Center Articles and Publications

Billions for Biodefense: Federal Agency Biodefense Funding, FY2009-FY2010 

Crystal Franco

Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Volume 7, Number 3, 2009. © Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089=bsp.2009.0035

Introduction: Since 2001, the United States government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. Earlier articles in this series analyzed civilian biodefense funding by the federal government for fiscal years (FY) 2001 through 2009. This article updates those figures with budgeted amounts for FY2010, specifically analyzing the budgets and allocations for biodefense at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Defense, Homeland Security, Agriculture, and State; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the National Science Foundation. This year’s article also provides an assessment of the proportion of the biodefense budget that serves multiple programmatic goals and benefits, including research into infectious disease pathogenesis and immunology, public health planning and preparedness, and disaster response efforts. The FY2010 federal budget for civilian biodefense totals $6.05 billion. Of that total, $4.96 billion is budgeted for programs that serve multiple goals and provide manifold benefits.

Sections:
- U.S. Government Civilian Biodefense Funding (Table 1)
- Strictly Civilian Biodefense Funding (Exluding Programs with Multiple Goals and Benefits) (Table 2)
- Funding Trends
- Methods and Sources
- Civilian Biodefense Funding by Federal Agency
    - Department of Health and Human Services (Table 3)
    - Department of Defense (Table 4)
    - Department of Homeland Security (Table 5)
    - Department of Agriculture (Table 6)
    - Environmental Protection Agency (Table 7)
    - Department of State (Table 8)
    - National Science Foundation (Table 9)
- Conclusion
- References

This year’s ‘‘Billions for Biodefense’’ analysis looks at funding for civilian biodefense programs across the federal government from fiscal year (FY) 2001 through the proposed budget for FY2010. It reflects information collected from FY2010 budget materials, as well as information collected for the 5 previous ‘‘Billions for Biodefense’’ articles.^1-5 This year’s ‘‘Billions for Biodefense’’ provides an analysis of the FY2010 presidential budget—the first budget proposed by the Obama administration and the first budget of a new administration since the terrorist attacks of September and October 2001. When excluding the FY2009 BioShield allocation, biodefense funding for FY2010 is proposed to increase $330.9 million above the previous year’s estimates. President Obama’s FY2010 budget proposes a total of $6.05 billion in federal funding for civilian biodefense programs, bringing the sum total of funding for civilian biodefense from FY2001 through FY2010 to $54.39 billion (Table 1, Figure 1).

Figure 1. Cumulative Civilian Biodefense Funding by Agency, FY2001-FY2010 (in $millions).
   

Many of the programs included in the $6.05 billion FY2010 budget have missions that serve multiple programmatic goals and benefits in addition to improving biodefense. These include programs to fund basic science research in infectious disease pathogenesis and immunology, programs to improve planning and operations related to public health preparedness, and programs to improve preparedness and response for a range of disasters.⁶ Some specific examples of programs with multiple goals and benefits include the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP), which helps to improve healthcare surge capacity around the country for all-hazards; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ (NIAID) Biodefense Research Program, which funds basic infectious disease pathogenesis and immunology research, with implications for a multitude of diseases; and the HHS Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), which stockpiles pharmaceutical countermeasures and nonpharmaceutical medical supplies for radiological and chemical events, in addition to supplies and countermeasures for other disasters.

Of President Obama’s FY2010 budget request of $6.05 billion for civilian biodefense, $4.96 billion is budgeted for programs that have multiple goals and benefits; the FY2010 budget for programs that deal strictly with biodefense is $1.09 billion (Table 2). Over the course of the 10 fiscal years included in this analysis, $42.57 billion of the $54.39 billion in funding for biodefense has been dedicated to programs with multiple goals and benefits, while $11.81 billion has gone to programs devoted only to biodefense (Table 2).

As a comparison of biodefense funding as a percentage of agency budgets:

• The FY2010 biodefense budget for HHS represents 0.5% of the total $879 billion FY2010 HHS budget;⁷
• The biodefense budget for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is less than 1% of the total FY2010 DHS budget of $55.1 billion;⁸ and
• The biodefense budget for the Department of Defense (DoD) is 0.10% of the total FY2010 DoD budget of $663.8 billion.⁹

As additional points of comparison: The Carnegie Endowment estimates that in FY2008, the federal government spent $52.4 billion on nuclear weapons and nuclear defense programs—more than all federal funding for civilian biodefense from FY2001 through FY2008 combined.¹⁰ And in FY2010, the DoD-wide missile defense program is budgeted to receive $9.3 billion in funding, 1.4% of the total FY2010 DoD budget¹¹ and $3.2 billion more than the amount proposed for all biodefense for FY2010.

Funding Trends

Based on analyses from previous ‘‘Billions for Biodefense’’ articles^1-5 and updated numbers for this year’s article, it can be concluded that, after a 3-year decrease or leveling off of biodefense funding, overall federal funding for civilian biodefense is planned to increase under the President’s FY2010 budget. Biodefense funding rose incrementally from FY2001 to FY2006. Excluding Project BioShield funds—which were appropriated in FY2004 but have been allocated and used over multiple fiscal years (see sidebar, p.000)—biodefense funding first peaked at $5.71 billion in FY2006 and then generally declined through FY2008. Beginning with estimated FY2009 funds and continuing into the budget for FY2010, biodefense allocations have begun to trend upward again. Excluding BioShield funding, the FY2010 budget represents an increase in biodefense funding of $330.9 million over FY2009 estimates (Table 1, Figure 2).

Figure 2. Civilan Biodefense Funding by Fiscal Year, FY2001-FY2010 (in $millions).
   

  
As in previous budgets, the majority of proposed biodefense funding for FY2010 is directed toward HHS (Table 3), which would receive $4.52 billion (75%) of the $6.05 billion total for FY2010, a proposed increase of $215 million over FY2009 estimates (Figure 3). The Department of Defense has the next largest biodefense budget for FY2010 at $686.8 million (11% of the total), an increase of $63 million over FY2009 estimates (Table 4). The Department of Homeland Security would receive the next largest proportion of federal civilian biodefense funding for FY2010 with $396.1 million (7% of the total) (Table 5). The FY2010 budget for DHS represents a proposed increase in funding of $28.9 million over FY2009 estimates (when BioShield funds are excluded from FY2009 totals).

Figure 3. Civilan Biodefense Funding by Agency, FY2010 (in $millions).
   

Additionally, the President’s budget shows increases for 3 of the 4 remaining federal agencies involved in biodefense. The largest proposed increase (other than DoD, DHS, and HHS) is a $15 million allocation to the Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Table 6), followed by a proposed $5.9 million increase for the State Department (Table 8) and a $3.1 million increase for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Table 7). Finally, the National Science Foundation (NSF) is budgeted to receive the same amount of biodefense funding ($15 million) in FY2010 as it is estimated to have received in FY2009 (Table 9) (Figure 3).

Since the first ‘‘Billions for Biodefense’’ article, federal agencies have become somewhat more transparent in their accounting for, and analysis of, biodefense programs. HHS provides the most readable budget, with a section for preparedness and a subsection for biodefense funding. DHS provides a fairly clear budget, although biodefense funding is not all presented in one place as it is in the HHS budget. Other agencies such as DoD, EPA, State, and NSF provide fragmented budgets, necessitating multiple personal contacts with agency representatives to obtain otherwise unavailable data.

Methods and Sources

The author used a variety of methods and sources, including agency ‘‘Budgets in Brief,’’ agency budget justifications, stipulations included in public laws and accompanying Congressional reports, and personal contact with agency representatives, to obtain and track civilian biodefense expenditures for FY2010. As in previous analyses, money spent on civilian biodefense in past fiscal years is referred to as ‘‘actual funds.’’ For this article, numbers for actual funds are available from FY2001 through FY2008.

The author also identified funding appropriated by Congress for civilian biodefense during the current fiscal year (FY2009). While these funds have already been appropriated, it is unclear how much of that money will ultimately be spent on civilian biodefense activities for the year. Hence, FY2009 money is referred to as ‘‘estimated funds.’’ Finally, the author analyzed the President’s budget request for the upcoming 2010 fiscal year to gather data on proposed funding. These numbers are referred to as ‘‘budget’’ funds and are subject to change during the FY2010 Congressional budget and appropriations processes. Any ‘‘stimulus funding’’ related to biodefense and public health preparedness provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) has been accounted for by the agencies in their estimate for FY2009 funding, but these funds have not been specifically singled out as stimulus funding in this analysis.¹²

In order to obtain accurate and timely budget information for this analysis, a number of methods were used to acquire the data. Departmental ‘‘Budget in Brief’’ documents were primary resources. However, ‘‘Budgets in Brief’’ often contain only partial information on civilian biodefense programs and may not break funding down to the programmatic level. In cases where federal agencies or departments are made up of distinct operating divisions (eg, HHS and DoD), individual agency or division budgets also were examined. When these documents had been reviewed and still more detailed or complete information was needed, agency public affairs and budget offices were contacted by phone and e-mail.

Inclusion of a line item in the budget for a biodefense program does not necessarily indicate the relative size or location of that program. A number of programs, such as BioShield, may be administered by one agency (HHS) with guidance from another (DHS). Also, biodefense line items may represent programs with many components, such as the DHS Biological Countermeasures Thrust Area (Table 5).

As in previous years, every attempt has been made to distinguish which items should be considered for the purposes of this budget analysis as civilian versus military biodefense and/or other homeland security or public health–related programs. For the purposes of this analysis, civilian biodefense funding includes programs, research, or administrative costs that prevent or mitigate bioterrorism’s effect on civilians. Some federal budgets for programs aimed at preventing and mitigating adverse civilian health effects (eg, HHS’s SNS program) do not distinguish how much of the program is specifically targeted at stockpiling countermeasures for biological threats, in addition to chemical, radiological, nuclear, or other threats. But because civilian biodefense is clearly a critical part of their mission, these programs have been included in their entirety. Other programs with multiple goals and benefits (eg, HHS’s Medical Reserve Corps or the National Disaster Medical System) that may provide a substantial benefit in responding to an incident of civilian bioterrorism have also been included in their entirety.

Finally, research programs such as the NIAID Biodefense Research program and DoD’s Medical Biological Defense research conduct basic research on infectious disease pathology and immunology and have clear objectives and relevance to both biodefense and other infectious disease research more broadly. It is impossible to differentiate which part of this early research benefits biodefense specifically. Thus, these programs have been included as a whole in the overall biodefense budget. This methodology of including biodefense programs with multiple goals and benefits for infectious disease research, public health preparedness, and disaster response has led to an overestimation of biodefense funding, in the strict sense, because much of the money allocated for multiple application programs is in fact spent on nonbiodefense applications.

Examples of programs that have been excluded from civilian biodefense budget totals in this analysis are programs aimed explicitly at all-hazards preparedness (ie, those that do not single out biodefense as part of their mission), programs aimed at nonbioterrorism-related hazards such as pandemic flu, and those programs that have strictly military applications.

Of the DoD Chemical and Biological Defense program budget, only the Medical Biological Defense program, which is primarily focused on medical countermeasures, has been included in this analysis. DoD’s Medical Biological Defense program has the potential for civilian biodefense applications; it has increasing coordination with other federal agencies; and it has applicability to civilian biodefense in its biological medical countermeasures research and development activities. For these reasons the Medical Biological Defense Program has been included for FY2010 and previous years (Table 4). The remainder of the Chemical and Biological Defense program is focused on military, rather than civilian, applications, including the purchase and maintenance of military-specific vehicles, detectors, and protective gear that are not intended as tools for the U.S. civilian population. Additionally, a large proportion of the program is focused on chemical defense, which is not applicable to this analysis.

A new element in this year’s analysis is to account for programs that have multiple goals and benefits and the amount of funding allocated to them from FY2001 through FY2010. For this analysis, a program with multiple goals and benefits is defined as a program with a mission that serves one or more purposes beyond the strict goals of biodefense. In fact, many of these programs focus a minority of their mission and effort on biodefense. However, these programs are included in the overall biodefense budget because at least an element of the program is related to improving biodefense. A few examples of programs with multiple goals and benefits are the HHS Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP), the NIAID Biodefense Research program, the USDA biosurveillance program, and the DHS National Biosurveillance Integration Center (NBIC). A new table (Table 2) has been included in this year’s analysis that totals the FY2001-FY2010 funding for programs that are strictly biodefense-focused and calculates the totals for multiple-application programs for the same fiscal years.

Items that could not be tracked in previous ‘‘Billions for Biodefense’’ articles were updated for this version as data became available. Some line items were added or shifted when compared to previous articles to reflect the restructuring of various programs, agencies, and departments.

Civilian Biodefense Funding by Federal Agency

Department of Health and Human Services

For FY2010, HHS has budgeted $4.524 billion for biodefense programs. This amount represents a proposed increase in funding of $215 million, or 5%, over FY2009 estimated funding levels for HHS (Table 3). The majority of funds requested for HHS in FY2010 are allocated to programs in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (Figure 4). However, the FY2010 budget proposes funding increases in all areas of the HHS biodefense budget, including CDC, NIH, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and the Office of the Secretary (Table 3).

Figure 4. HHS Civilian Biodefense Funding, FY2010 (in $millions).
   

The CDC budget for biodefense includes a proposed $14 million increase in funding over FY2009 levels for ‘‘upgrading state and local capacity,’’ to support state and local preparedness efforts (composed primarily of the state Public Health Emergency Preparedness cooperative agreement grants), and a proposed $26 million increase for the Strategic National Stockpile program (SNS), which works to stockpile medical countermeasures and other supplies for a bioterrorism attack and other public health emergencies.⁷ NIH would also receive an increase to its biodefense research programs, which are administered through NIAID; these programs are budgeted to increase $15 million in FY2010. FDA’s food defense program is budgeted to increase to $217 million from an estimated $213 million in FY2009. HRSA is budgeting $5 million for the Preparedness Countermeasures Injury Compensation fund, a fund established by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act. The fund is meant to provide compensation to individuals that suffer from any unintended side effects of a countermeasure that is administered during a disaster or public health emergency.⁷ This funding also represents the first direct biodefense funding for HRSA since FY2005.

The major increases in funding in HHS are in the Office of the Secretary, specifically under the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). Part of this is the National Hospital Preparedness Grant Program (HPP), which is budgeted to receive a $32 million increase over estimated funds for FY2009. This would bring the HPP funding level back up to $426 million, approximately its level in FY2008 before the program was cut, but still much lower than it was when HRSA administered the program from FY2003 to FY2005.

The FY2010 budget proposes $305 million for advanced research and development of medical countermeasures, a $30 million increase over the estimated FY2009 level. The Biomedical Research and Development Authority (BARDA), under the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, is charged with supporting advanced research and development of new medical countermeasures (eg, medicines and vaccines) against biological threats. These proposed advanced research and development funds would support research on selected countermeasure candidates with the potential for purchase under Project BioShield and delivery to the Strategic National Stockpile. While the FY2010 budget proposes an increase in funding for BARDA initiatives related to advanced countermeasures research and development, the budget states that ‘‘funding for advanced research and development for FY2010 will be provided through a transfer of funds from the remaining BioShield Special Reserve Fund (SRF).’’⁷ As a result, the funding increase for BARDA represents a reallocation of BioShield funds.

The FY2010 budget includes 3 new line items under ASPR for an Emergency Care System Program to improve the quality of emergency care around the country and set national emergency care standards; a Medical Countermeasures Dispensing pilot program, partnering with the United States Postal Service (USPS) to dispense countermeasures in an emergency; and a program for Advanced Development of Next Generation Ventilators. These line items are budgeted at $10 million, $10 million, and $65 million, respectively.

Department of Defense

The FY2010 DoD biodefense budget of $686.8 million represents an increase of $63.0 million in funding for DoD civilian biodefense activities over FY2009 estimated funds. DoD biodefense activities in this FY2010 budget analysis include Army National Guard WMD Civil Support Teams; Biological Threat Reduction programs, located in the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA); the Biological Warfare Defense Program, located in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA); and the Medical Biological Defense program under the Chemical and Biological Defense heading (Table 4).

Both the Biological Threat Reduction (in DTRA) and the Biological Warfare Defense Programs (in DARPA) face proposed budget cuts in FY2010. The Biological Threat Reduction program would receive a decrease of $33.3 million over FY2009 estimates. This program oversees the location, collection, and destruction of ‘‘dangerous pathogens’’ from weapons created under biological weapons programs, and it seeks to engage scientists from the former Soviet Union and other areas of the world in open and ethical research to prevent them from being sought out and employed by terrorist groups and ‘‘rogue states’’ that might intend to create and use biological weapons.¹³ The Biological Warfare Defense program would be cut by $15.5 million under the FY2010 budget.

The Medical Biological Defense program represents a majority of DoD’s investment in biodefense activities, includes funding for basic and applied biological research, and encompasses specific research areas such as the Transformational Medical Technologies Initiative (TMTI), launched in FY2006 ‘‘as a key Quadrennial Defense Review initiative to respond to the threat of emerging or intentionally bioengineered biological threats.’’¹³ For FY2010, Medical Biological Defense is budgeted to receive $441.5 million, an increase of $93.9 million over FY2009 estimates. Since FY2001, this program has reached a total of $2.15 billion in funding (including budgeted amounts for FY2010).

Department of Homeland Security

The DHS budget request for FY2010 totals $396.1 million, an increase of $28.9 million from FY2009 estimated levels (when BioShield funds are excluded from FY2009 totals) (Table 5). The DHS FY2010 budget request would eliminate funding for the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) and replace it with the Medical Surge Grant Program, funded at a similar level ($40 million). This new grant program is said to build on the ‘‘foundations’’ of the MMRS.

The requested budget for the BioWatch program, in the Office of Health Affairs, is $94.5 million, a proposed decrease of $17.1 million in funding for the program from the FY2009 estimate. The FY2010 budget does not provide an explanation for this decrease but mentions that the $94.5 million budget for the program is proposed to support baseline capabilities for first- and second-generation BioWatch collectors, as well to support field testing and procurement of third-generation systems.⁸ All other DHS biodefense funding budgeted for FY2010 remains at or near FY2009 estimated levels (Table 5).

Department of Agriculture

The FY2010 USDA budget requests an increase in civilian biodefense funding of $15 million over FY2009 funding levels, for a total of $233 million (Table 6).

This FY2010 budget for USDA is a departure from previous budgets in that the budget does not propose funding of its Food Defense and Agricultural Defense initiatives. In fact, nowhere in the FY2010 USDA ‘‘Budget in Brief’’ is the word ‘‘defense’’ mentioned.¹⁴ A USDA Budget and Advocacy Committee Meeting discussed removing the Food and Agricultural Defense Initiative as a targeted budget item in FY2010.¹⁵ Instead, a similar amount of funding for biodefense-related activities is budgeted among programs under the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), and the newly established National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). In addition, the budget indicates that $3 million should be provided for homeland security initiatives within USDA.

In this newly arranged FY2010 budget, a majority of funding goes to surveillance activities, including the APHIS Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance program, Plant and Animal Health Monitoring, and the NIFA Regional Diagnostic Network. Other significant funding includes the APHIS Veterinary Biologics and Diagnostics program and the FSIS Public Health Data Communication Infrastructure System.

With this new USDA budget formatting, the budget is much less transparent, making it more difficult to discern biodefense funding.

Environmental Protection Agency

For FY2010, the budget for the EPA requests $159.8 million for civilian biodefense programs, an increase of $3.1 million over FY2009 estimated funds. The only significant change to the budget for EPA is that the Homeland Security Grants to States (formerly the Water Safety Grants), which have been funded annually at $5 million, would receive no funding for FY2010 (Table 7).

Department of State

For FY2010, the State Department budget requests an increase in funding for the department’s civilian biodefense programs of $5.9 million, for a total of $36.8 million (Table 8). New in this year’s analysis is funding for the Office of Biological Weapons Affairs under the State Department Bureau of Verification, Compliance and Implementation. This office deals specifically with biological threat reduction and is funded at $2.2 million for FY2010. Additionally, new information on the Global Threat Reduction (GTR) Biosecurity Engagement Program (BEP) was provided by the State Department for FY2010 and previous years. The BEP is an international program that engages scientists and laboratories in ‘‘programs that promote the safe, secure and responsible use of biological materials that are at risk of accidental release or intentional misuse.’’¹⁶ The BEP is budgeted at $34.6 million for FY2010.

National Science Foundation

The NSF FY2010 budget proposes flat funding of $15 million for its civilian biodefense program. In the FY2010 budget, biodefense funding is solely directed to Microbial Genome Sequencing in the NSF biology directorate (Table 9).¹⁷

Conclusion

The President’s proposed FY2010 budget requests $6.05 billion for civilian biodefense. Excluding BioShield funds allocated in FY2009, biodefense funding for FY2010 is proposed to increase $330.9 million above the previous year’s estimates. Overall, federal civilian biodefense funding now totals approximately $54.39 billion from FY2001 through FY2010. Many of the programs included in the FY2010 budget and previous years are intended not only to improve biodefense, but also to improve preparedness and response more broadly.⁶ This year’s analysis includes an assessment of the programs in the biodefense budget that have multiple goals and benefits, such as infectious disease pathogenesis and immunology research, public health preparedness, and disaster response. Of the FY2010 $6.05 billion budget, $4.96 billion is budgeted for programs with multiple goals and benefits, with $1.09 billion budgeted for programs that deal strictly with biodefense and biosecurity. Over the course of the 10 fiscal years included in this analysis, $42.57 billion of the $54.39 billion in funding for biodefense has been dedicated to programs that have multiple goals and benefits, and $11.81 billion has gone specifically toward biodefense.

As in previous ‘‘Billions for Biodefense’’ analyses, HHS continues to receive the majority of FY2010 federal biodefense funding (75%), followed by DoD with 11%, DHS (7%), USDA (4%), EPA (3%), State (1%), and NSF (<1%). Six of the 7 agencies included in this budget analysis would receive increases to their biodefense budgets, with no agencies receiving funding cuts and NSF receiving flat funding.

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge Ari Schuler as the original author of ‘‘Billions for Biodefense.’’ Mr. Schuler developed this concept and was the first to identify the civilian biodefense programs on which this analysis is based.

References

1. Schuler A. Billions for biodefense: federal agency biodefense funding, FY2001-FY2005. Biosecur Bioterror 2004;2(2):86- 96.
2. Schuler A. Billions for biodefense: federal agency biodefense budgeting, FY2005-FY2006. Biosecur Bioterror 2005;3(2): 94-101.Lam C, Franco C, Schuler A.
3. Billions for biodefense: federal agency biodefense funding, FY2006-FY2007. Biosecur Bioterror 2006;4(2):113-127.
4. Franco C, Deitch S. Billions for biodefense: federal agency biodefense funding, FY2007-FY2008. Biosecur Bioterror 2007;5(2):117-133.
5. Franco C. Billions for biodefense: federal agency biodefense funding, FY2008-FY2009. Biosecur Bioterror 2008;6(2): 131-146.
6. NIH response to open letter. Science 2005;308(5718):49. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5718/49b?ck=nck. Accessed July 27, 2009.
7. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. FY2010 Budget in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2009. http://www.hhs.gov/asrt/ob/docbudget/2010budgetinbriefa.html. Accessed July 20, 2009.
8. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. FY2010 Budget in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security; 2009. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/budget_bib_fy2010.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2009.
9. U.S. Department of Defense. DoD releases fiscal 2010 budget proposal [news release]. May 7, 2009. http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12652. Accessed July 20, 2009.
10. Schwartz S, Choubey D. The cost of nuclear security. Los Angeles Times January 12, 2009. http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=22603. Accessed July 20, 2009.
11. Pentagon officials point out flaws in missile defense programs. Center for Defense Information, June 5, 2009. http://www.cdi.org/program/issue/document.cfm?DocumentID=4516&IssueID=
    78&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=DateLastUpdated&
    ProgramID=6&issueID=78. Accessed July 20, 2009.
12. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5, 111th Congress (2009). http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ005.111. Accessed August 25, 2009.
13. U.S. Department of Defense. Operations and Maintenance Overview. February 2007. http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/budget_justification/pdfs/
    operation/FY_2008_OM_Overview_(All).pdf. Accessed July 27, 2009.
14. U.S. Department of Agriculture. FY2010 Budget Summary and Performance Plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture; 2009. http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY10budsum.pdf. Accessed July 27, 2009.
15. Board on Agriculture Assembly. Meeting Agenda. Budget Committee Meeting. February 9-10, 2009. https://www.aplu.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=1572. Accessed July 27, 2009.
16. U.S. Department of State. Biosecurity Engagement Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State; 2009. http://www.bepstate.net/index.html. Accessed August 24, 2009.
17. National Science Foundation. FY2010 Budget in Brief. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation; 2009. http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2010/pdf/entire_fy2010.pdf. Accessed July 27, 2009.

Subscribe to Biosecurity and Bioterrorism at www.liebertpub.com.