution to developing the next generation of agricultural scientists. The FY2008
appropriation includes funding for grants to educational institutions and community-
based organizations to benefit socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. These
grants are intended to encourage greater participation of black farmers, tribal groups,
and Hispanic and other underrepresented groups in the USDA portfolio of
commodity, loan, education, and grant offerings. In addition, NRI funding will
support projects directed at developing alternate methods of biological and chemical
conversion of biomass, and research determining the impact of a renewable fuels
industry on the economic and social dynamics of rural communities. The
Administration had proposed support for initiatives in agricultural genomics,
emerging issues in food and agricultural security, the ecology and economics of
biological invasions, plant biotechnology, and water security.
The FY2008 appropriation for USDA provides $77.9 million for the Economic
Research Service (ERS), $2.7 million above the FY2007 enacted level; and $163.4
million for the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), approximately $16.1
million above the FY2007 level. It is anticipated that the increase for ERS will
expand the market analysis and outlook program and strengthen the coverage of
increasingly complex global markets for various agricultural products. The increase
for NASS will be in support of the 2007 Census of Agriculture. Funding will be
available also to obtain contract services for extensive data collection and processing
activities scheduled to occur in 2008. (CRS Contact: Christine M. Matthews.)
Table 7. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D
($ in millions)
FY2007 a FY2008request b HouseFY2008 Sena t eFY2008 FY2008enacted
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
Product Quality/Value Added104.6
Livestock Production70.7
Crop Production168.9
Food Safety103.2
Livestock Protection108.3
Crop Protection173.7
Human Nutrition84.1
Environmental Stewardship171.0
National Agricultural Library20.4
Repair and Maintenance16.6
Subtotal 1,128.9 1 ,021.5 1 ,076.3 1 ,154.2 1 ,128.9
Buildings and Facilities0.
Total, ARS1,128.91,037.51,140.31,194.31,176.0
Cooperative State Research, Education, & Extension (CSREES) Research and Education
Hatch Act Formula322.6164.4195.8214.9197.2
Cooperative Forestry Research30.020.523.330.025.0

FY2007 a FY2008request b HouseFY2008 Sena t eFY2008 FY2008enacted
Evans-Allen Formula (Payments to40.738.342.040.741.3
1890 Institutions)
Special Research Grants14.718.1110.267.792.4
NRI Competitive Grants190.2256.5190.2244.0192.2
Animal Health and Disease Res.
Federal Administration10.310.044.420.842.5
Higher Educationd37.640.536.538.448.9
Other Programs50.744.324.039.328.5
Total, Cooperative Research. &e671.4562.5671.4700.8673.0
Educa t io n
Extension Activities
Smith-Lever Sections 3b&c285.6273.2281.4285.8279.9
Smith-Lever Sections 3d94.591.5100.995.598.2
Renewable Resources Extension4.
1890 Colleges, Tuskegee, & West35.
Virginia State University Colleges
Other Extension Prog. & Admin.30.928.340.537.838.3
Total, Extension Activitiese450.3431.1463.9458.3456.5
Total, CSREESe1,121.7993.61,135.31,159.11,129.5
Economic Research Service75.282.579.376.577.9
National Agricultural Statistics147.3167.7166.1167.7163.4
Ser vice
Integrated Activities55.
Total, Research, Education, and2,528.32,301.42,578.22,610.52,603.0
a. Funding levels for specific programs are not yet available.
b. Funding levels are contained in U.S. Department of Agriculture FY2008 Budget Summary and
other documents internal to the agency.
cc. Includes Hurricane Katrina Emergency Appropriations of $29.2 million.
d. Higher education includes payments to 1994 institutions and 1890 Capacity Building Grants
program, the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the Alaska Native and Native
Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Education Grants, and others.
e. Program totals may or may not include set-asides (non-add) or contingencies. The CSREES total
includes support for Integrated Activities, Community Food Projects, and the Organic
Agriculture Research and Education Initiative.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested $1.379 billion for R&D11
in FY2008, a decrease of 6.3% from FY2007. This total included $799 million for
the Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T), $562 million for the Domestic

11 The FY2007 appropriations bill rescinded $125 million in prior-year funds from the S&T
Directorate. If the FY2007 enacted total for DHS R&D is reduced by the amount of this
prior-year rescission, the FY2008 request was a 2.4% increase.

Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), and $18 million for Research, Development,
Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) in the U.S. Coast Guard. (For details, see Table 8.)
The request for DNDO was a 17% increase. The request for the S&T Directorate
was an 18% decrease, about half of which resulted from the transfer of some12
operational programs out of S&T into other DHS organizations. The House
provided a total of $1.351 billion: $777 million for S&T, $556 million for DNDO,
and $18 million for Coast Guard RDT&E (H.R. 2638, H.Rept. 110-181). The Senate
provided a total of $1.414 billion: $838 million for S&T, $550 million for DNDO,
and $26 million for Coast Guard RDT&E (S. 1644, S.Rept. 110-84). The final
appropriation was a total of $1.328 billion: $830 million for S&T, $473 million for
DNDO, and $25 million for Coast Guard RDT&E (P.L. 110-161, explanatory
statement in Congressional Record, December 17, 2007).
Starting in late 2006, the S&T Directorate realigned its programs and
reorganized its management structure. The directorate’s program structure is now
as shown in Table 8. The directorate’s university centers of excellence are expected
to be aligned to match the new organization, with new centers being established for
some topics. The requested reduction of $41 million in the Explosives program was
due to the completion of efforts (known as Counter-MANPADS) to develop a
prototype system for protecting commercial aircraft against ground-to-air missiles.
The requested $51 million reduction in the Infrastructure and Geophysical program
largely reflected the elimination of funding for community and regional initiatives
previously established or funded at congressional direction. The operational
programs transferred out of S&T are the BioWatch monitoring system, the Biological
Warning and Incident Characterization (BWIC) system, and the Rapidly Deployable
Chemical Detection System (RDCDS) from the Chemical and Biological program
and SAFECOM from the Command, Control, and Interoperability program.
The House, citing unfilled staff positions in the S&T Directorate, provided $12
million less than the request for Management and Administration. It rejected the $14
million request for procurement of third-generation BioWatch units in the Chemical
and Biological program. It provided $10 million more than the request for University
Programs and instructed the S&T Directorate to report on how it selects university
centers of excellence, determines the research topics for centers, and evaluates the
quality of their work. The House provided no funding for the Analysis,
Dissemination, Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement (ADVISE)
program, a data-mining tool, and prohibited obligation of funds for ADVISE until
DHS completed a privacy impact assessment.13 Several other smaller changes added
up to a net decrease of $10 million for Research, Development, Acquisition, and
Operations (RDA&O).

12 If the FY2007 enacted funding for S&T is reduced by the amount of the prior-year
rescission, the FY2008 request for S&T is only a 5.8% decrease. See previous footnote.
If the FY2007 enacted amount is adjusted for both the rescission and the transfer of
programs out of the S&T Directorate, the FY2008 request for S&T is a 5.4% increase.
13 The assessment was published after passage of the House bill but before passage of the
Senate bill. DHS Privacy Office, Review of the Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization,
Insight and Semantic Enhancement (ADVISE) Program, July 11, 2007.

The Senate provided an increase of $41 million for RDA&O. Within this total,
reductions relative to the request included $13 million from the Chemical and
Biological program, $14 million from the Innovation program, and zero funding for
ADVISE. Increases included $18 million for the Explosives program to counter car
bombs and other improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and $55 million for earmarks
in the Infrastructure and Geophysical and Laboratory Facilities programs. The Senate
provided a reduction of $2 million in Management and Administration.
The final appropriation included an increase of $35 million in RDA&O and a
reduction of $4 million in Management and Administration. The Chemical and
Biological program received $21 million less than requested, including $8 million
less for third-generation BioWatch procurement. Innovation received $27 million
less, and the explanatory statement directed S&T to provide a plan for how the
program’s funds will be allocated. University Programs received $11 million more
than the request, and the explanatory statement called for a briefing similar to the
report called for by the House. Explosives received $14 million more, including $15
million to counter car bombs and IEDs. The final appropriation included the Senate
earmarks for $55 million. It provided no funding for ADVISE or its follow-ons or
In DNDO, the proposed $47 million increase in Research, Development, and
Operations focused primarily on the Transformational R&D program, whose goal is
to identify, develop, and demonstrate technologies that fill major gaps in the nuclear
detection architecture. The proposed $30 million increase in Systems Acquisition
was to begin implementation of the Securing the Cities initiative in the New York
City area. Congressional attention has focused recently on criticism of a cost-benefit
analysis that DNDO conducted to support its assessment of next-generation
Advanced Spectroscopic Portal (ASP) technology for radiation portal monitors.14
The House provided the requested amount for Systems Acquisition. The House
committee recommended a $40 million reduction, including a $20 million reduction
in the Securing the Cities initiative, but this was reversed by a floor amendment. As
in past years, the House report directed DNDO not to procure ASP systems until the
Secretary of Homeland Security certifies they are more effective than traditional
radiation portal monitors.
In the Senate, the largest change relative to the request was a shift of $29 million
from Systems Acquisition to Research, Development, and Operations. Of this
amount, $20 million was to be spent on screening general aviation aircraft for illicit
nuclear materials. The Senate committee recommended a $10 million reduction in
the Securing the Cities initiative, half from Systems Acquisition and half from
Research, Development, and Operations, but a floor amendment reserved the
requested amounts for this initiative. The Senate provided no funding for full-scale

14 See, for example, Government Accountability Office, Combating Nuclear Smuggling:
DHS’s Decision to Procure and Deploy the Next Generation of Radiation Detection
Equipment Is Not Supported by Its Cost-Benefit Analysis, GAO-07-581T, testimony before
the House Committee on Homeland Security, March 14, 2007.

procurement of ASP monitors until DHS provides the report and certification called
for in the FY2007 appropriations conference report (H.Rept. 109-699).
The final appropriation provided $90 million less than the request for Systems
Acquisition. As in previous years, it prohibited full-scale procurement of ASP
monitors until their performance has been certified by the Secretary, and recognizing
“the difficulty the Secretary faces” in making this certification, it provided funds for
the National Academy of Sciences “to assist the Secretary in his certification
decisions.” It required the certification to be made separately for primary and
secondary deployments. The final appropriation included the requested amount for
Securing the Cities and $13 million related to screening of general aviation aircraft.
(CRS Contact: Daniel Morgan.)
Table 8. Department of Homeland Security R&D
($ in millions)
FY2007 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008
request House Sena t e enacted
Science and Technology Directorate848799777838830
Management and Administrationa135143131141139
Research, Development, Acquisition, & Ops.713656646697692
Borders and Maritime Security3326262625
Chemical and Biologicala314229215216208
Command, Control, and Interoperabilityb6364616257
Explosives 105 64 64 82 78
Human Factors71313714
Infrastructure and Geophysical7524246464
I nno va t i o n 3 8 6 0 5 2 4 6 3 3
Laboratory Facilities1068989104104
Test and Evaluation, Standards2526282429
T r ansitio n 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 4 2 5
University Programs4939493949
Homeland Security Institutec55
Rescission of Unobld Prior-Year Funds-125
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office481562556550485
Management and Administration3034313232
Research, Development, and Operations272320317336324
Systems Acquisition178208208182130
U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E1718182625
Total DHS R&D1,3461,3791,3511,4141,340
Total Excluding Prior-Year Rescission1,4711,3791,3511,4141,340
Notes: Programs in the S&T Directorate have been realigned since the enactment of the FY2007
appropriation. For comparability, the FY2007 column is shown here in the new structure. (Enacted
amounts for FY2007 are presented both ways, with a crosswalk between the two, in the FY2008
congressional budget justification.)

a. BioWatch and related programs are transferred from the S&T Directorate to the Office of Health
Affairs in FY2008. The enacted FY2007 funding for these programs in S&T consisted of $1
million in the Management and Administration account plus $84 million in the Chemical and
Biological program.
b. SAFECOM is transferred from the S&T Directorate to the National Protection and Programs
Directorate in FY2008. Its enacted FY2007 funding in S&T was $5 million in the Command,
Control, and Interoperability program.
c. In FY2007, the Homeland Security Institute (HSI) received funding from each of the S&T
Directorate divisions. For FY2008, the Senate bill and the final appropriation broke out HSI
funding as a separate item. The Senate committee report stated that HSIs total funding was $10
million in FY2007 and the same in the FY2008 request.
Department of Commerce (DOC)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
For FY2008, the Bush Administration requested essentially flat funding for
NOAA’s R&D programs. The Administration proposed cuts for some other NOAA
research activities, including a 46% cut for the National Ocean Service R&D budget.
However, it did propose an increase of the $19 million for the Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research (OAR), about 6.7% more than the FY2007 AAAS-estimated
funding level.
The Department of Commerce, NOAA FY2008 Budget Summary, released
February 8, 2007, indicated that NOAA R&D funding would be 16% of the agency’s
total budget request of $3.82 billion. The request was comprised of 86% research
and 14% development funding. Seventy percent of NOAA R&D would be
intramural, while 30% of applied research would be extramural. OAR accounts for

60% of all NOAA R&D in the President’s FY2008 request.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) estimates
that the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 provides a total of $573 million for
NOAA R&D (Table 9). This resulted in an overall increase of $41 million, or 7.6%,
for the agency from FY2007 appropriation levels and would “result in a turnaround
from the steady fall in Commerce R&D for most of the decade.”15 The largest
decrease, compared with the FY2007 request, was a cut of $23 million for the
National Ocean Service. However, Congress provided $6 million more than the
FY2008 request for certain coastal science and ocean observation and assessment
R&D activities. There was a combined increase of $53 million for OAR from
FY2007 levels which is primarily targeted for climate change R&D, ocean
exploration, and the National Sea Grant College Program. An increase of $3 million
from FY2007 was proposed for NOAA satellite programs (NESDIS) National Polar
Environmental Orbiting Satellite System (NPOESS) preparatory data project.
Funding for NOAA Fisheries and the National Weather Service R&D was requested
and appropriated for approximately at FY2007 levels. The explanatory statement for
H.R. 2764 directs $6 million of the FY2008 NOAA budget be set aside for the
National Academy of Sciences to consider establishment of a congressional Climate

15 American Association for the Advancement of Science,
[ ht t p: / / www.a a a s .or g/ s pp/ r d/ doc 08f .ht m]

Change Study Committee, as was originally proposed by the House, for advising
Congress about the scientific underpinning for national policy responses to climate
The Senate Committee on Appropriations had reported S. 1745 (S.Rept. 110-
124) that would have provided $628 million for NOAA R&D, or an 18% increase
from the AAAS FY2007 estimated funding level. The Senate report criticized
NOAA for requesting steep cuts in key ocean programs in the past and for requesting
only modest increases in ocean programs for FY2008 at the expense of steep cuts in
other research program areas. The Senate report cited the Joint Ocean Commission
(JOCI)s’ January 2007 findings about the Administration’s progress in developing
a U.S. ocean policy which, they indicated may have influenced the Administration
to request modest increases for some ocean research and ocean-related NOAA R&D
programs. The Senate committee introduced $32 million for competitively-awarded
research grants programs in OAR. Overall, the recommendation for OAR R&D was
almost 32% percent more than the estimated FY2007 level and would have increased
the OAR total to $371 million. For climate change R&D, the Senate recommended
$217 million, or $24 million more than the request, including $140 million for
competitive climate change research grants that had been funded at $126 million in
For FY2008, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $585 million
for NOAA R&D in H.R. 3093 (H.Rept. 110-240). This is $43 million, or 7.4%, less
than recommended in S. 1745; $57 million, or 10.8%, more than the request; and $5
million, or 9.9%, more than the FY2007 estimated appropriation. The House would
have provided $280 million for OAR climate change research, or $44 million more
than the request. House-recommended competitive grants package for climate
change research totaled $172 million, or $126 million more than the FY2007
appropriation. The House bill would have provided $346 million for OAR overall,
23% more than the request. The House report did not address funding JOCI
policy/research recommendations. (CRS Contact: Wayne Morrissey.)
Table 9. NOAA R&D
($ in millions)
Type of R&DFY2007estimateaFY2008requestFY2008SenateFY2008HouseFY2008enacted
National Ocean Service6536513742
National Marine Fisheries 4242454142
Oceanic and Atmospheric281300371346334
National Weather Service2423232323
National Env. Satellite and2427272727
Data Information
All other NOAA R&Dc95100111110104
Total Conduct of R&Dd532528628585573
Source: Office of Management and Budget, R&D Bureau Report, February 1, 2007.

a. P.L. 110-5 (Reported as H.J.Res. 20)
b. P.L. 110-161 (Reported as Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2764, Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2006, Div. B, Title I, Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
c. Includes marine research data acquisition services.
d. Funding data from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a laboratory of
the Department of Commerce with a mandate to increase the competitiveness of U.S.
companies through appropriate support for industrial development of precompetitive,
generic technologies and the diffusion of government-developed technological
advances to users in all segments of the American economy. NIST research also
provides the measurement, calibration, and quality assurance techniques that
underpin U.S. commerce, technological progress, improved product reliability,
manufacturing processes, and public safety.
The President’s FY2008 budget requested $640.7 million for NIST, 5.3% below
the FY2007 appropriation. Internal research and development under the Scientific
and Technology Research and Services (STRS) account would have increased 15.2%
to $500.5 million (including the Baldrige National Quality Program). There would
be no funding for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and support for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) would have been reduced 55.8% to
$46.3 million. Construction expenses were to increase 60% to $93.9 million. (See
Table 10.)
The initial FY2008 appropriations bill passed by the House, H.R. 3093,
provided $831.2 million for NIST, 22.8% above FY2007. Included in this total was
$500.5 million for the STRS account (with the Baldrige National Quality Program),
an increase of 15.2% over the FY2007 figure. Support for ATP would have
increased 17.7% to $93.1 million, while funding for MEP was to increase 3.9% to
$108.8 million. The Committee Report to accompany the bill noted support for
legislation (P.L. 110-69) that reestablishes ATP as the Technology Innovation
Program while making some changes to the activity. The construction budget would16
more than double to $128.9 million.
The version of H.R. 3093 passed by the Senate would have appropriated $863.0
million for NIST, $30.8 million of which was to be directed to other non-NIST
programs, for a total appropriation of $832.2 million. The STRS account would have
been funded at $502.1 million (including the Baldrige National Quality Program),
15.6% above FY2007. The Advanced Technology Program was to be financed at
$100.0 million, with $30.8 million of this amount utilized for other activities in the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Marshals Service. There was a
stipulation in the bill that no single ATP award was to be made to companies with
revenues greater than $1 billion. Support for the Manufacturing Extension Program
would have increased 5.1% to $110.0 million. The construction budget would total
$150.0 million, over two and one-half times FY2007 funding.

16 The sum of these figures may not total $831.2 million because of rounding.

P.L. 110-161, the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, as passed by
Congress, provides NIST with $755.8 million, an increase of 11.7% over FY2007
and almost 18.0% over the Administration’s request. Support for the STRS account
increases 1.4% to $440.5 million (including $7.9 million for the Baldrige National
Quality Program). However, this amount is almost 12.0% below the President’s
budget proposal. The Technology Innovation Program (formerly the Advanced
Technology Program) is appropriated $65.2 million (with an additional $5 million
from FY2007 unobligated balances under ATP), 17.6% below the previous fiscal
year. Funding for MEP totals $89.6 million, 14.4% less than FY2007, but 93.5%
above the budget request. Support for construction almost triples to $160.5 million,
an amount over one and one-half times that contained in the original budget proposal.
No final FY2007 appropriations legislation for NIST was enacted during the
109th Congress. A series of continuing resolutions funded the program at FY2006
levels through February 15, 2007. However, P.L. 110-5, passed in the 110th Congress,
provided $676.9 million in FY2007 support for NIST. Funding for the STRS
account increased 10% over the previous fiscal year to $434.4 million while the
construction budget decreased 66% to $58.7 million. Financing for ATP at $79.1
million and support for MEP at $104.7 million reflected similar funding in FY2006.
As part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, the Administration stated
its intention to double over 10 years funding for “innovation-enabling research”
performed at NIST through its “core” programs (defined as internal research in the
STRS account and the construction budget). To this end, the President’s FY2007
budget requested an increase of 18.3% for intramural R&D at NIST; FY2007
appropriations for these programs increased 9.6%. For FY2008, the omnibus
appropriations legislation provided for a small increase in the STRS account. This
is in contrast to the Administration’s FY2008 budget which included a 15.2%
increase in funding, as did the original appropriations bill, H.R. 3093, as passed by
the House, while the Senate-passed version contained a 15.6% increase.
Continued support for the Advanced Technology Program was a major funding
issue. The ATP provided “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 cited it as a prime example of “corporate welfare,”
whereby the federal government invests in applied research activities that, they
emphasize, should be conducted by the private sector. Others defended ATP, arguing
that it assists businesses (and small manufacturers) in developing technologies that,
while crucial to industrial competitiveness, would not or could not be developed by
the private sector alone. Although Congress maintained (often decreasing) funding
for the Advanced Technology Program, the initial appropriation bills passed by the
House since FY2002 failed to include financing for ATP. During the 109th Congress,
the version of the measure reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations
also did not fund ATP. For FY2006, support again was provided for the program,
but the amount was 41% below that included in the FY2005 appropriations; FY2007
funding remained the same as the previous fiscal year. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 provides support, however reduced, for a new effort, the
Technology Innovation Program, which replaces ATP and is focused on small and
medium sized firms.

The budget for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, another extramural
program administered by NIST, was an issue during the FY2004 appropriations
deliberations. Although in the recent past congressional support for MEP remained
constant, the Administration’s FY2004 budget request, the initial House-passed bill,
and the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act substantially decreased federal
funding for this initiative, reflecting the President’s recommendation that
manufacturing extension centers “...with more than six years experience operate
without federal contribution.” However, P.L. 108-447 restored financing for MEP
in FY2005 to the level that existed prior to the 63% reduction taken in FY2004.
While the level of support decreased in FY2006, it remained significantly above the
FY2004 figure; FY2007 funding remained at a similar level. For FY2008, support
for this program has been reduced.
For additional information, see CRS Report 95-30, The National Institute of
Standards and Technology: An Appropriations Overview; CRS Report 95-36, The
Advanced Technology Program; and CRS Report 97-104, The Manufacturing
Extension Partnership Program: An Overview, all by Wendy H. Schacht. (CRS
Contact: Wendy H. Schacht.)
Table 10. NIST
($ in millions)
H.R. 3093H.R. 3093
NIST ProgramFY2007FY2008Request(passed(passedFY2008
ST RS a $434.4 $500.5 500.5 502.1 440.5
AT P 79.1 0 93.1 100 b 65.2c
MEP 104.7 46.3 108.8 110 89.6
Construction 58.793.9128.9150.9160.5
NIST Total676.9640.7831.2863c755.8
Note: Figures may not add up because of rounding.
a. Includes funding for the Baldrige National Quality Program
b. Does not include the $30.8 million directed away from the ATP appropriation for use by other non-
NIST programs
c. Funding is for the new Technology Innovation Program (TIP) the replaces ATP
Department of Transportation (DOT)
The Bush Administration requested $813 million for the Department of
Transportation’s (DOT) R&D budget in FY2008, an increase of approximately $19
million (2.4%) from FY2007 funding of $794 million. The House (H.R. 3074,
H.Rept. 110-238, H.Rept. 110-446) provided a total of $836 million. The Senate (S.
1789, S.Rept. 110-131) provided a total of $847 million. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act of FY2008 provides a total of $852 million, an increase of $58
million (7.3%) over the FY2007 funding level. (See Table 11.)

The President requested $410 million in FY2008 for Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) R&D, an increase of $49 million (13.6%) above the
FY2007 funding level. The House and Senate each provided $410 million. The final
appropriation for FHWA R&D in FY2008 is $410 million. Highway research
includes the Federal Highway Administration’s transportation research and
technology contract programs. These research programs include the investigation of
ways to improve safety, reduce congestion, improve mobility, reduce lifecycle
construction and maintenance costs, improve the durability and longevity of highway
pavements and structures, enhance the cost-effectiveness of highway infrastructure
investments and minimize negative impacts on the natural and human environment.
As requested in the President’s budget, the final appropriation for FHWA
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) R&D is $84 million, an increase of $20
million (30.3%) over FY2007. The FHWA budget also includes state highway R&D
distributed to states and local governments to support their local R&D efforts. The
President’s budget included $172 million for this activity in FY2008, an increase of
$9 million (6%) over FY2007. Both the House and Senate acts provided this
amount, and the Consolidated Budget Act included $172 million.
The President’s R&D request for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
for FY2008 was $258 million, down $45 million (14.9%) from FY2007. The request
included $140 million in Research, Engineering and Development, $90.4 million in
Air Traffic Organization Capital,$28.7 million in the Airport Improvement Program,
and $0.1 million in Safety and Operations. The final appropriation for FAA R&D in
FY2008 is $274 million, down $30 million (9.6%) from FY2007.
The President proposed $8 million for the Research and Innovative Technology
Administration (RITA) to coordinate and advance the pursuit of transportation
research that cuts across all modes of transportation, such as hydrogen fuels, global
positioning, and remote sensing. The final appropriation for RITA R&D in FY2008
is $8 million, up $6 million (253%) from FY2007. (CRS Contact: John Sargent.)
Table 11. Department of Transportation R&D
($ in millions)
Department ofFY2007FY2008FY2008FY2008FY2008
Transportationestimaterequest HouseSenateenacted
Federal Highway361410410410410
Federal Aviation303258265272274
Other agenciesa130146160165167
T otal 794 813 836 847 852
Note: R&D estimates are from the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
[ h t t p : / / www. aaas.org/spp/rd/dot08f.htm].
a. “Other agencies” includes National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Railroad
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Research and Innovative Technology

Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, and the Office of the Secretary.
Department of the Interior (DOI)
The Administration requested $621 million for R&D in the Department of the
Interior (DOI) in FY2008, an estimated decline of 2.1% from FY2007 funding of
$634 million. The House (H.R. 2643, H.Rept. 110-187) provided a total of $678
million. The Senate (S. 1696, S.Rept. 110-91) provided a total of $657 million. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act of FY2008 provides a total of $661 million, an
increase of $27 million (4.2%) over the FY2007 funding level. (See Table 12.)
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the primary supporter of R&D within
DOI, accounting for nearly 90% of the department’s total R&D appropriations. The
four USGS research divisions are Geographic Research, Geological Resources,
Water Resources and Quality, and Biological Research. Total funding for USGS in
FY2007 was $564 million. The President’s budget proposed a decrease in USGS
R&D funding of 3.0% to $547 million. The House provided $602 million (an
increase of 6.6%) for USGS, and the Senate provided $581 million (an increase of
3.0%). The Senate bill contained smaller increases for Geological Resources and
Biological Research, and did not include funding for the House initiative related to
various aspects of global climate change. The final appropriation for USGS in
FY2008 is $583 million, an increase of $37 million (3.4%) over the FY2007 budget.
Funding is increased in three of the four research areas, and an additional $7 million
is provided for climate change research.
Funding for Geological Resources R&D in FY2008 increases by 2.5% to $219
million. The Geological Resources Program assesses the availability and quality of
the nation’s energy and mineral resources. The Geological Resources Program
researches, monitors, and assesses the landscape to understand geological processes
to help distinguish natural change from those resulting from human activity. Within
the earth sciences, the USGS plays a major role in important geological hazards
research, including research on earthquakes and volcanoes. Enterprise Information
conducts information science research to enhance the National Map and National
Spatial Data infrastructure. Geographic Research R&D rises 3.3% to $46 million in
Funding for Water Resources R&D, which focuses on activities aimed at
improving the quality of U.S. groundwater, remains constant in FY2008 at $126
million. The Cooperative Water Program, which supports the collection of basic
hydrologic data, studies of specific water-resources problems, and hydrologic
research through USGS partnerships with state governments and other entities, is
funded at $63 million in FY2008.
Funding for USGS Biological Research in FY2008 increases by 2.2% to $180
million. This research program develops and distributes information needed in the
conservation and management of the nation’s biological resources. The program
serves as DOI’s research arm, using 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. (CRS Contact: John Sargent.)
Table 12. Department of the Interior R&D
($ in millions)
DOIFY2007estimateFY2008requestH.R. 2643S. 1696FY2008enacted
Geographic Research4442474646
Geological Resources214198225219219
Water Resources126119128128126
Biological Research176181187182180
Climate Change Research001007
Enterpise Information57666
USGS total564547602581583
Other agenciesa7074767679
Total 634621678657661
Note: R&D estimates are from the American Association for the Advancement of Science
[http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/int08f.htm], USGS budget office, and USGS FY2008 Budget
Justification documents. Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. “Other agencies” includes the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management, the
Minerals Management Service, and the National Park Service.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Title II of Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L.
110-161),17 provided $785.8 million for the Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) Science and Technology account, which reflects most of the Agency’s R&D
funding. The enacted FY2008 appropriation, which includes a transfer from the18
agency’s Superfund account and reflects a 1.56% across the board rescission, was
less than 1% above the President’s FY2008 request of $780.6 million, and 3% above

17 Title II of Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161)
signed by the President on December 26, 2007, appropriated a total of $7.46 billion for EPA.
For more information regarding EPA’s FY2008 appropriations see CRS Report RL34011,
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations, by Carol Hardy
18 P.L. 110-161 Division F, Title IV § 437.

the FY2007 appropriation of $763.6 million. (See Table 13.) Without adjusting for
inflation, FY2008 funding for certain research activities increased relative to
FY2007, however, funding for many of the program areas within the S&T account
remained relatively constant or declined.
EPA, the regulatory agency responsible for carrying out a number of
environmental laws, funds a broad portfolio of R&D activities to provide the
necessary scientific tools and knowledge to support decisions relating to preventing,
regulating, and abating environmental pollution. EPA’s annual appropriations are
requested, considered, and enacted according to eight line-item appropriations
accounts, which were established by Congress during the FY1996 appropriations
process. The Science and Technology (S&T) account incorporates elements of the
former EPA Research and Development account, as well as a portion of the former
Salaries and Expenses, and Program Operations accounts, which had been in place
until FY1996. The S&T account is funded by a base appropriation plus a transfer of
appropriated funds from the Superfund account. These transferred funds are
dedicated to research on more effective methods to clean up contaminated sites.
R&D at EPA headquarters and laboratories around the country, as well as
external R&D, is managed primarily by EPA’s Office of Research and Development
(ORD). Many of the programs implemented by other offices within EPA have a
research component, but the research is not necessarily the primary focus of the
program. A large portion of the S&T account appropriations fund EPA’s R&D
activities managed by ORD, including the agency’s research laboratories and
research grants, but the account also provides funding for the agency’s applied
science and technology activities conducted through its program offices (e.g. the
Office of Water).
Most of the S&T account funds “actual” research activities, but the operational
and administrative expenses of agency research facilities, such as rent, utilities, and
security, are also funded within this account. The overall increase for FY2008 above
FY2007 was mostly due to a continued shift in funds from the Environmental
Programs and Management account to pay these operational and administrative
expenses. When comparing funding for research alone (net after operations and
administration expenses), the FY2008 consolidated appropriations provided a $6.4
million increase above the FY2008 request, but $17.5 million less than FY2007
(includes transfers from the Superfund account). (See Table 13). Consequently,
funding enacted for FY2008 for many of EPA’s research areas decreased, or
remained flat, relative to FY2007.
However, funding for certain areas, such as Climate Protection and Global
Change research, rose above the President’s request for FY2008 and the prior year
appropriation but in many cases not to the level that the House or the Senate
Appropriations Committee had proposed for FY2008. For example, the FY2008
appropriations of $19.7 million for Global Change Research, was roughly 20% more
than the $16.2 million provided for FY2007 and the $16.9 million requested, but
significantly less than the $33.3 million the House had proposed. The Senate
committee had proposed $18.6 million for this research activity. The FY2008
consolidated appropriations also did not include the largest increase recommended
within the S&T account by the Senate committee. The Senate committee had

recommended $14 million in a new-line item program activity for “extramural
research grants.” No such line-item program activity had been specified in previous
appropriations, nor had it been included in the House proposed bill or the President’s
FY2008 request. These proposed extramural grants would have been in the form of
competitive grants for “high-priority” air quality ($10.0 million) and water
quality($4.0 million) research supplemental to other funding for these research
activities elsewhere in the account.
Climate change due to emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) resulting from
human activities has drawn the attention of Congress as scientific understanding of
the causes, extent, and impacts has grown. This attention was reflected in the debate
regarding the FY2008 appropriations.19 P.L. 110-161 included increases for EPA’s
global climate change activities within the S&T account, as noted above, as well as
within other accounts. However, the FY2008 consolidated appropriations did not
include a new account to establish a Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and
Mitigation as the House had proposed; nor did the law provide funding in any other
existing account for such a commission. The new account would have been
supplemental to funding in the S&T account, and would have provided $50.0 million
for FY2008. Of the total, $5 million would have been for the establishment and
operations of a two-year multi-agency commission to analyze science questions
related to climate change adaptation and mitigation and to recommend research
priorities. The remaining $45.0 million proposed for this account would have been
distributed to support federal agency climate change adaptation and mitigation
research efforts based on the commission’s recommendations. Neither the Senate
Appropriations Committee nor the President had proposed funding for such a
Some Members of Congress and an array of stakeholders have continually raised
concerns about the adequacy of funding for scientific research at EPA. For example,
EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) expressed its concerns about the “decreased
trends in the funding of ecosystems research, decreased funding of the Science to
Achieve Results (STAR) extramural and fellowship programs, and the elimination
of the economics and decision sciences research program within ORD.”20 Similarly,
the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), expressed its
concerns regarding the President’s FY2008 request and the enacted appropriations.21
The EPA funding debate for FY2008 took place within the context of a larger
discussion about the adequacy of federal funding for many “core” scientific research
activities administered by multiple federal agencies, including EPA. Some Members

19 See discussion regarding climate change appropriations under the heading “Climate
Change” in the CRS Report RL34011, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2008 Appropriations by Carol Hardy Vincent.
20 EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB)comments on EPA’s Strategic Research Directions
and Research Budget for FY2008, An Advisory Report of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB-07-004) [http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
21 American Association for the Advancement of Science FY2008 Appropriations Summary
[ h t t p : / / www.aaas.or g/ spp/ r d / upd1207.ht m] .

of Congress, scientists, and environmental organizations have expressed concern
about the downward trend in overall federal resources for scientific research over
time. The debate continues to center around the question of whether the regulatory
actions of federal agencies are based on “sound science,” and how scientific research
is applied in developing federal policy. (CRS Contact: Robert Esworthy).
Table 13. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account
($ in millions)
H.R. 2643 S. 1696FY2008
Environmental Protection AgencyFY2007EnactedFY2008RequestHouse-S. Comm.Enacteda
P a sse d Reported
Science and Technology Appropriations Account
— Base Appropriations$733.4$754.5$783.3$772.5$760.1
— Transfer in from Superfund
Account 30.2
Science and Technology Total763.6780.6809.4798.6785.8
— (Operations and
Administration) (33.0) (73.9) (73.9) (73.9) (72.7)
Net Science and Technology730.6706.7735.5724.7713.1
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using information in the Joint
Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008
(P.L. 110-161, H.R. 2764), as presented in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007.
a. Enacted amounts for FY2008 in the above table reflect a 1.56% across-the-board rescission
required in P.L. 110-161 for any discretionary appropriations in Division F Titles I through IV
of the law (Division F Title IV § 437 of P.L. 110-161).