Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Congressional research reportApr 6, 2012
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Federal Research and Development Funding:
FY2012
name redacted, Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
April 6, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R41706
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Summary
Federal research and development (R&D) funding for FY2012 is estimated to total $138.869
billion, $3.845 billion (-2.7%) below the FY2011 funding level of $142.714 billion, and $9.042
billion (-6.1%) below the President’s request of $147.911 billion. Among the overarching issues
that Congress contended with in the FY2012 appropriations process were the extent to which the
federal R&D investment could grow in the context of increased pressure on discretionary
spending and how available funding would be prioritized and allocated. The appropriations
legislation was incorporated into two bills, the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-55) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 11274). P.L. 112-55, included the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies Act; the Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Act; and the
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Act, and was passed by
Congress on November 17, 2011, and signed into law two days later. P.L. 112-74, incorporating
the nine remaining appropriations bills, was passed by Congress on December 17, 2011, and
signed into law by President Obama on December 23, 2011. Prior to enactment of these bills,
government operations into FY2012 were funded through a series of continuing appropriations
acts.
President Obama requested $147.911 billion for R&D in FY2012, a $772 million (0.5%) increase
from the FY2010 actual R&D funding level of $147.139 billion. At the time the President’s
FY2012 budget was released, action had not been completed on FY2011 full-year funding so the
President’s budget compared the FY2012 request to FY2010 appropriations. On April 15, 2011,
the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10) was
signed into law. Division A of the act provided FY2011 appropriations for the Department of
Defense; Division B provided full-year continuing funding for FY2011 for all other agencies at
their FY2010 levels unless otherwise specified in the act.
President Obama’s request sought increases in the R&D budgets of the three agencies targeted for
doubling over 7 years by the America COMPETES Act, and over 10 years by the America
COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and by President Bush under his American
Competitiveness Initiative, as measured using FY2006 funding as the baseline. Although
President Obama supported a 10-year doubling in his FY2010 budget, his FY2012 budget was
intentionally silent on a timeframe. Congress appropriated $12.529 billion in FY2012 for the
targeted accounts, an increase of $207 million (1.7%) over FY2011 funding of $12.323 billion,
and $1.417 billion (-10.2%) less than the President’s request.
For more than a decade, federal R&D has been affected by mechanisms used to continue
appropriations in the absence of enactment of regular appropriations acts and to complete the
annual appropriations process. Completion of appropriations after the beginning of a fiscal year
may cause agencies to delay or cancel some planned R&D and equipment acquisition.
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Contents
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1
Federal R&D Funding Perspectives ................................................................................................ 3
Agency Perspective ................................................................................................................... 3
Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment Perspective ....................................................... 4
Combined Perspective ............................................................................................................... 5
Multiagency R&D Initiatives........................................................................................................... 7
Presidential Initiatives ............................................................................................................... 7
Multiagency R&D Initiatives .................................................................................................. 10
National Nanotechnology Initiative .................................................................................. 10
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program.............. 10
U.S. Global Change Research Program ............................................................................ 10
FY2012 Appropriations Status....................................................................................................... 11
Department of Defense .................................................................................................................. 13
Department of Homeland Security ................................................................................................ 18
National Institutes of Health .......................................................................................................... 23
Department of Energy.................................................................................................................... 30
National Science Foundation ......................................................................................................... 33
Department of Commerce.............................................................................................................. 38
National Institute of Standards and Technology...................................................................... 38
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ................................................................ 40
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ........................................................................... 42
Department of Agriculture ............................................................................................................. 45
Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................. 49
U.S. Geological Survey ........................................................................................................... 49
Other DOI Agencies ................................................................................................................ 50
Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 51
Department of Transportation........................................................................................................ 56
Figures
Figure 1. Doubling of Research Funding for Targeted Accounts: Appropriations and
Authorizations Versus Selected Rates........................................................................................... 9
Tables
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2010-FY2012 ..................... 4
Table 2. Federal Research and Development Funding by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2010-FY2012 ................................................................................................ 5
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities and Equipment,
FY2010-FY2012........................................................................................................................... 6
Table 4. Funding for Targeted Accounts FY2006-FY2010 (Actual), FY2011 (Enacted),
and FY2012 (Request and Enacted) ............................................................................................. 9
Table 5. Alignment of Agency R&D Funding and Regular Appropriations Bills ......................... 12
Table 6. Department of Defense RDT&E...................................................................................... 17
Table 7. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs..................................... 22
Table 8. National Institutes of Health Funding.............................................................................. 28
Table 9. Department of Energy R&D and Related Programs ........................................................ 32
Table 10. National Science Foundation ......................................................................................... 37
Table 11. NIST............................................................................................................................... 40
Table 12. NOAA R&D................................................................................................................... 42
Table 13. NASA R&D ................................................................................................................... 44
Table 14. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D............................................................................ 48
Table 15. Department of the Interior R&D.................................................................................... 51
Table 16. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account .......................................................... 54
Table 17. Department of Transportation R&D .............................................................................. 57
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 57
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Overview
The 112th Congress continued to take a strong interest in the health of the U.S. research and
development (R&D) enterprise and in providing support for federal R&D activities in the course
of the FY2012 appropriations process. However, widespread concerns about the federal debt and
recent and projected federal budget deficits drove difficult decisions involving prioritization of
R&D within the context of the entire federal budget and among competing priorities within the
federal R&D portfolio. The U.S. government supports a broad range of scientific and engineering
research and development. Its purposes include addressing specific concerns such as national
defense, health, safety, the environment, and energy security; advancing knowledge generally;
developing the scientific and engineering workforce; and strengthening U.S. innovation and
competitiveness in the global economy. Most of the R&D funded by the federal government is
performed in support of the unique missions of the funding agencies. The federal government has
played an important role in supporting R&D efforts that have led to scientific breakthroughs and
new technologies, from jet aircraft and the Internet to communications satellites and defenses
against disease.
Status of FY2011 Appropriations and Its Effect on the Analysis in This Report
During the 111th Congress, 2 of the 12 regular appropriations bills passed the House (the Transportation, Housing
and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011, and the Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011); none passed the Senate. For nearly half of FY2011, federal
departments and agencies were funded under a series of interim continuing resolutions (CRs).1 On April 14, 2011,
the House and Senate passed H.R. 1473, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act,
2011, providing funding to federal agencies for the remaining portion of FY2011. The bill was signed into law (P.L.
112-10) by President Obama on April 15, 2011. Because this bill was passed after the release of the President’s
FY2012 budget request and agency budget justifications, these documents did not include the enacted full-year
FY2011 appropriations figures. Instead, in these documents, comparisons that typically would have been made
between the FY2012 budget request and the FY2011 enacted appropriations were instead made between the FY2012
budget request and the FY2010 enacted appropriations.
Congress plays a central role in defining the nation’s R&D priorities as it makes decisions with
respect to the size and distribution of aggregate, agency, and programmatic R&D funding. During
the course of the FY2012 appropriations process, some Members of Congress expressed concerns
about the level of federal R&D funding in light of the current federal fiscal condition, deficit, and
debt. As Congress acted to complete the FY2012 appropriations process it faced two overarching
issues: the extent to which the federal R&D investment can grow in the context of increased
pressure on discretionary spending and how available funding will be prioritized and allocated.
President Obama’s proposed FY2012 budget, released on February 14, 2011, included $147.911
billion for R&D in FY2012, a 0.5% increase over the actual FY2010 R&D funding level of
$147.139 billion.2 Adjusted for inflation, the President’s FY2012 R&D request represented a
decrease of 2.2% from the FY2010 level.3 This report provides government-wide, multi-agency,
1
For more detailed discussion of recent continuing resolutions as well as information on the history, nature, scope, and
duration of continuing resolutions, see CRS Report RL30343, Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief
Overview of Recent Practices, by (name redacted).
2
Funding levels included in this document are in current dollars unless otherwise noted. Inflation diminishes the
purchasing power of federal R&D funds, so an increase that does not equal or exceed the inflation rate may reduce real
purchasing power.
3
As calculated by CRS using the GDP (chained) price index from Table 10.1, Gross Domestic Product and Deflators
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
and individual agency analyses of the President’s FY2012 request as it relates to R&D and related
activities, and Congressional appropriations actions.
Among its provisions, the President’s proposed FY2012 R&D funding maintained an emphasis
on increasing funding for the physical sciences and engineering, an effort consistent with the
intent of the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) and the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358). These acts proposed to achieve this objective by
authorizing increased funding for three agencies with a strong R&D emphasis in these
disciplines: the Department of Energy Office of Science, the National Science Foundation, and
the Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology’s core laboratory
research and R&D facilities construction funding. Appropriations provided to these agencies
have, in aggregate, fallen short of the levels authorized in these acts. (See “Multiagency R&D
Initiatives” for detailed information.)
More broadly, in a 2009 speech before members of the National Academy of Sciences, President
Obama put forth a goal of increasing the national investment in R&D to more than 3% of the U.S.
gross domestic product (GDP). President Obama did not provide details on how this goal might
be achieved (e.g., how much would be funded through increases in direct federal R&D funding or
through indirect mechanisms such as the research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit4);
however, doing so likely would have required a substantial increase in public and/or private
investment.
In addition, advocates for increased federal R&D funding—including President Obama’s science
advisor, John Holdren—raised concerns about the potential harm of a “boom-bust” approach to
federal R&D funding (i.e., rapid growth in federal R&D funding followed by much slower
growth, flat funding, or even decline).5 The biomedical research community experienced a variety
of challenges resulting from such a circumstance following the five-year doubling of the NIH
budget that was completed in FY2003. With the NIH doubling came a rapid expansion of the
nation’s biomedical research infrastructure (e.g., buildings, laboratories, equipment), as well as
rapid growth in university faculty hiring, students pursuing biomedical degrees, and grant
applications to NIH. After the doubling, however, the agency’s budget fell each year in real terms
from FY2004 to FY2009. Critics assert there have been a variety of damages from this boom-bust
cycle, including interruptions and cancellations of promising research, declining share in the
number of NIH grant proposals funded, decreased student interest in pursuing graduate studies,
and reduced employment prospects for the large number of biomedical researchers with advanced
degrees. According to then-NIH Director Elias Zerhouni, the damages have been particularly
acute for early- and mid-career scientists seeking a first or second grant.6
(...continued)
Used In The Historical Tables: 1940–2016, from the President’s FY2012 budget. Available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist10z1.xls.
4
The research and experimentation tax credit is frequently referred to as the research and development tax credit or
R&D tax credit, through the credit does not apply to development expenditures. For additional information about the
R&E tax credit, see CRS Report RL31181, Research Tax Credit: Current Law, Legislation in the 112th Congress, and
Policy Issues, by (name redacted).
5
Jennifer Couzin and Greg Miller, “NIH Budget: Boom and Bust,” Science, vol. 316, no. 5823 (April 2007), pp. 356361, at http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/full/316/5823/356.
6
Ibid. For additional information on NIH R&D funding issues, see CRS Report R41705, The National Institutes of
Health (NIH): Organization, Funding, and Congressional Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Analysis of federal R&D funding is complicated by several factors, including inconsistency
among agencies in the reporting of R&D. As a result of these factors, the R&D agency figures
reported by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and White House Office
of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and shown in Table 1, may differ somewhat from the
agency budget analyses that appear later in this report.
Another factor complicating analysis of the President’s FY2012 budget request was the proposal
for a Wireless Innovation (WIN) Fund, a part of the Administration’s Wireless Innovation and
Infrastructure Initiative. Under the President’s request, the WIN Fund was to receive $3 billion
over seven years (FY2012-FY2018) from receipts generated through electromagnetic spectrum
auctions. According to the President’s request, the WIN funds were to support research, test beds,
and applications development to support leading-edge wireless technologies and applications for
public safety, Smart Grid, telemedicine, distance learning, and other broadband capabilities and to
facilitate spectrum relocation. Under the President’s budget, if the WIN Fund was established,
several agencies would have received funding for these purposes, among them the Department of
Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the National Science
Foundation. Congress did not establish the WIN Fund for FY2012.
Federal R&D Funding Perspectives
Federal R&D funding can be analyzed from a variety of perspectives that provide unique insights.
Agency Perspective
The authorization and appropriations process views federal R&D funding primarily from agency
and program perspectives. Table 1 provides data on R&D by agency for FY2010 (actual),
FY2011 (actual) and FY2012 (request) as reported by OMB.
Under President Obama’s FY2012 budget request, six federal agencies would have received
94.8% of total federal R&D funding: Department of Defense (DOD), 51.8%; Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) (primarily the National Institutes of Health, NIH), 21.9%;
Department of Energy (DOE), 8.8%; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
6.6%; National Science Foundation (NSF), 4.3%; and Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1.5%.
This report provides an analysis of the R&D budget requests for these agencies, as well as for the
Departments of Commerce (DOC), Homeland Security (DHS), the Interior (DOI), and
Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In total, these agencies
accounted for more than 98% of FY2010 federal R&D funding.
The largest agency R&D increases in the President’s FY2012 request were for DOE, $2.153
billion (19.9%); HHS, $919 million (2.9%, due entirely to a $1.019 billion increase in R&D
funding for NIH); NSF, $875 million (16.1%); NASA, $559 million (6.0%); and DOC, $376
million (28.0%). Under President Obama’s FY2012 budget request, DOD R&D funding would
have been reduced by $3.969 billion (-4.9%), USDA R&D by $461 million (-17.7%), Department
of Veterans Affairs R&D by $144 million (-12.4%), and EPA R&D by $11 million (-1.9%).
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2010-FY2012
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
FY2010
Actual
FY2011
Actuala
FY2012
Request
FY2012
Estimatea
Agriculture
2,611
2,135
2,150
2,331
Commerce
1,344
1,275
1,720
1,258
Defense
80,602
77,500
76,633
72,739
Energy
10,836
10,673
12,989
11,019
Environmental Protection
Agency
590
584
579
568
Health and Human Services
31,424
31,186
32,343
31,153
Homeland Security
887
664
1,054
577
Interior
776
757
727
796
NASA
9,262
9,099
9,821
9,399
National Science Foundation
5,445
5,486
6,320
5,680
Transportation
1,069
953
1,215
944
Veterans Affairs
1,162
1,160
1,018
1,164
Other
1,131
1,242
1,342
1,241
Totalb
147,139
142,714
147,911
138,869
Department/Agency
Sources: Executive Office of the President, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government,
Fiscal Year 2012, Table 22-1, and Executive Office of the President, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the
United States Government, Fiscal Year 2013, Table 22-1, February 2012.
a.
Data in FY2011 Actual and FY2012 Estimate columns are from President Obama’s FY2013 budget.
b.
Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment Perspective
Federal R&D funding can also be examined by the character of work it supports—basic research,
applied research, and development—and funding provided for facilities and acquisition of major
R&D equipment. (See Table 2.) President Obama’s FY2012 request included $32.895 billion for
basic research, up $3.498 billion (11.9%) from FY2010; $33.182 billion for applied research, up
$3.383 billion (11.4%); $79.414 billion for development, down $3.891 billion (-4.7%); and
$2.420 billion for facilities and equipment, down $2.218 billion (-47.8%). It is important to note
that with the projected completion of construction of the International Space Station (ISS) in
FY2011, beginning in FY2012 NASA funding for operation of the facility was accounted for as
research; previously, NASA ISS funding was accounted for as “facilities and equipment.”
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Table 2. Federal Research and Development Funding by Character of Work,
Facilities, and Equipment, FY2010-FY2012
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
FY2010
Actual
FY2011
Actuala
FY2012
Request
FY2012
Estimate
Basic research
29,937
29,697
32,895
30,178
Applied research
29,799
30,833
33,182
31,783
Development
83,305
80,246
79,414
74,483
Facilities and equipment
4,638
1,938
2,420
2,425
147,139
142,714
147,911
138,869
Totalb
Source: Executive Office of the President, OSTP, Innovation, Education, and Infrastructure, Table 1, February 14,
2011; Executive Office of the President, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2013, Table 22-1, February 2012.
a.
Data in FY2011 Actual and FY2012 Estimate columns are from President Obama’s FY2013 budget.
b.
Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
Combined Perspective
Combining these perspectives, federal R&D funding can be viewed in terms of each agency’s
contribution to basic research, applied research, development, and facilities and equipment. (See
Table 3.) The federal government is the nation’s largest supporter of basic research, funding
57.0% of U.S. basic research in 2008,7 primarily because the private sector asserts it cannot
capture an adequate return on long-term fundamental research investments. In contrast, industry
funded only 17.7% of U.S. basic research in 2008 (with state governments, universities, and other
non-profit organizations funding the remaining 25.3%). In the President’s FY2012 budget
request, the Department of Health and Human Services, primarily the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), accounted for more than half of all federal funding for basic research.8
In contrast to basic research, industry is the primary funder of applied research in the United
States, accounting for an estimated 60.8% in 2008, while the federal government accounted for an
estimated 32.4%.9 Among federal agencies, HHS is the largest funder of applied research,
accounting for nearly half of all federally funded applied research in the President’s FY2012
budget request.10 Industry also provides the vast majority of funding for development. Industry
accounted for an estimated 84.1% in 2008, while the federal government provided an estimated
7
National Science Foundation, New NSF Estimates Indicate that U.S. R&D Spending Continued to Grow in 2008, NSF
10-312, January 2010, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10312/#fn.http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/.
8
Executive Office of the President, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2012, Table 22-1, February 14, 2011.
9
National Science Foundation, National Patterns of R&D Resources: 2007 Data Update, NSF 08-318, 2008,
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/.
10
Executive Office of the President, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Table 22-1, February 14, 2011,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/spec.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
14.9%.11 DOD is the primary federal agency funder of development, accounting for 87.7% of
total federal development funding in the President’s FY2012 budget request.12
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities and Equipment,
FY2010-FY2012
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
FY2010
Actual
FY2011
Actuala
FY2012
Request
FY2012
Estimate
Health and Human Services
16,082
16,013
16,614
16,051
National Science Foundation
4,636
4,636
5,310
4,778
Energy
3,971
3,979
4,200
3,918
Health and Human Services
15,177
15,066
15,559
14,919
Energy
3,407
3,575
4,830
3,857
Defense
4,984
4,328
4,787
4,737
Defense
73,734
71,205
69,664
65,786
NASA
5,461
5,299
5,135
4,975
Energy
2,520
2,361
2,859
2,387
Energy
938
758
1,100
857
National Science Foundation
482
395
443
452
Commerce
269
254
282
209
Basic Research
Applied Research
Development
Facilities and Equipment
Source: Executive Office of the President, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government,
Fiscal Year 2012, Table 22-1, and Executive Office of the President, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the
United States Government, Fiscal Year 2013, Table 22-1.
Notes: Top funding agencies based on FY2012 request.
a.
Data in FY2011 Actual and FY2012 Estimate columns are from President Obama’s FY2013 budget.
11
National Science Foundation, National Patterns of R&D Resources, 2008, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Table 22-1, February
14, 2011.
12
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Multiagency R&D Initiatives
Federal R&D funding can also be viewed in terms of multiagency efforts, such as the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, the Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Program, U.S. Global Change Research Program, and presidential initiatives.
Presidential Initiatives
In 2006, President Bush announced his American Competitiveness Initiative which, in part,
sought to increase federal funding for physical sciences and engineering research by doubling
funding over 10 years (FY2006-2016) for targeted accounts at three agencies—NSF, all; DOE,
Office of Science only; and NIST, the scientific and technical research and services (STRS) and
construction of research facilities (CRF) accounts.
In 2007, Congress authorized substantial increases for these targeted accounts under the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69), setting aggregate authorization levels for FY2008-FY2010
consistent with a more aggressive seven-year doubling pace.13 However, aggregate funding
provided for these agencies in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161), the
Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
(P.L. 111-117) fell below these targets.14 (See Table 4 for individual and aggregate agency
appropriations.)
In 2010, Congress passed the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358)
which, among other things, authorized appropriations levels for the targeted accounts for
FY2011-FY2013.15 The aggregate authorization levels in this act for the targeted accounts are
consistent with an 11-year doubling path, slower than the America COMPETES Act’s 7-year
doubling path. Moreover, aggregate FY2011 funding for the targeted accounts was approximately
$12.280 billion, $1.101 billion less than authorized in the act, setting a pace to double over 16
years from the FY2006 level—more than twice the length of time originally envisioned in the
2007 America COMPETES Act and about a third longer than the doubling period established by
the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010.16
In FY2012 President Obama sought funding for the targeted accounts that would have increased
aggregate funding to $13.947 billion, an increase of $1.667 billion (13.6%) above the FY2011
(actual) aggregate funding level of $12.323 billion. However, funding provided for each of the
targeted accounts fell short of the President’s request:
•
President Obama requested $7.767 billion for NSF; P.L. 112-55 provided $7.033
billion.
13
For additional information, see CRS Report RL34328, America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected
Issues, by (name redacted).
14
In 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) provided supplemental funding for
several targeted accounts (approximately $5.202 billion).
15
For additional information, see CRS Report R41231, America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 5116)
and the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69): Selected Policy Issues, coordinated by (name redacted).
16
All doubling path calculations in this report use FY2006 as the baseline.
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
•
•
With respect to the targeted accounts at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST):
•
The President requested $678.9 million for core laboratory research;17 P.L.
112-55 provided $567.0 million.
•
The President requested $84.6 million for construction of research
facilities;18 P.L. 112-55 provided $55.4 million.
President Obama requested $5.416 billion for DOE’s Office of Science; P.L. 11274 provided $4.874 billion.
In light of budget constraints, the future of the doubling path appears to be in question. In his
FY2010 Plan for Science and Innovation, President Obama stated that he, like President Bush,
would seek to double funding for basic research over 10 years (FY2006 to FY2016) at the ACI
agencies.19 In his FY2011 budget documents, President Obama extended the period over which
he intended to double these agencies’ budgets to 11 years (FY2006 to FY2017).20 In his FY2012
budget request, President Obama reiterated his intention to double the federal investment for
these agencies from their FY2006 levels, though the request did not specify the timeframe during
which this is to take place.21 In addition, the Historical Tables of the President’s FY2012
budget—which not only provide retrospective agency data, but also projections of future agency
budget authority—show aggregate budget authority for the targeted accounts remaining
essentially flat through FY2015, with a small uptick in FY2016.
The Administration’s September 1, 2011, Mid-Session Review acknowledged that the doubling
goal would be delayed:
[T]he new funding levels set in [the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011] mean delaying the goal of doubling funding for key research and
development (R&D) agencies....22
Figure 1 shows aggregate funding for the agencies as a percentage of their FY2006 funding level,
and illustrates how actual (FY2006-FY2011) and authorized appropriations (FY2008-FY2013)
compare to different doubling rates using FY2006 as the base year. The thick black line at the top
of the chart is at 200%, the doubling level. The data used in Figure 1 are in current dollars, not
constant dollars, therefore the effect of inflation on the purchasing power of these funds is not
taken into consideration.
17
NIST core laboratory research is the Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account.
Executive Office of the President, OSTP, Innovation, Education, and Infrastructure, February 14, 2011,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY12-rd-fs.pdf.
19
Executive Office of the President, OSTP, The President’s Plan for Science and Innovation: Doubling Funding for
Key Basic Research Agencies in the 2010 Budget, May 7, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ostp/
budget/doubling.pdf.
20
Executive Office of the President, OSTP, The President’s Plan for Science and Innovation: Doubling Funding for
Key Basic Research Agencies in the 2011 Budget, February 1, 2010, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
doubling%2011%20final.pdf.
21
Telephone conversation with OSTP staff, May 23, 2011.
22
Executive Office of the President, OMB, Mid Session Review, September 1, 2011, p. 2, http://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/12msr.pdf.
18
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Table 4. Funding for Targeted Accounts
FY2006-FY2010 (Actual), FY2011 (Enacted), and FY2012 (Request and Enacted)
(in millions of current dollars)
FY2006
Actual
Agency
FY2007
Actual
FY2008
Actual
FY2009
Actual
FY2009
ARRA
FY2010
Actual
FY2011
Enacted
FY2012
Request
FY2012
Enacted
NSF
5,646
5,884
6,084
6,469
2,402
6,972
6,860a
7,767
7,033
DOE/Office of Science
3,632
3,837
4,083
4,807
1,633
4,964
4,843
5,416
4,889
NIST/core researchb
395
434
441
472
220
515
507
679
567
NIST/facilities
174
59
161
172
360
147
70
85
55
9,846
10,214
10,768
11,920
4,615
12,538
12,280
13,947
12,544
Totalc
Source: NIST, budget requests for FY2008-FY2012, available at http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/budget/
index.cfm; DOE, budget requests for FY2008-FY2012, available at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/crorgcf30.htm; NSF,
budget requests for FY2008-FY2012 available at http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget; P.L. 112-55; and H.Rept. 112284. TBD = to be determined. FY2011 data from P.L. 112-10 and H.Rept. 112-118; and FY2012 data from P.L.
112-74 and H.Rept. 112-331.
a.
Includes $54.0 million transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard for icebreaking services (per P.L. 112-10).
b.
NIST core research is performed under its scientific and technical research and services (STRS) account.
c.
Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
Figure 1. Doubling of Research Funding for Targeted Accounts:
Appropriations and Authorizations Versus Selected Rates
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using agency budget justifications for fiscal years
2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012; the President’s FY2012 budget request; P.L. 112-10; and agency authorization
levels from the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
(P.L. 111-358). FY2011 data from P.L. 112-10 and H.Rept. 112-118; and FY2012 data from P.L. 112-74 and H.Rept.
112-331.
Notes: The 7-year doubling pace represents annual increases of 10.4%, the 10-year doubling pace represents annual
increases of 7.2%, the 11-year doubling pace represents annual increases of 6.5%, and the 15-year doubling represents
annual increases of 4.7%. Through compounding, these rates achieve the doubling of funding in the specified time
period. The lines connecting aggregate appropriations for the targeted accounts are for illustration purposes only.
With respect to “Actual Appropriations,” aggregate data for FY2006-FY2011 are based on regular appropriations
(funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) is not included). America
COMPETES Act figures are based on aggregate funding for the target accounts as authorized by the act. America
COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 figures for FY2011-FY2013 are based on aggregate funding for the target
accounts as authorized by the act.
Multiagency R&D Initiatives
President Obama’s FY2012 budget request sought funding for three multiagency R&D initiatives.
National Nanotechnology Initiative
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) received $1.697 billion in FY2012 (estimate),
$150 million (-8.1%) below the FY2011 funding level of $1.847 billion and $433 million
(-20.3%) less than requested the President’s FY2012 request of $2.130 billion.23
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program
The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program
received $3.739 billion in FY2012 (estimate), essentially the same as in FY2011 and $129 million
(3.3%) less than President Obama’s request of $3.868 billion.24
U.S. Global Change Research Program
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) received $2.427 billion in FY2012
(estimate), $21 million (-0.9%) below the FY2011 funding level of $2.448 billion and $206
million (-7.8%) less than President Obama’s request of $2.633 billion.25
23
National Science and Technology Council, The White House, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and
Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2012 Budget,
February 2011, and The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in
Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2013 Budget, February 2012. For additional information on
the NNI, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and
Appropriations Issues, by John F. Sargent, Jr.
Executive Office of the President, OSTP, Innovation, Education, and Infrastructure, Table 2, February 14, 2011; and
Executive Office of the President, OSTP, The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
Program, Supplement to the President’s Budget, FY2013, February 2012. For additional information on the NITRD
program, see CRS Report RL33586, The Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
Program: Background, Funding, and Activities, by (name redacted).
24
Executive Office of the President, OSTP, Innovation, Education, and Infrastructure, Table 2, February 14, 2011;
Executive Office of the President, OSTP, Innovation for America’s Economy, America’s Energy, and American Skills:
Science, Technology, Innovation, and STEM Education in the 2013 Budget, February 13, 2012. For additional
information on the USGCRP, see CRS Report RL33817, Climate Change: Federal Program Funding and Tax
Incentives, by (name redacted).
25
Congressional Research Service
10
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
FY2012 Appropriations Status
On December 17, 2011, Congress completed action on the FY2012 regular appropriations bills
with passage of H.R. 2055, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, which was signed into
law (P.L. 112-74) by President Obama on December 23, 2011. P.L. 112-74 includes the nine
regular appropriations bills that had yet to be enacted: Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2012 (as Division A); the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2012 (as Division
B); the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2012 (as Division C); the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012 (as Division D); the Department of
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 (as Division E); the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2012 (as Division F); the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2012 (as
Division G); the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2012 (as Division H); and the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (as Division I).
Earlier, on November 17, 2011, Congress completed action on the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-55), which combined into a single measure three
regular appropriations bills: the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies Act, as H.R. 2112, Division A; Commerce, Justice, State and Related
Agencies Act, as H.R. 2112, Division B; and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies Act, as H.R. 2112, Division C.26 President Obama signed the bill into law
two days later. Division D of the act amended an earlier continuing appropriations act (P.L. 11236) providing funding through December 16, 2011, for all agencies covered under the other nine
appropriations bills at 1.503% below the FY2011-enacted levels, or until enactment of an
appropriation for any project or activity provided for in the act or enactment of the applicable
appropriations act for fiscal year 2012 without any provision for such project or activity.
Previously, Congress passed and the President signed two bills, both titled the Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2012, that provided continuing appropriations for all agencies for FY2012.
P.L. 112-33 extended agency funding through October 4, 2011; P.L. 112-36 extended funding
through November 18, 2011.27
The remainder of this report provides a more in-depth analysis of R&D in 12 federal departments
and agencies that, in aggregate, receive more than 98% of federal R&D funding. Annual
appropriations for these agencies are provided through 8 of the 12 regular appropriations bills.
For each agency covered in this report, Table 5 shows the corresponding regular appropriations
bill that provides funding for the agency, including its R&D activities.
In addition to this report, CRS produces individual reports on each of the appropriations bills.
These reports can be accessed via the CRS website at http://crs.gov/Pages/clis.aspx?cliid=73.
Also, the status of each appropriations bill is available on the CRS webpage, Status Table of
Appropriations, available at http://www.crs.gov/Pages/appover.aspx.
26
The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 was referred to as a “minibus,” as it included
only a few of the regular appropriations bills, whereas an “omnibus” bill includes many or all such bills. For example,
the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8), included 9 of the 12 regular appropriations bills.
27
For further information see CRS Report RL30343, Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of
Recent Practices, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Table 5. Alignment of Agency R&D Funding and Regular Appropriations Bills
Department/Agency
Regular Appropriations Bill
Department of Defense
Department of Defense Appropriations Act
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act
National Institutes of Health
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
Department of Energy
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act
National Science Foundation
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act
Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act
Department of Agriculture
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
Department of the Interior
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act
Department of Transportation
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act
Source: CRS website, FY2011 Status Table of Appropriations, available at http://www.crs.gov/Pages/
appover.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Department of Defense28
Congress supports research and development in the Department of Defense (DOD) primarily
through its Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) appropriation. The
appropriation supports the development of the nation’s future military hardware and software and
the technology base upon which those products rely.
Nearly all of what DOD spends on RDT&E is appropriated in Title IV of the defense
appropriation bill. (See Table 6.) However, RDT&E funds are also appropriated in other parts of
the bill. For example, RDT&E funds are appropriated as part of the Defense Health Program, the
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program, and the National Defense Sealift Fund.
The Defense Health Program supports the delivery of health care to DOD personnel and their
families. Program funds are requested through the Operations and Maintenance appropriation.
The program’s RDT&E funds support congressionally directed research in such areas as breast,
prostate, and ovarian cancer and other medical conditions. Congress appropriates funds for this
program in Title VI (Other Department of Defense Programs) of the defense appropriations bill.
The Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program supports activities to destroy the U.S.
inventory of lethal chemical agents and munitions to avoid future risks and costs associated with
storage. Funds for this program have been requested through the Procurement appropriation.
Congress appropriates funds for this program also in Title VI. The National Defense Sealift Fund
supports the procurement, operation and maintenance, and research and development of the
nation’s naval reserve fleet and supports a U.S. flagged merchant fleet that can serve in time of
need. Requests for this fund are made as part of the Navy’s Procurement appropriation. Congress
appropriates funds for this program in Title V (Revolving and Management Funds) of the defense
appropriations bill.
The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF) also contains RDT&E monies.
However, the fund does not contain an RDT&E line item as do the three programs mentioned
above. The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office, which now administers the fund,
tracks (but does not report) the amount of funding allocated to RDT&E. The JIEDDF funding is
not included in the table below.
RDT&E funds also have been requested and appropriated as part of DOD’s separate funding to
support efforts in what the Bush Administration had termed the Global War on Terror (GWOT),
and what the Obama Administration refers to as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
Typically, the RDT&E funds appropriated for GWOT/OCO activities go to specified Program
Elements (PEs) in Title IV. However, they are requested and accounted for separately. The Bush
Administration requested these funds in separate GWOT emergency supplemental requests. The
Obama Administration, while continuing to identify these funds uniquely as OCO requests, has
included these funds as part of the regular budget, not in emergency supplementals. However, the
Obama Administration will ask for additional OCO funds in supplemental requests, if the initial
OCO funding is not enough to get through the fiscal year.
28
This section was written by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
13
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
In addition, GWOT/OCO-related requests/appropriations often include money for a number of
transfer funds. These have included in the past the Iraqi Freedom Fund (IFF), the Iraqi Security
Forces Fund (which was not requested in FY2012), the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, the
Mine Resistant and Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund (MRAPVF), and the Pakistan
Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (transferred to the State Department in FY2012). Congress
typically makes a single appropriation into each of these funds, and authorizes the Secretary to
make transfers to other accounts, including RDT&E, at his discretion. In the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2012, Congress established a new Military Intelligence Program Transfer
Fund, granting the Secretary similar authority.
For FY2012, the Obama Administration requested $75.325 billion for DOD’s baseline Title IV
RDT&E and another $397 million in OCO RDT&E. The FY2012 request was $5.330 billion
(nearly 7%) below the actual total obligational authority available in FY2010, but only $90
million below the total Title IV and OCO RDT&E provided for in FY2011. In addition to the
$75.325 billion baseline request, the Administration requested $100 million as DOD’s share of
the proposed Wireless Innovation Fund. This fund (approximately $3 billion that would be
distributed through various departments) is part of the President’s initiative to expand coverage
and usage of the nation’s wireless networks and to encourage innovation in wireless devices. The
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was to have managed the $100 million
for DOD, if the fund is established. Congress did not establish the WIN fund for FY2012.
The House voted to appropriate $72.993 billion for Title IV RDT&E. This included floor action
that reduced the Defensewide RDT&E account $16 million below what the House Appropriation
Committee recommended, offsetting an increase approved for peer-reviewed prostate cancer
research in the Defense Health Program. The House appropriation was $2.432 billion below the
Administration’s request. Major program decreases included reductions to the Army’s
Patriot/MEADS ($149 million) and Manned Ground Vehicles ($116 million) programs, the Air
Force’s National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environment Satellite ($220 million), Rocket System
Launch ($125 million) programs, and the Office of the Secretary’s Precision Tracking Space
System ($161 million) and Prompt Strike Capability ($100 million) programs. Major increases
were made to the Air Force’s Next Generation Bomber ($100 million) and the Office of the
Secretary’s U.S.-Israeli Cooperative R&D ($130 million). Also, DARPA’s budget request was
reduced by $100 million, the Committee citing efficiency gains in programming. The House
made no mention of DOD’s involvement in the Wireless Innovation Fund.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $71.034 billion for Title IV RDT&E, nearly
$2 billion less than what the House provided and over $4 billion less than what the
Administration requested. The committee recommended more than $1 billion less for Army
RDT&E than either the Administration requested or the House approved. Major program
decreases included the Army’s Warfighter Information Network ($115 million), which was not cut
by the House, the Manned Ground Vehicle ($644 million), and Logistics and Engineering
Equipment ($160 million), cutting these last two more than the House did. Cuts were also made
to the Air Force’s National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environment Satellite ($295 million), also
cut by the House, and the Next Generation Refueling Aircraft ($135 million), which was not cut
by the House. The Senate committee also cut the Chemical Biological Defense Engineering and
Manufacturing program ($186 million), which the House fully funded. Major program increases
included funds for a new Air Force Weather Satellite Follow-on program ($250 million) to
continue technology development associated with the National Polar-Orbiting Operational
Environment Satellite, funds for the Office of the Secretary to support the Defense Rapid
Innovation Fund ($200 million) and the Office of the Secretary’s U.S.-Israeli Cooperative R&D
Congressional Research Service
14
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
($130 million). Aside from cutting where the House did not, the Senate committee also did not go
along with a number of House cuts, providing all the funds requested for the Army’s
Patriot/MEADS, the Air Force’s Rocket System Launch, the Office of the Secretary’s Precision
Tracking Space System, and the Missile Defense Agency’s Prompt Strike Capability. The Senate
also did not go along with the general reduction to DARPA’s program, nor did it increase funding
for the Air Force’s Next Generation Bomber.
In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, Congress approved $72.431 for Title IV RDT&E,
roughly splitting the difference between the House and Senate. Reductions made to the Logistics
and Engineering Equipment ($77 million), the Prompt Strike ($25 million), the Precision
Tracking Space System ($80 million), and the Chemical Biological Defense Engineering and
Manufacturing ($84 million) programs were roughly half those sought by either the House or
Senate. The Manned Ground Vehicle program was reduced by $435 million. The National PolarOrbiting Operational Environment Satellite program was terminated. The Rocket Launch System
and the Next Generation Refueling Aircraft, which were cut respectively by the House and
Senate, were fully funded. Congress also reduced DARPA’s RDT&E request by $166 million.
Among the programs for which Congress approved increases were the U.S.-Israeli Cooperative
R&D ($129 million), the Next Generation Bomber ($100 million), the Rapid Innovation Program
($200 million), and the Weather Satellite ($125 million).
For FY2012, the Administration requested an additional $664 million in RDT&E through the
Defense Health Program, $407 million in RDT&E through the Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction program, and $48 million in RDT&E through the National Defense Sealift Fund. To
support overseas contingencies, the Administration requested $397 million in OCO-related
RDT&E. The Administration also requested $2 million in RDT&E for DOD’s Office of the
Inspector General.
The House voted to increase RDT&E in the Defense Health Program to $1.217 billion. This
included an additional $30 million added on the House floor. The House approved the amount
requested for the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction program and the National Defense
Sealift Fund. The House appropriated $5 million for RDT&E in the Inspector General’s Office.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $1.018 billion for RDT&E in the Defense
Health Program and the amount requested for RDT&E in the Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction Program. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 provided $1.267 billion in
Defense Health Program RDT&E; $407 million, as requested, for the Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction Program; and $5 million for RDT&E by the Inspector General’s Office.
For OCO-related RDT&E, the House appropriated $437 million, supporting much of the
Administration’s request. It provided $10 million less than requested for the Air Force’s
Unmanned Endurance UAV program, but provided $50 million in funding the Air Force’s
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Innovation program. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $582 million for OCO-related RDT&E, nearly $200 million more than
requested. $105 million of that increase was a result of transferring the Navy’s MQ-4 UAV Title
IV funding to the OCO funding. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, Congress
appropriated $526 million for OCO-related RDT&E. This included a $59 million transfer from
JIEDDO to the Air Force for the continued development of an endurance unmanned aerial vehicle
and a $50 million increase for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance innovations by the
Air Force.
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
RDT&E funding can be broken out in different ways. Each of the military departments request
and receive their own RDT&E funding. So, too, do various DOD agencies (e.g., the Missile
Defense Agency and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), collectively aggregated
within the Defensewide account. RDT&E funding also can be characterized by budget activity
(i.e., the type of RDT&E supported). Those budget activities designated as 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 (basic
research, applied research, and advanced technology development, respectively) constitute what
is called DOD’s Science and Technology Program (S&T) and represent the more researchoriented 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 6.6 provides management support, including support for test and evaluation
facilities. Budget activity 6.7 supports system improvements in existing operational systems.
Congressional policymakers are particularly interested in S&T funding since these funds support
the development of new technologies and the underlying science. Ensuring adequate support for
S&T activities is seen by some in the defense community as imperative to maintaining U.S.
military superiority. The knowledge generated at this stage of development can also contribute to
advances in commercial technologies.
The FY2012 Title IV baseline S&T funding request was $12.246 billion (not including the $100
million for the Wireless Innovation Fund), about $1.060 billion (8%) less than the total
obligational authority available for Title IV baseline S&T in FY2010, but $113 million above that
available in FY2011. Given the unspecified reductions to DARPA and the Defensewide account
in general, it is not possible to determine how much the House actions supported S&T. However,
without these reductions, the House Appropriations Committee had recommended $12.180 billion
for S&T, less than the Administration’s request. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $12.193 billion for S&T. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 provided
$12.438 billion for S&T.
Within the S&T program, basic research (6.1) receives special attention, particularly by the
nation’s universities. DOD is not a large supporter of basic research, when compared to NIH or
NSF. However, over half of DOD’s basic research budget is spent at universities and represents
the major contribution of funds in some areas of science and technology (such as electrical
engineering and material science). The FY2012 request for basic research ($2.078 billion) was
roughly $263 million (14%) more than what was available for Title IV basic research in FY2010.
The House appropriated $2.098 billion, a net increase of $20 million above the request, much of
which went to increases for university research. However, the House appropriated $15 million
less than requested for the National Defense Education Program. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $2.081 billion for basic research. The Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2012 provided $2.116 billion for basic research. This included an increase above the requested
levels for the following: $20 million for Army University and Industry Research Centers at
Historically Black Colleges, $20 million for Navy competitive university research and $8 million
for Navy nanotechnology research, and $12 million for Air Force research in cybersecurity.
Congress also appropriated less than requested for the National Defense Education Program ($15
million) and for Basic Research Initiatives ($7 million) in the Office of the Secretary.
Congressional Research Service
16
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Table 6. Department of Defense RDT&E
(in millions of dollars)
FY20111
Budget Account
Base +
OCO
Enact’d
FY2012
Request
FY2012
House
FY2012
Senate
FY2012
Enacted
Base
OCO
Base
OCO
Base
OCO
Base
OCO
Army
9,854
9,684
9
9,381
9
8,311
19
8,755a
19
Navy
17,841
17,956
54
17,799
54
17,407
158
17,754
54
Air Force
27,001
27,738
142
26,313
182
26,008
208
26,536
260
Defensewide
21,020
19,856b
192
19,309c
192
19,117
197
19,194
194
Dir. Test & Eval.
195
191
75,912
75,425
1,947
2,078
2,098e
2,081
2,116
4,687
4,657e
4,734
4,748
5,425e
5,378
5,573
Total Title IV - By
Accountd
191
397
72,993
191
437
71,034
191
582
72,431
526
Budget Activity
6.1 Basic Research
6.2 Applied Research
4,497
6.3 Advanced Dev.
5,669
5,581
6.4 Advanced Component
Dev. and Prototypes
14,443
13,727
2
13,434e
2
13,693f
12
13,499g
12
6.5 Systems Dev. and
Demo
14,578
15,664
11
14,770e
11
13,029f
11
13,834g
11
6.6 Management Supporth
4,569
4,175
18
4,146e
18
4,357f
18
4,357g
18
6.7 Op. Systems Dev.i
30,209
29,512
366
28,580e
406
27,759f
542
28,293g
486
582
72,421j
526
Total Title IV—by
Budget Activityd
75,912
75,425
397
437
71,034
73,109e
Title V—Revolving and
Management Funds
National Defense Sealift
Fund
28
48
48
48
48
2
5
5
5
1,217k
1,018
1,267
407
407
Title VI—Other
Defense Programs
Office of Inspector General
Defense Health Program
1,176
664
Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction
393
407
407
77,509
Grand Totald
76,546
397
74,671l
437
72,512
582
74,148
Source: CRS, adapted from the Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2012, RDT&E Programs (R-1),
February 2011; H.R. 2219; and H.Rept. 112-10; S.Rept. 112-77.
a.
Includes an additional $10 million added to the Army’s Title IV account per Section 8114, Division A of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, with which the Secretary of the Army may conduct research on
alternative energy resources for deployed forces.
b.
Includes the $100 million for Defense Advanced Research Project Agency’s (DARPA’s) share of the
Wireless Innovation Fund.
Congressional Research Service
17
526
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
c.
Includes $16 million reduction voted on the House floor which offset an increase in peer-reviewed prostate
cancer research in the Defense Health Program, and the $100 million general reduction to DARPA’s
RDT&E funding.
d.
Total may differ from sum of components due to rounding.
e.
Does not include the $16 million reduction in Defensewide account voted on the House floor offsetting an
increase in peer-reviewed prostate cancer research in the Defense Health Program, nor the $100 million
general reduction in the DARPA RDT&E. Therefore, the “Total Title IV by Budget Activity” figure is larger
than the “Total Title IV by Account” figure.
f.
Does not include $50 million transferred from the Army’s 6.4, 6.5, and 6.7 accounts and another $50
million from the Air Force’s 6.4, 6.5, and 6.7 accounts to their respective 6.6 accounts to support test
facilities, per Section 8072 of the Senate version of H.R. 2219 as reported by the Senate Appropriations
Committee (S.Rept. 112-77).
g.
Does not include $50 million from the Army’s 6.4, 6.5, and 6.7 accounts and $34 million from the Air
Force’s 6.4, 6.5 and 6..7 accounts transferred to their respective 6.6 accounts to support test facilities, per
Section 8074, Division A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012.
h.
Includes funding for the Director of Test and Evaluation.
i.
Includes funding for classified programs.
j.
Does not include the $10 million added to the Army’s account by Section 8114, Division A of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (see footnote a above).
k.
Includes $30 million increase in Defense Health Program RDT&E approved on the House floor.
l.
The “Grand Total” figure uses the “Total Title IV – by Account” figure.
Department of Homeland Security29
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested $1.528 billion for R&D and related
programs in FY2012, a 36% increase from FY2011. This total included $1.176 billion for the
Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T), $332 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO), and $20 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) in
the U.S. Coast Guard. The bill passed by the House would have provided $889 million, including
$539 million for S&T, $337 million for DNDO, and $13 million for Coast Guard RDT&E. The
bill reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations would have provided $1.076 billion,
including $780 million for S&T, $268 million for DNDO, and $28 million for Coast Guard
RDT&E. The final appropriation was $984 million, including $668 million for S&T, $289 million
for DNDO, and $28 million for Coast Guard RDT&E. (See Table 7.)
The S&T Directorate is the primary DHS R&D organization.30 Headed by the Under Secretary
for Science and Technology, it performs R&D in several laboratories of its own and funds R&D
performed by the DOE national laboratories, industry, universities, and others. The
Administration requested $1.176 billion for the S&T Directorate for FY2012. This was 53% more
than the net FY2011 appropriation of $767 million.31 The request for Laboratory Facilities
29
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
30
For more information, see CRS Report RL34356, The DHS Directorate of Science and Technology: Key Issues for
Congress, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
31
The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10) rescinded $61 million
in unobligated S&T Directorate funds from prior fiscal years. Not including this rescission, the FY2011 appropriation
was $828 million, and the increase requested for FY2012 was 42%.
Congressional Research Service
18
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
included $150 million to support the start of construction at the National Bio and Agro-Defense
Facility (NBAF). About $109 million of the request for Research, Development, and Innovation
was for radiological and nuclear R&D activities currently conducted in DNDO.
The House bill provided $539 million for S&T. For Research, Development, and Innovation, it
provided $106 million, just 16% of the request. In Laboratory Facilities, it provided $75 million,
or half the request, for NBAF construction. It rejected the proposed transfer of radiological and
nuclear R&D activities from DNDO. The committee report stated that “S&T must demonstrate
how its R&D efforts are timely, with results relatively well-defined, and above all, make
investment decisions based on clear and sensible priorities.” It stated the committee’s expectation
that “the proposed funding levels will force S&T to make more focused, high-return investment
decisions.”
The Senate-reported bill provided $780 million for S&T.32 For Research, Development, and
Innovation, it provided $440 million. The bill approved the proposed transfer of activities from
DNDO, but it provided no funding for NBAF construction. The committee report described the
amount requested for NBAF as “not a useable construction segment” and directed S&T to
provide an updated cost schedule for the project.
The final appropriation for S&T was $668 million. This amount included $266 million for
Research, Development, and Innovation and $50 million for NBAF construction. The proposed
transfer from DNDO was denied.
In late 2010, the S&T Directorate announced a reorganization and released a new strategic plan.
The reorganization reduced the number of direct reports to the Under Secretary and was
accompanied by a change in budget structure, with most of the previous budget lines combined
into two new categories: Research, Development, and Innovation (RDI) and Acquisition and
Operations Support. According to DHS, the new strategy and organization will result in more
robust partnerships with other DHS components, a smaller number of larger projects, and more
emphasis on transitioning technology into the field rather than long-term research. The House and
Senate committee reports both objected to the new budget structure. The House report described
the RDI budget category as “all-encompassing ... too large and vague.” The Senate report stated
that the new structure “reduces transparency and accountability.” The conference report stated
that the new RDI category “will enable S&T to more quickly shift resources ... between research
activities” and “should ... partially offset the impact of an overall funding reduction,” but it
directed S&T to submit a quarterly “detailed breakout” of RDI projects “for accountability and
visibility.”
The construction of NBAF would likely result in increased congressional oversight for several
years. For construction of NBAF and decommissioning of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center
(PIADC), which NBAF is intended to replace, the FY2012 budget justification projected a need
for $691 million in total appropriations between FY2012 and FY2017. In the appropriations acts
for FY2009 through FY2011, Congress authorized DHS to use receipts from the sale of Plum
Island to offset NBAF construction and PIADC decommissioning costs.33 The House-passed,
32
The bill rescinded $20 million from prior-year unobligated balances. Without this rescission, the Senate-reported bill
provided $800 million for S&T.
33
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-329, Div. D, §540) and Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-83, §540). The FY2010 provision was continued for FY2011
under the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10).
Congressional Research Service
19
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Senate-reported, and enacted bills for FY2012 all continued this authorization. According to
DHS, however, the likely value of such receipts “has been found to be considerably
overestimated.”34
The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office is the primary DHS organization for combating the threat
of nuclear attack, responsible for all DHS nuclear detection research, development, testing,
evaluation, acquisition, and operational support. The Administration requested $332 million for
DNDO for FY2012, approximately the same as the FY2011 appropriation of $331 million. The
request for Research, Development, and Operations was $58 million less than the FY2011
appropriation; it included no funds for Transformational R&D, which the Administration
proposed to transfer to the S&T Directorate. The request for Systems Acquisition was $84
million, versus $30 million in FY2011. Within Systems Acquisition, the request included $37
million for radiation portal monitors and $27 million for the Securing the Cities program, which
was previously funded at congressional direction and limited to the New York region. The request
proposed expanding Securing the Cities to an additional city in FY2012.
The House bill provided $337 million for DNDO. It rejected the transfer of Transformational
R&D to the S&T Directorate, but provided only $45 million for that program, versus $96 million
in FY2011. The bill provided $20 million for acquisition of radiation portal monitors. It provided
$22 million for Securing the Cities, of which only $2 million was for expansion to a new city.
The Senate-reported bill provided $268 million for DNDO. It approved the proposed transfer of
Transformational R&D. It provided $8 million for radiation portal monitors. Like the House bill,
it provided $22 million for Securing the Cities, including $2 million for a new city.
The enacted appropriation for DNDO was $289 million. This included $40 million for
Transformational R&D, whose transfer to S&T was denied. The radiation portal monitors
program received $7 million. Like the House and Senate bills, the conference report included $22
million for Securing the Cities, including $2 million for a new city.
Congressional attention has focused in recent years on the testing and analysis DNDO has
conducted to support its planned purchase and deployment of Advanced Spectroscopic Portals
(ASPs), a type of next-generation radiation portal monitor.35 Each homeland security
appropriations act from FY2007 through FY2011 included a requirement for secretarial
certification before full-scale ASP procurement. The House-passed and Senate-reported bills for
FY2012 included a similar requirement. In February 2010, DHS decided that it would no longer
pursue the use of ASPs for primary screening, although it will continue developing and testing
them for use in secondary screening.36 Although the FY2012 request included funds to purchase
and deploy 44 ASPs for secondary screening, the director of DNDO subsequently stated that
DNDO will deploy 13 ASPs that it has already purchased but will “end the ASP program as
originally conceived.”37 The House committee report expressed an expectation that DNDO will
34
DHS FY2012 budget justification, p. S&T RDA&O 24. For more information on NBAF, see CRS Report RL34160,
The National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility: Issues for Congress, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
35
For more information, see CRS Report RL34750, The Advanced Spectroscopic Portal Program: Background and
Issues for Congress, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
36
Letter from Dr. William K. Hagan, Acting Director, DNDO, to Senator Lieberman, February 24, 2010,
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=11f7d1f0-c4fe-4105-94e6bb4a0213f048.
37
Warren M. Stern, Director, Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Department of Homeland Security, testimony before
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
20
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
not deploy ASPs prior to certification, even for secondary screening, but noted that radiation
portal monitor funding in the House-passed bill “is not restricted” to previous-generation systems.
The Senate report stated that “the request to procure and deploy 44 [ASPs] is denied.” Noting the
cancellation decision, the conference report omitted the previous requirement for ASP
certification. It directed DHS to notify the appropriations committees if a successor program is
initiated.
The global nuclear detection architecture (GNDA) overseen by DNDO remains an issue of
congressional interest.38 The Systems Engineering and Architecture activity includes a GNDA
development program as well as programs to develop and assess GNDA activities in various
mission areas. The Senate-reported bill directed DNDO to prepare and submit “a strategic plan of
investments necessary to implement the Department of Homeland Security’s responsibilities
under the domestic component of the global nuclear detection architecture.” It identified specific
items that should be included in the required plan. The enacted bill included similar language.
The mission of DNDO, as established by Congress in the SAFE Port Act (P.L. 109-347, Title V),
includes serving as the primary federal entity “to further develop, acquire, and support the
deployment of an enhanced domestic system” for detection of nuclear and radiological devices
and material (6 U.S.C. 592). The same act eliminated any explicit mention of radiological and
nuclear countermeasures from the statutory duties and responsibilities of the Under Secretary for
S&T. Congress may consider whether the proposed transfer of DNDO’s research activities to the
S&T Directorate is consistent with its intent in the SAFE Port Act. Congress may also choose to
consider the acquisition portion of DNDO’s mission. Most of DNDO’s funding for Systems
Acquisition was eliminated in FY2010, and that year’s budget stated that “funding requests for
radiation detection equipment will now be sought by the end users that will operate them.”39 In
contrast, the FY2012 request for Systems Acquisition included funding for ASPs that would be
operated by Customs and Border Protection, as well as human-portable radiation detectors for the
Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and the Transportation Security Administration.
The reasons for this apparent reversal of policy were not provided in the DNDO budget
justification for either FY2011 or FY2012.
(...continued)
the House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security
Technologies, July 26, 2011, http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/files/Testimony%20Stern.pdf.
38
For more information, see CRS Report RL34574, The Global Nuclear Detection Architecture: Issues for Congress,
by (name redacted).
39
Executive Office of the President, FY2010 Budget, Appendix, p. 560.
Congressional Research Service
21
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Table 7. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs
(in millions of dollars)
FY2011
Enacted
FY2012
Request
FY2012
House
FY2012
Senate
FY2012
Enacted
Directorate of Science and Technology
$767
$1,176
$539
$780
$668
Management and Administration
140
149
141
143
135
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
626
1,027
398
637
533
Research, Development, and Innovation
n/a
660
107
440
266
Laboratory Facilities
140
277
202
127
177
Acquisition and Operations Support
n/a
54
54
54
54
University Programs
40
37
37
37
37
Rescission of Prior-Year Unobligated Balances
(61)
—
—
(20)
—
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
331
332
337
268
289
Management and Administration
37
41
40
37
37
Research, Development, and Operations
264
206
245
191
215
Systems Engineering and Architecture
33
32
30
31
30
Systems Development
53
70
69
60
51
Transformational R&D
96
—
45
—
40
Assessments
38
43
40
40
38
Operations
33
37
36
35
33
Forensics
22
25
25
25
23
Rescission of Prior-Year Unobligated Balances
(11)
—
—
—
—
30
84
52
40
37
Radiation Portal Monitors Program
—
37
20
8
7
Securing the Cities
20
27
22
22
22
Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems
10
20
10
10
8
25
20
13
28
28
1,122
1,528
889
1,076
984
Systems Acquisition
U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E
TOTAL
Source: FY2011 from P.L. 112-10 and DHS FY2011 expenditure plan. FY2012 request from DHS FY2012
budget justification, online at http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/budget/. FY2012 House from H.R. 2017 as passed by
the House and H.Rept. 112-91. FY2012 Senate from H.R. 2017 as reported in the Senate and S.Rept. 112-74.
FY2012 enacted from P.L. 112-74 and H.Rept. 112-331.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of their components due to rounding. Amounts shown as not available
(n/a) were categorized differently in FY2011.
Congressional Research Service
22
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
National Institutes of Health40
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74), enacted on December 23, 2011,
provided FY2012 appropriations for NIH.41 The conference agreement on the act (H.Rept. 112331) gave NIH total discretionary funding of $30.8 billion, virtually unchanged from the FY2011
level (see Table 8). However, this total does not reflect an across-the-board rescission of 0.189%.
The Obama Administration had requested discretionary budget authority of $31.8 billion for NIH,
an increase of $1,062 million (3.3%) over FY2011.42 In late September 2011, bills from the
Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended total discretionary funding of $30.6 billion,
slightly below the FY2011 level, while House bills would have provided $31.8 billion, equal to
the request. Further details on congressional action follow the discussion of the request below.
NIH’s organization consists of the Office of the NIH Director and 27 institutes and centers. The
Office of the Director (OD) sets overall policy for NIH and coordinates the programs and
activities of all NIH components, particularly in areas of research that involve multiple institutes.
The institutes and centers (collectively called ICs) focus on particular diseases, areas of human
health and development, or aspects of research support. Each IC plans and manages its own
research programs in coordination with the Office of the Director. As shown in Table 8, 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.)
Funding for NIH comes primarily from the annual appropriations bill for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (Labor/HHS), with an
additional amount for Superfund-related activities from the appropriations bill for the Department
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (Interior/Environment). Those two bills
provide NIH’s discretionary budget authority. In addition, NIH receives mandatory funding of
$150 million annually that is provided in the Public Health Service (PHS) Act for a special
program on diabetes research, and also receives $8.2 million annually for the National Library of
Medicine from a transfer within PHS. Each year from FY2002-FY2011 (but not in FY2012),
Congress provided that a portion of NIH’s Labor/HHS appropriation be transferred to the Global
Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The transfer, in recent years about $300
million, has been part of the U.S. contribution to the Global Fund. The total funding available for
NIH activities, taking account of add-ons and transfers, is the program level. Because the “NIH
program level” cited in the Administration’s FY2012 budget documents does not reflect the
Global Fund transfer, Table 8 shows the program level both before and after the transfer.
Discussions in this section refer to the program level after the transfer.
NIH and other HHS agencies and programs that are authorized under the PHS Act are subject to a
budget tap called the PHS Program Evaluation Set-Aside. Section 241 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C.
§238j) authorizes the Secretary to use a portion of eligible appropriations to assess the
effectiveness of federal health programs and to identify ways to improve them. The set-aside has
40
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Biomedical Policy, CRS Domestic Social Policy
Division. It was updated by (name redacted), Analyst in Biomedical Policy.
41
For further information on NIH, see CRS Report R41705, The National Institutes of Health (NIH): Organization,
Funding, and Congressional Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
42
FY2011 funding of $30.8 billion was provided in P.L. 112-10, The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
23
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
the effect of redistributing appropriated funds for specific purposes among PHS and other HHS
agencies. Section 205 of the FY2010 Labor/HHS appropriations act capped the set-aside at 2.5%,
instead of the 2.4% maximum that had been in place for several years. The provision was carried
forward for FY2011 under P.L. 112-10. The FY2012 budget proposed to increase the set-aside to
3.2%. NIH, with the largest budget among the PHS agencies, becomes the largest “donor” of
program evaluation funds, and is a relatively minor recipient. By convention, budget tables such
as Table 8 do not subtract the amount of the evaluation tap, or of other taps within HHS, from the
agencies’ appropriations.
FY2012 President’s Budget Request. Under the FY2012 request, NIH said it would focus on
implementing a new translational medicine program43 as well as emphasize three other broad
scientific areas including advanced technologies, comparative effectiveness research, and support
for young investigators. For the new program, NIH proposed to create the National Center for
Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) to catalyze the development of new diagnostics and
therapeutics. To do so, NIH planned to abolish the existing National Center for Research
Resources (NCRR) and transfer its programs to various other parts of NIH, including transferring
the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program to NCATS.44 The FY2012 request
proposed $485 million for CTSA, a program which funds a national consortium of medical
research institutions that work together to accelerate treatment development, engage communities
in clinical research efforts, and train clinical and translational researchers. NCATS was to also
take charge of the Therapeutics for Rare and Neglected Diseases (TRND) program; the request
planned to double support for TRND in FY2012 to $50 million. In FY2011, TRND was funded
on an NIH-wide basis.
Another proposal for NCATS was that it incorporate the new Cures Acceleration Network (CAN),
which was authorized but not funded in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA,
P.L. 111-148, P.L. 111-152, as amended). The purpose of CAN is to support the development of
high need cures and facilitate their FDA review. The ACA authorized $500 million for FY2010
and such sums as may be necessary for subsequent fiscal years for CAN. The law also specified
that other funds appropriated under the Public Health Service Act may not be allocated to CAN.
The NIH request proposed $100 million for CAN in FY2012. If CAN received funding, NIH
would determine which medical products are “high need cures,” and then make awards to
research entities or companies in order to accelerate the development of such high need cures.
In addition to the new program, NIH emphasized three scientific areas in its plans for FY2012:
1. Technologies to Accelerate Discovery. NIH would continue to support
development and application of advanced technologies (such as DNA
sequencing, microarray technology, nanotechnology, new imaging modalities,
and computational biology) to increase understanding of complex diseases, such
as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease, and enable development of more effective
therapies.
43
Translational medicine focuses on converting basic research discoveries into clinical applications that benefit
patients.
44
NIH, Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2012, Vol. I, Overview, p. ES-12, available at
http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY12/Tab%201%20Executive%20Summary.pdf. The tables in the justification
documents (released February 14, 2011) did not reflect the proposed transfer of NCRR programs to NCATS and other
components of NIH. In June 2011, NIH sent Congress detailed materials and revised tables reflecting the proposed
realignment. The proposal was not submitted as an official budget amendment.
Congressional Research Service
24
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
2. Enhancing the Evidence Base for Health Care Decisions. NIH would use
comparative effectiveness research methodologies to assist in developing
individually tailored treatments (personalized medicine) by testing candidate
therapies in a group of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) caring for
more than 13 million patients.
3. New Investigators, New Ideas. NIH would emphasize two of its programs that
support young scientists. The NIH Director’s New Innovator Award program
provides first-time independent awards to outstanding investigators; the
Administration requested $80 million to support these awards in FY2012. The
second program, called the NIH Director’s Early Independence Program,
supports talented junior scientists, allowing them to by-pass the traditional
postdoctoral training period and move directly to an independent research career.
NIH requested $8.4 million for this program in FY2012.
Research Project Grants. Of the funds appropriated to NIH each year, more than 80% go out to
the extramural research community in the form of grants, contracts, and other awards. The
funding supports research performed by more than 325,000 scientists and technical personnel
who work at more than 3,000 universities, hospitals, medical schools, and other research
institutions around the country and abroad. The primary funding mechanism for support of the
full range of investigator-initiated research is competitive, peer-reviewed research project grants
(RPGs).
In the FY2012 request, total funding for RPGs, at $16.9 billion, represented about 53% of NIH’s
proposed budget. The request would support an estimated 36,852 RPG awards, 248 more grants
than in FY2011.45 Within that total, 9,158 would be competing RPGs, 441 more than in FY2011.
(“Competing” awards means new grants plus competing renewals of existing grants.) For
noncompeting (continuation) RPGs, the FY2012 budget provided an inflation-adjustment
increase of 1%.
Other Funding Mechanisms. The FY2012 request included an increase over FY2011 for
research training stipends for individuals supported by the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research
Service Awards program. The budget request would have raised funding for the program by $13
million to $794 million, allowing NIH to support 16,831 full-time training positions, 29 more
than in FY2011. Changes were also proposed in the request for other funding mechanisms within
the NIH budget. Support for research centers would increase by $42 million (1.4%) to $3.036
billion. R&D contracts were proposed for a $151 million (4.9%) increase to $3.245 billion
(excluding the funding proposed for transfer to the Global HIV/AIDS Fund). The NIH intramural
research program would have gained $94 million (2.9%) for a total of $3.382 billion. Research
management and support had a requested increase of $19 million (1.3%) to a total of $1.538
billion. Operations of the Office of the Director were proposed for a large increase of $118
million (19%) for a total of $742 million. The appropriation for Buildings and Facilities would
increase by almost $76 million (152%) to $126 million.
45
For this discussion of RPGs, as well as for the other funding mechanisms discussed in the next section, figures for
FY2012 giving amounts of funding and number of awards come from the NIH budget justification cited in the previous
footnote. Amounts and awards for FY2011 under the NIH Operating Plan come from a mechanism table obtained by
CRS from the NIH Budget Office.
Congressional Research Service
25
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Also funded through the OD account is the NIH Common Fund, which supports research in
emerging areas of scientific opportunity, public health challenges, or knowledge gaps that deserve
special emphasis and might benefit from collaboration between two or more institutes or centers.
For FY2012, the President requested $557 million for the Common Fund, up $14 million (2.6%)
from FY2011.
Congressional Action on FY2012 Appropriations. The Senate Appropriations Committee
reported S. 1599, its FY2012 Labor/HHS/Education bill, on September 22, 2011 (S.Rept. 11284). The bill recommended $30.5 billion for NIH, a decrease of $190 million (-0.6%) from the
FY2011 level of $30.7 billion and $1,250 million below the request. In addition, the committee
released a draft bill for Interior/Environment appropriations that would have provided $80 million
for NIH (see Note h on Table 8). The committee approved NIH’s plan to abolish NCRR and
create NCATS, though funding recommended for NCATS and all the other components was
lower than requested under the realignment. The NCATS appropriation would have included $20
million for the Cures Acceleration Network and would have maintained level funding for the
Clinical and Translational Science Awards. The committee criticized NIH for not providing a
formal, timely request for the restructuring proposal. Funding for the PHS Evaluation Set-Aside
was maintained at 2.5%. The committee included $299 million in the appropriation for transfer to
the Global HIV/AIDS Fund.
The House Appropriations Committee did not report a Labor/HHS bill for FY2012, but the
chairman of the subcommittee introduced H.R. 3070 on September 29, 2011, accompanied by a
detailed funding table (see Note c on Table 8). The bill would have provided $31.7 billion for
NIH, the same level as the request and an increase of $1,160 million (3.8%) over FY2011. In
addition, the House committee included $79 million for NIH in its Interior/Environment
appropriations bill (see Note h on Table 8). H.R. 3070 did not provide for the creation of NCATS
or the elimination of NCRR. It would have funded all the existing NIH components at the same
level as the request, except that $100 million would have shifted from Office of the Director to
NCRR. The Director was told to ensure that at least $488 million be provided for the CTSA
program, and that up to $2 million could be used for an advisory board to plan for the Cures
Acceleration Network. The bill required support of at least 9,150 new and competing RPGs,
maintenance of an allocation ratio of 90% to 10% in support of extramural versus intramural
activities, funding for the PHS Evaluation Set-Aside at 2.4%, and would have prohibited any
funding of patient-centered outcomes research (comparative effectiveness research). No funding
was included for transfer to the Global Fund.
The final conference agreement enacted in P.L. 112-74 gave NIH $30.690 billion in Labor/HHS
funding (Division F) and an additional $79 million in Interior/Environment funding (Division E),
for a total of $30.769 billion in discretionary budget authority.46 Although that amount is only $2
million above the FY2011 level of $30.767 billion, it actually gave NIH $299 million (1.0%)
more than in FY2011 to spend on its own programs. The FY2011 appropriations required NIH to
transfer $297 million to the Global HIV/AIDS Fund, whereas the FY2012 appropriations did not
46
As noted earlier, the dollar amounts included here and in the text and tables of Division F (Labor/HHS) of the
conference report and the joint explanatory statement do not reflect an across-the-board rescission of 0.189% mandated
in Section 527. The rescission is to be applied to all discretionary programs, projects, and activities except Pell Grants
(Department of Education). A similar rescission of 0.16% applies to Division E accounts (Interior appropriations).
Final amounts will be updated after agencies have submitted the FY2012 operating plans required in Section 517 of
Division F.
Congressional Research Service
26
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
designate any funds for transfer. Funding for the PHS Evaluation Set-Aside was maintained at
2.5%.
With the FY2012 appropriations, Congress approved NIH’s plan to create NCATS, abolish
NCRR, and distribute NCRR’s programs to NCATS and other NIH entities.47 In Table 8, funding
for NCATS and the other realigned programs is displayed for the Senate bill and the enacted
FY2012 appropriations, but the columns for FY2011, the FY2012 request, and the House bill
display amounts reflecting NIH’s original alignment (i.e., they have not been made comparable
for the NCATS-related shifts in funding). A table in the explanatory statement accompanying the
FY2012 conference report (H.Rept. 112-331, pp. 1135-1136) displays the comparable
adjustments for FY2011 (which are budget-neutral) and allows comparison with the FY2012
amounts for all the institutes and centers. Analysis of the table indicates that the $299 million
increase provided in the FY2012 appropriations was allocated as follows: $76 million boosted the
Buildings and Facilities account to $126 million (requested after a large cut in FY2011; $60
million went to two specific increases discussed below (CAN and IDeA); and the $163 million
balance was divided proportionally among all the institutes, centers, and the Office of the
Director, with each receiving an increase of 0.54%.
In the explanatory statement accompanying the conference report, the conferees gave detailed
instructions on the implementation of certain aspects of NCATS. They stressed that the role of
NCATS is to research ways to re-engineer and streamline the process of therapeutics
development.48 NCATS was directed to foster partnerships between extramural researchers,
industry, and government entities to speed commercialization of new therapies through a marketbased approach. Funding for two NCATS programs was specified in bill language: at least $488
million from all NIH funds for the CTSA program (a $30 million increase) and up to $10 million
for the Cures Acceleration Network. The conferees gave NIH instructions to further study the use
of the CAN authority and to survey other federal and private sector activities relating to CAN.
They also expressed disappointment with the informal way that NIH had requested the
NCATS/NCRR reorganization and mentioned concerns that NIH had not properly involved the
Scientific Management Review Board in evaluating the merits of the proposal. They pointed out
that another reorganization being contemplated by NIH—a possible merger of the institutes
concerned with research on drug abuse and alcohol abuse—should draw on lessons learned from
the creation of NCATS.
The conferees also made comments on selected other NIH programs, particularly stressing that
NIH ensure support of the extramural research community by funding as many new and
competing research project grants as possible at a reasonable award level. Extramural research
should be maintained at about 90% of the NIH budget, with basic research retaining its current
(unspecified) share. The Institutional Development Awards (IDeA) program was given a $50
million increase (22%), and NIH was encouraged to broaden the eligibility criteria for these
research capacity and infrastructure grants. Finally, NIH was directed to conduct a trans-NIH
review of processes for formulating and completing clinical trials, building on recommendations
from a 2010 Institute of Medicine study of cancer clinical trials.
47
Authorizing language amending the PHS Act to accomplish the reorganization appears in Section 221 of Division F.
See National Institutes of Health, “NIH Establishes National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences,” press
release, December 23, 2011, http://www.nih.gov/news/health/dec2011/od-23.htm.
48
Congressional Research Service
27
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Table 8. National Institutes of Health Funding
(in millions of dollars)
FY2012
House
Billc
FY2012
Senate
Comm.d
FY2012
Enacted
P.L. 112-74e
Component
FY2011
Enacteda
FY2012
Requestb
Cancer (NCI)
5,059
5,196
5,196
5,002
5,082
Heart/Lung/Blood (NHLBI)
3,070
3,148
3,148
3,036
3,085
Dental/Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
410
420
420
405
411
Diabetes/Digestive/Kidney (NIDDK)
1,792
1,838
1,838
1,772
1,800
Neurological Disorders/Stroke (NINDS)
1,622
1,664
1,664
1,604
1,629
Allergy/Infectious Diseases (NIAID)f
4,776
4,916
4,916
4,725
4,499
General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
2,034
2,102
2,102
2,347
2,435
Child Health/Human Development (NICHD)
1,318
1,352
1,352
1,303
1,324
Eye (NEI)
701
719
719
693
704
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
684
701
701
676
687
1,100
1,130
1,130
1,088
1,106
Arthritis/Musculoskeletal/Skin (NIAMS)
534
548
548
528
537
Deafness/Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
415
426
426
410
417
Nursing Research (NINR)
144
148
148
143
145
Alcohol Abuse/Alcoholism (NIAAA)
458
469
469
453
460
Drug Abuse (NIDA)
1,051
1,080
1,080
1,039
1,055
Mental Health (NIMH)
1,477
1,517
1,517
1,461
1,483
Human Genome Research (NHGRI)
511
525
525
506
514
Biomedical Imaging/Bioengineering (NIBIB)
314
322
322
334
339
1,258
1,298
1,398
0
0
Complementary/Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)
128
131
131
126
128
Minority Health/Health Disparities (NIMHD)g
210
215
215
273
277
Fogarty International Center (FIC)
69
71
71
69
70
Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)
0
0
0
582
576
National Library of Medicine (NLM)
337
387
387
359
338
Office of Director (OD)
1,167
1,298
1,198
1,439
1,462
Common Fund (non-add)
(543)
(557)
(557)
(538)
(546)
Buildings & Facilities (B&F)
50
126
126
126
126
30,688
31,748
31,748
30,498
30,690
79
81
79
80
79
30,767
31,829
31,827
30,578
30,769
150
150
150
150
150
8
8
8
8
8
Aging (NIA)
Research Resources (NCRR)
Subtotal, Labor/HHS Appropriation
Superfund (Interior appropriation to NIEHS)h
Total, NIH discretionary budget authority
Pre-appropriated Type 1 diabetes fundsi
PHS Evaluation Tap fundingj
Congressional Research Service
28
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
FY2012
House
Billc
FY2012
Senate
Comm.d
FY2012
Enacted
P.L. 112-74e
FY2011
Enacteda
FY2012
Requestb
Total, NIH program level
30,926
31,987
31,985
30,737
30,927
Total, NIH program level (less Global
Fund)
30,628
31,687
31,985
30,438
30,927
Component
Sources: FY2011 Enacted, FY2012 Request, and FY2012 Enacted columns are based on the conference report
tables in H.Rept. 112-331 on the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (H.R. 2055, P.L. 112-74). FY2012
House and Senate columns are based on texts of H.R. 3070 as introduced and S. 1599 as reported. Details may
not add to totals due to rounding.
a.
P.L. 112-10 provided FY2011 funding for NIH as follows: from the base of the FY2010 funding level enacted
in P.L. 111-117 ($31,009 million in the Labor/HHS title and $79 million in the Interior/Environment title),
the amount for NIH was reduced by $50 million (Buildings and Facilities), $210 million (pro rata reduction
in all NIH accounts for institutes and centers and the Office of the Director), and by a 0.2% across-theboard rescission. The FY2011 level reflects real transfer of $998 thousand from HHS/Office of the
Secretary to NIMH.
b.
The FY2012 request reflects amounts as proposed in the original President’s budget released February 14,
2011. In June 2011, NIH sent Congress revised tables reflecting the transfer of NCRR programs to NCATS
and some other ICs. The proposed realignment was not submitted as an official budget amendment.
c.
H.R. 3070, making appropriations for Labor/HHS/Education for FY2012, was introduced on September 29,
2011, by the chairman of the House Appropriations Labor/HHS subcommittee, and a detailed funding table
was posted on the committee’s website at http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/
FY12LH_Detail_SC_10_Rev_with_comparable.pdf. The bill was not considered by the subcommittee or
the full committee and was not reported.
d.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its FY2012 Labor/HHS/Education bill, S. 1599, S.Rept. 11284, on September 22, 2011, after subcommittee markup on September 20.
e.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (H.R. 2055, P.L. 112-74), enacted December 23, 2011, included
nine regular FY2012 appropriations bills. NIH appropriations were provided in Division F (Labor/HHS/
Education) and Division E (Interior/Environment). Amounts shown do not reflect across-the-board
rescissions of 0.189% (Division F) and 0.16% (Division E).
f.
In three of these columns, the NIAID appropriation includes funds for transfer to the Global Fund for
HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria ($297 million in FY2011, $300 million in the FY2012 request, and $299
million in the Senate bill). The House bill and the FY2012 enacted appropriation did not provide for the
transfer.
g.
Section 10334(c) of P.L. 111-148 redesignated the Center as an Institute.
h.
Separate account in the Interior/Environment appropriations for NIEHS research activities related to
Superfund. The House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 2584 on July 12, 2011 (H.Rept. 112-151).
The Senate committee released the text of a draft bill and a detailed table on October 14, 2011, available at
http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=3f4832f4-6adb-4be8-9c6f-eabff62cc056.
Final FY2012 Interior/Environment appropriations were enacted as Division E of P.L. 112-74.
i.
Funds available to NIDDK for diabetes research under PHS Act §330B (provided by P.L. 110-275 and P.L.
111-309). Funds have been appropriated through FY2013.
j.
Additional funds for NLM from PHS Evaluation Set-Aside (§241 of PHS Act).
Congressional Research Service
29
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Department of Energy49
The Administration requested $14.447 billion for Department of Energy (DOE) R&D and related
programs in FY2012, including activities in three major categories: science, national security, and
energy. This request was 24.4% more than the FY2011 appropriation of $11.610 billion. The
House-passed bill would have provided $11.256 billion. The Senate-reported bill would have
provided $11.552 billion. The final appropriation was $11.904 billion. (See Table 9 for details.)
The request for the DOE Office of Science was $5.416 billion, an increase of 12% from the
FY2011 appropriation of $4.843 billion. The Administration’s stated goal is to double the funding
of the Office of Science. This continues a plan initiated by the Bush Administration in January
2006. The original target under both Administrations was to achieve the doubling goal in the
decade from FY2006 to FY2016. The current policy no longer specifies a completion date. The
FY2012 request was 49% more than the FY2006 baseline. The America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358) authorized $5.614 billion for the Office of Science in
FY2012. The House bill would have provided $4.800 billion. The Senate bill would have
provided $4.843 billion. The final appropriation was $4.889 billion.
The Office of Science includes six major research programs. In the largest program, basic energy
sciences, the request included $34 million for a new energy innovation hub on materials for
batteries and energy storage and $24 million for the existing hub on fuels from sunlight
(previously funded by the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy).50 The
biological and environmental research program was to receive $103 million for foundational
genomics research (versus $34 million in FY2010). In the high energy physics program,
operations ended at the Tevatron facility in Illinois during FY2011. In fusion energy sciences, the
request proposed reducing the U.S. contribution to the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor (ITER) to $105 million (from $135 million in FY2010). Despite a slip of several years in
the expected start-up date for ITER, DOE budget documents for FY2012 stated that “the costs
associated with the schedule delays to date ... are manageable within the existing ... [total project]
cost range” of $1.45 billion to $2.2 billion.51 This statement, however, predated the March 2011
Fukushima earthquake and tsunami, which damaged component test facilities in Japan and may
result in additional delays.52 The House, Senate, and final bills all included significantly less than
the Administration’s request for basic energy sciences, biological and environmental research,
and to a lesser extent, nuclear physics. All three bills provided $20 million for the new energy
innovation hub and the requested amount for the existing one. The Senate bill would have
49
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
50
The Administration proposed to initiate eight energy innovation hubs in FY2010; Congress funded three. The
FY2012 budget request included six hubs. The three new hubs were to focus on batteries and energy storage, critical
materials, and smart grid technologies and systems. The final appropriation included funding for five; Congress did not
fund the smart grid hub. The aim of energy innovation hubs is “to address basic science and technology hindering the
nation’s secure and sustainable energy future” by assembling multidisciplinary teams of researchers “spanning science,
engineering, and other disciplines, but focused on a single critical national need identified by the Department.” (DOE
FY2011 budget justification, vol. 4, p. 86)
51
DOE FY2012 congressional budget justification, vol. 4, p. 234.
52
Geoff Brumfiel, “Japan Quake Rocks Fusion Project: Damaged Facilities Force Further Delay to ITER Experiment,”
Nature, May 31, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
30
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
provided $65 million less than the request for fusion energy sciences, but the House bill and the
final bill both included slightly more than the request. The final appropriation for ITER was “not
more than” the requested amount.
The request for DOE national security R&D was $4.175 billion, a 12.3% increase from $3.718
billion in FY2011. The request proposed a $195 million increase for the naval reactors program to
accelerate the continuing design of reactors for the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine,
modernization of the land-based prototype reactor, and recapitalization of program infrastructure.
The requests for nuclear weapons R&D and nonproliferation and verification R&D included $168
million and $56 million respectively to fund contractor pension payments resulting from the
transition of management contracts at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratories. The House bill would have provided $3.725 billion for national security R&D,
including $123 million less than the request for the naval reactors program and $76 million less
than the request for advancing the science of weapons certification. It included a total of $147
million for the Los Alamos and Livermore pension liabilities. The Senate bill would have
provided $54 million less than the request for naval reactors. The Senate report directed DOE not
to fund design, preparation, or execution of a “scaled experiment,” one element of the
Administration’s proposal for advanced weapons certification. The final appropriation for naval
reactors was between the House and Senate amounts. For contractor pension liabilities, the final
bill included a total of $224 million, the same as the request.
The request for DOE energy R&D was $4.856 billion, up 59.2% from $3.049 billion in FY2011.
Most energy efficiency and renewable energy subprograms were to increase by between 50% and
200%, with the exception of R&D on hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, which were to increase
by just 2.5%. “Consistent with the Administration’s policy to phase out fossil fuel subsidies,” the
request included no funds for natural gas technologies or unconventional fossil energy
technologies.53 The request for nuclear energy was a 4% increase from FY2011. The request
proposed to increase the funding of the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E)
more than threefold, to $650 million (including $100 million in mandatory funding from a
proposed Wireless Innovation Fund supported by the proceeds of spectrum auctions). The House
bill would have provided $2.731 billion for DOE energy R&D, including $1.570 billion less than
the request for energy efficiency and renewables and $25 million more than the request for fossil
energy R&D. The Senate bill would have provided $2.755 billion, including $1.245 billion less
than the request for efficiency and renewables, $195 million less than the request for fossil energy
R&D, and $170 million less than the request for nuclear energy. Both bills would have provided
about half the request for electricity delivery and reliability R&D and less than half the request
for ARPA-E. The final bill included more than either the House or Senate bill, though still less
than the request, for ARPA-E and for energy efficiency and renewables. For nuclear energy, it
included more than the House or Senate bill or the request. The final appropriation for fossil
energy was between the House and Senate bills.
53
DOE FY2012 budget justification, vol. 3, pp. 513 and 517.
Congressional Research Service
31
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Table 9. Department of Energy R&D and Related Programs
(in millions of dollars)
FY2011
Enacted
FY2012
Request
FY2012
House
FY2012
Senate
FY2012
Enacted
$4,843
$5,416
$4,800
$4,843
$4,889
Basic Energy Sciences
1,678
1,985
1,688
1,694
1,694
High Energy Physics
795
797
797
780
792
Biological and Environmental Research
612
718
547
622
612
Nuclear Physics
540
605
552
550
550
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
422
466
427
442
442
Fusion Energy Sciences
375
400
406
335
402
Other
420
445
382
420
397
3,718
4,175
3,725
3,955
3,838
2,379b
2,572
2,338
2,426
2,391
Naval Reactors
959
1,154
1,031
1,100
1,080
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
361
418
346
418
356
Defense Envtal. Cleanup Technol. Development
19
32
10
11
11
3,049
4,856
2,731
2,755
3,177
1,594
2,806
1,237
1,561
1,687
Fossil Energy R&D
445
453
477
258
347
Nuclear Energy
726
754
734
584
769
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability R&D
105
193
104
101
99
180
650d
180
250
275
11,610
14,447
11,256
11,552
11,904
Science
National Security
Weapons Activitiesa
Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energyc
Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy
Total
Source: FY2011 enacted from P.L. 112-10, H.Rept. 112-118, and S.Rept. 112-75. FY2012 request from DOE
FY2012 budget justification, online at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/12budget/index12.html. FY2012 House
from H.R. 2354 as passed by the House and H.Rept. 112-118. FY2012 Senate from H.R. 2354 as reported in the
Senate and S.Rept. 112-75. FY2012 enacted from P.L. 112-74 and H.Rept. 112-331.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of their components due to rounding. All amounts are reduced for use
of prior-year balances.
a.
Including Stockpile Services R&D Support, Stockpile Services R&D Certification and Safety, Science,
Engineering except Enhanced Surety and Enhanced Surveillance, Inertial Confinement Fusion, Advanced
Simulation and Computing, National Security Applications, and a prorated share of Readiness in Technical
Base and Facilities (and Legacy Contractor Pensions in the House and enacted bills). Additional R&D
activities may take place in the subprograms of Directed Stockpile Work that are devoted to specific
weapon systems, but these funds are not included in the table because detailed funding schedules for those
subprograms are classified.
b.
Estimated by CRS. Some sub-account amounts in this category were not specified by P.L. 112-10 or stated
in the House or Senate committee reports.
c.
Excluding Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.
d.
Includes $100 million in proposed mandatory funding.
Congressional Research Service
32
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
National Science Foundation54
The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports basic research and education in the non-medical
sciences and engineering. Congress established the Foundation as an independent federal agency
in 1950 and directed it to “promote the progress of science; to advance the national health,
prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.”55 The NSF is a
primary source of federal support for U.S. university research, especially in certain fields such as
mathematics and computer science. It is also responsible for significant shares of the federal
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education program portfolio and
federal STEM student aid and support.
The President’s FY2012 budget request for the NSF was $7.767 billion, a $961.1 million increase
(14.1%) over NSF’s FY2011 Current Plan level of $6.806 billion.56 Most of the Administration’s
requested increase would have gone to the main research conduct account. The remainder would
have gone to other Foundation accounts, including those that primarily support education, agency
operations, and research facilities and equipment. Overall, the distribution of the Administration’s
FY2012 requested increase was largely consistent with the previously existing distribution of
funds across the NSF.
P.L. 112-55 provides $7.033 billion to the NSF in FY2012. This amount is $227.2 million (3.3%)
more than the FY2011 Current Plan level and $733.9 million (9.4%) less than the President’s
request. (See Table 10 for details.) Compared to the distribution of funding across NSF accounts
under the FY2011 Current Plan, P.L. 112-55 shifts about 1.0% of the Foundation’s budget to
research and construction activities from education and agency operations in FY2012. This
change appears to reflect the position of the House Appropriations Committee’s recommendation,
which favored the research account, combined with the Senate’s position, which favored the
construction account.
A primary concern in the congressional debate about FY2012 funding for NSF centered on the
so-called “doubling path” policy. Since 2006 federal policymakers have sought to increase
support for research in the physical sciences and engineering. To that end, they sought to double
aggregate funding for the NSF, NIST laboratories and construction accounts, and the DOE Office
of Science (collectively, the “targeted accounts”), which many policymakers perceive as key to
U.S. innovation and competitiveness.57 The current status of the doubling path is discussed in
detail in this report in the “Presidential Initiatives” section.
54
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division. Numbers are rounded. Data available upon request.
55
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-507).
56
National Science Foundation, FY2012 Budget Request to Congress, February 14, 2011, http://www.nsf.gov/about/
budget/fy2012/pdf/00a_fy2012.pdf; and NSF “FY2011 Current Plan, By Program Activity” as per e-mail
communication between CRS and Karen Pearce, senior legislative policy analyst, Office of Legislative and Public
Affairs, National Science Foundation, July 21, 2011. The NSF FY2011 Current Plan excludes a $54.0 million transfer
to the U.S. Coast Guard for icebreaking services.
57
For additional information on the doubling effort, see CRS Report R41951, An Analysis of Efforts to Double Federal
Funding for Physical Sciences and Engineering Research, by (name redacted)
Congressional Research Service
33
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Another issue raised in the general debate about funding for NSF focused on the Foundation’s
ability to effectively manage its grants. This is relevant to R&D policy because much of the
Foundation’s R&D funding is distributed via the grant process. In a House hearing, NSF’s
Inspector General Allison C. Lerner testified that—among other issues—the Foundation faced
ongoing challenges in ensuring that grant recipients comply with grant terms and conditions.
According to Lerner’s testimony, the NSF attributes this problem, at least in part, to staffing
constraints. Lerner postulated that, “If the Foundation’s budget continues to grow, the resulting
increase in awards to monitor will compound this challenge.”58
Research and Related Activities (RRA) is the largest account at the NSF. It is also the largest
source of R&D grants and funding at the Foundation. The Administration requested $6.254
billion for RRA in FY2012, a $743.7 million (13.5%) increase over the FY2011 Current Plan
level of $5.510 billion. The Administration’s FY2012 request for RRA highlighted research in
cyber-infrastructure, clean energy, nanotechnology, robotics, and the SEES (Science,
Engineering, and Education for Sustainability) portfolio, among others.
P.L. 112-55 provides $5.719 billion for RRA in FY2012. This amount is $209.1 million (3.8%)
more than the FY2011 Current Plan level and $534.5 million (8.5%) less than the President’s
request. Among other things, P.L. 112-55 allows the NSF to transfer up to $50.0 million from
RRA to the Foundation’s main construction account and permits the NSF to use RRA funds to
reimburse other federal agencies for support of the U.S. Antarctic program. If the NSF exercises
this authority, the actual amount available to RRA activities in FY2012 would be reduced. The
House Appropriations Committee recommended increasing the RRA account by $91.5 million
(1.7%) over the FY2011 Current Plan level.59 As initially passed by the Senate, H.R. 2112 would
have reduced the RRA account by $66.9 million (1.2%) from the FY2012 Current Plan level.
In addition to the provisions specifically included in the conference report on the bill (H.Rept.
112-284), the report also approves report language included in H.Rept. 112-169 or S.Rept. 112-78
that is not changed by the conference in its report. The conference report on H.R. 2112 (which
became P.L. 112-55) endorses Administration-proposed reductions to RRA programs in
FY2012—except for the proposed changes to the Radio Astronomy program. It also adopts
language from H.Rept. 112-169 supporting planned NSF activities in advanced manufacturing
and agreed to language from S.Rept. 112-78 providing $165.6 million for cybersecurity research.
Provisions in one or more of the reports include encouraging the Foundation to sustain and
increase investments in neuroscience; directing the NSF to report on its plans to offer innovation
prizes and on ways to balance access to, and protection of, scientific data; and attending to the
Foundation’s astronomy activities, as well as its support for scientific facilities and
instrumentation.
P.L. 112-55 also provides $150.9 million in RRA funds for the Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) program in FY2012. This amount is $4.1 million
more than the FY2011 enacted funding level of $146.8 million and $9.6 million less than the
Administration’s FY2012 request. The EPSCoR program seeks to improve the research
58
Testimony of NSF Inspector General Allison C. Lerner, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Oversight of the National Science Foundation
(NSF) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), hearings, 112th Cong., 1st sess., February 11,
2011, p. 3, http://appropriations.house.gov/_files/NSFIGAllisonCLerner.pdf.
59
The House Committee on Appropriations’ recommendation for RRA included $54.0 million that in prior years was
transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard for icebreaking services.
Congressional Research Service
34
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
competitiveness of states with historically low federal research funding rates. NSF’s FY2012
budget documents indicate that the Foundation plans to have EPSCoR independently evaluated.60
Other accounts that support R&D at the National Science Foundation include the Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) and the Education and Human Resources
(EHR) accounts. Although EHR primarily funds STEM education programs, the Foundation
indicates that it supports R&D in this account as well.
The Administration’s FY2012 MREFC request for $224.7 million was a $107.6 million increase
(91.9%) over the FY2011 Current Plan level of $117.1 million. The MREFC request included
funding for the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON, $87.9 million), Ocean
Observatories Initiative (OOI, $102.8 million), and other projects. The Administration requested
no new MREFC funds for the Alaska Region Research Vessel or IceCube Neutrino Observatory
in FY2012, both of which are now fully funded.
P.L. 112-55 provides $167.1 million for the MREFC account in FY2012, which is $50.0 million
(42.8%) more than the FY2011 Current Plan level and $57.6 million (25.6%) less than the
Administration’s FY2012 budget request. In addition, P.L. 112-55 gives the Foundation the option
of transferring as much as $50.0 million from RRA to MREFC. The conference report on H.R.
2112 directs the NSF to prioritize projects that are near completion and raises concerns about
construction funding management at the Foundation (particularly the management of contingency
funds). S.Rept. 112-78 states that its recommendation includes funding for certain ongoing
projects (e.g., Atacama Large Millimeter Array) and for continued construction of the OOI.
S.Rept. 112-78 also indicates that the NSF may use funds transferred from the RRA account to
fully fund OOI or begin work on NEON.
The President requested $911.2 million for EHR in FY2012, a $50.2 million increase (5.8%) over
the FY2011 Current Plan level of $861.0 million. Relative to the FY2011, the FY2012 request
would have shifted (by 1.2%) the EHR portfolio in the direction of graduate support.61 This is
relevant to R&D policy because (1) graduate students are a significant component of the U.S.
R&D workforce, and (2) because graduate student enrollment in science and engineering (S&E)
fields appears to be increasing, which may increase demand for the Graduate Research
Fellowship (GRF) and thereby increase caseload pressure on this account. The Administration’s
FY2012 request also proposed program changes in EHR including reorganization, addition, and
elimination of programs.
P.L. 112-55 provides $829.0 million for EHR in FY2012. This amount is $32.0 million (-3.7%)
less than the FY2011 Current Plan level and $82.2 million (-9.1%) less than the Administration’s
request. The conference report on H.R. 2112 endorses the Administration’s proposed terminations
and reductions in EHR—except for proposed reductions to the Math and Science Partnership and
Robert Noyce Scholarship programs. The conference report also adopts FY2011 funding levels
for NSF’s Broadening Participation at the Core programs (e.g., the Tribal Colleges and
Universities Program), directs the NSF to report on how it will address the needs of HispanicServing Institutions, and provides $20.0 million more than the requested level of funding for the
Federal Cyber Service: Scholarships for Service program ($45.0 million, total)—among other
60
National Science Foundation, “Integrative Activities,” FY2012 Budget Request to Congress, February 14, 2011, p.
IA-4, http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2012/pdf/00a_fy2012.pdf.IA-4.
61
Budget data as per e-mail communication between CRS and House Appropriations Committee staff, July 19, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
35
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
things. Both H.Rept. 112-169 and S.Rept. 112-78 urge the NSF to ensure that GRF applicants are
not rejected for reasons unrelated to the merits of their proposed research (e.g., the applicant’s
major). S.Rept. 112-78 strongly encourages NSF to continue support for undergraduate STEM
education and the Professional Science Master’s program.
The Administration requested $357.7 million for the Agency Operations and Award Management
(AOAM) account, a $58.3 million (19.5%) increase over NSF’s FY2011 Current Plan level of
$299.4 million. The FY2012 request included funding for a new NSF headquarters. The
Administration also sought increases of $1.0 million and $0.3 million, respectively, for NSF’s
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and the National Science Board (NSB). P.L. 112-55
provides $299.4 million for the AOAM account, $14.2 million for the OIG ($200,000 increase
over the FY2011 Current Plan level), and $4.4 million for the NSB. S.Rept. 112-78 states that the
purpose of the increase for the OIG is to enhance accountability. H.Rept. 112-169 encourages the
OIG to focus specifically on oversight activities with potential monetary ramifications (such as
grantee oversight and management).
The Administration’s FY2012 budget request proposed funding for certain NSF-wide investments
that draw from more than one Foundation account, including the interagency Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) and National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) efforts, and NSF’s Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES)
portfolio. For FY2012 the Administration requested $1.258 billion for NITRD62 and $456.0
million for the NNI.63 (NSF is a principal funding agency for both of these efforts.) The
Administration also asked for $998.2 million for the SEES portfolio.64 FY2012 congressional
funding bills and related documents do not specify funding for these accounts as such.
Finally, the Administration’s FY2012 request proposed eliminating six NSF programs: Deep
Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory, Graduate STEM Fellow in K-12 Education,
National STEM Distributed Learning Program, Research Initiation Grants to Broaden
Participation in Biology, Science Learning Centers, and the Synchrotron Radiation Center. Funds
from these activities would be redirected to other Foundation accounts.
62
For more information on NITRD, see CRS Report RL33586, The Federal Networking and Information Technology
Research and Development Program: Background, Funding, and Activities, by (name redacted).
63
For more information on the NNI, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview,
Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by (name redacted)
64
The SEES portfolio focuses on sustainability, including fundamental climate and energy science research.
Congressional Research Service
36
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Table 10. National Science Foundation
(in millions of dollars)
FY2011
Current
Plan
FY2012
Request
H.R. 2596
As Reported
in House
H.R. 2112
As Passed in
Senate
FY2012
Enacted
P.L. 112-55
Biological Sciences
711.6
794.5
n/d
n/d
n/d
Computer & Information
Science & Engineering
635.1
728.4
n/d
n/d
n/d
Engineering
762.7
908.3
n/d
n/d
n/d
Geosciences
884.8
979.2
n/d
n/d
n/d
1,308.3
1,432.7
n/d
n/d
n/d
Social, Behavioral & Economic
Sciences
247.2
301.1
n/d
n/d
n/d
Office of Cyberinfrastructure
209.9
236.0
n/d
n/d
n/d
Office of International Science &
Engineering
49.0
58.0
n/d
n/d
n/d
U.S. Polar Programs
439.4
477.4
n/d
n/d
n/d
Integrative Activities
260.3
336.3
n/d
n/d
n/d
1.6
1.6
n/d
n/d
n/d
5,509.9
6,253.5
5,601.4
5,443.0
5,719.0
Education & Human Resources
861.0
911.2
834.2
829.0
829.0
Major Research Equipment &
Facilities Construction
117.1
224.7
99.9
117.1
167.1
Agency Ops. & Award Mgmt.
299.4
357.7
299.1
290.4
299.4
National Science Board
4.5
4.8
4.5
4.4
4.4
Office of Inspector General
14.0
15.0
14.0
14.2
14.2
6,805.9
7,767.0
6,853.0
6,698.1
7,033.1
Mathematical and Physical
Sciences
U.S. Arctic Research Comm.
Subtotal Research &
Related Activities
Total NSF
Source: National Science Foundation, FY2012 Budget Request to Congress, Arlington, VA, February 14, 2011; and
NSF “FY2011 Current Plan, By Program Activity” as per e-mail communication between the author and Karen
Pearce, senior legislative policy analyst, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, National Science Foundation, July
21, 2011.
Notes: The totals do not include carryovers or retirement accruals. Totals may differ from the sum of the
components due to rounding. FY2011 enacted levels may differ. U.S. Polar Programs funding levels in the FY2011
Current Plan column exclude $54.0 million transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard for icebreaking services (per P.L.
112-10). The term “n/d” means “not defined.”
Congressional Research Service
37
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology65
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 final FY2012 appropriation for NIST totals $750.8 million, essentially the same as the
$750.1 million provided in FY2011. This amount is 25.0% below the Administration’s request;
7.1% above H.R. 2596, as reported from the House Committee on Appropriations; and 10.4%
more than H.R. 2112, as originally passed by the Senate. Support for research and development
under the Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account increases 14.0% from
the FY2011 figure of $497.4 million to $567.0 million. This figure represents a 16.5% decrease
from the President’s proposal, but is 9.7% more than that contained in H.R. 2596 and is 13.4%
above the amount in the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2112. Under the Industrial Technology
Services (ITS) account, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program receives $128.4
million, the same appropriation as FY2011, 10.0% less than the budget request, identical to the
support included in H.R. 2596, and 7.0% above H.R. 2112 as first passed by the Senate. No
funding is provided for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP), the Baldrige National Quality
Program, or a new program proposed in the President’s budget called the Advanced
Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech). The construction budget is $55.4 million,
20.7% less than FY2011, 34.5% below the budget proposal, the same as in H.R. 2596, and 7.7%
less than the original Senate-passed version of H.R. 2112.
The Administration’s FY2012 budget proposed $1.001 billion in funding for NIST, a 33.4%
increase over the FY2011 appropriation. The STRS account would have expanded 36.5% to
$678.9 million (excluding the Baldrige National Quality Program which has been transferred out
of STRS). Budgeted under the ITS account, the MEP program would have received $142.6
million, 11.1% more than FY2011, while funding for TIP would have increased to $75.0 million,
67.4% over the FY2011 figure. Also under ITS, support for the Baldrige program would have
decreased 19.8% to $7.7 million. A new program, AMTech, would have been created and funded
at $12.3 million. The construction budget would have increased 21.0% to $84.6 million. (See
Table 11.)
H.R. 2596, as reported from the House Committee on Appropriations, would have provided
$700.8 million for NIST, 6.6% below the FY2011 appropriation and 30.0% below the President’s
request. The $517.0 million in funding for the STRS account represented a 3.9% increase over
FY2011, but would have been 23.8% below the proposed budget number. Support for MEP at
$128.4 million was the same as FY2011, but would have been 10.0% less than the
Administration’s request. Construction funding of $55.4 million reflected a 20.7% decrease from
65
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
38
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
the FY2011 figure and was 34.5% below the budget proposal. No appropriations were provided
for TIP, the Baldrige program, or AMTech.
The FY2012 consolidated appropriations bill covering the Department of Commerce (among
other agencies) originally passed by the Senate, H.R. 2112, would have funded NIST at $680.0
million, 2.9% below the amount in H.R. 2596, 32.1% below the Administration’s budget request,
and 9.3% below the FY2011 appropriation. Funding for the STRS account totaled $500.0 million,
3.2% below the figure in H.R. 2596, 26.4% less than the budget request, and 1.4% below the
amount appropriated in FY2011. Under the ITS account, $120.0 million would be provided for
the MEP program. This amount was 6.5% less than that recommended in H.R. 2596 and that
appropriated for FY2011, as well as 15.8% less than the Administration’s budget figure. No
funding was provided for TIP, the Baldrige National Quality Program, or AMTech. Construction
support would have totaled $60.0 million, 8.3% more than the amount included in the House bill,
29.1% below the President’s budget number, and 14.2% below the FY2011 appropriation.
NIST’s extramural programs (currently the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the
Technology Innovation Program), which are directed toward increased private sector
commercialization, have been a source of contention. The Administration’s FY2012 budget
would have established and provided support for an additional extramural program, AMTech.
Some Members of Congress have expressed skepticism over a “technology policy” based on
providing federal funds to industry for the development of “pre-competitive generic”
technologies. This approach, coupled with pressures to balance the federal budget, has led to
significant reductions in appropriations for several of these NIST activities. The Advanced
Technology Program (ATP) and the MEP, which accounted for more than 50% of the FY1995
NIST budget, were proposed for elimination. In 2007, ATP was terminated and replaced by the
Technology Innovation Program. The final FY2012 appropriations legislation does not provide
any funding for TIP or the AMTech program requested by the President.66
Increases in spending for NIST laboratories that perform the research essential to the mission
responsibilities of the agency have tended to remain small. As part of the American
Competitiveness Initiative, announced by former President Bush in the 2006 State of the Union
address, the Administration stated its intention to double funding over 10 years for “innovationenabling research” done, in part, at NIST through its “core” programs (defined as the STRS
account and the construction budget). In April 2009, President Obama indicated his decision to
continue efforts to double the budget of key science agencies, including NIST, over 10 years. In
President Obama’s FY2011 budget, the timeframe for doubling slipped to 11 years and his
FY2012 budget was intentionally silent on a timeframe for doubling. While the FY2012
appropriations do not include an increase in support for NIST, there is a substantial (14.0%)
increase in funding for R&D under the STRS account.67
66
For additional information on the MEP and TIP programs, see CRS Report RS22815, The Technology Innovation
Program, and CRS Report 97-104, Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program: An Overview, both by (name red
acted).
67
For additional information on NIST, see CRS Report 95-30, The National Institute of Standards and Technology: An
Appropriations Overview.
Congressional Research Service
39
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Table 11. NIST
(in millions of dollars)
FY2011
Enacted
FY2012
Request
H.R. 2596
As Reported
H.R. 2112
As Passed by
Senate
FY2012
Enacted
P.L. 112-55
497.4
678.9
517.0
500.0
567.0
TIP
44.8
75.0
0
0
0
MEP
128.4
142.6
128.4
120.0
128.4
Baldrige
Program
9.6
7.7
0
0
0
12.3
0
0
0
NIST Program
STRSa
ITS
AMTech
Construction
69.9
84.6
55.4
60.0
55.4
NIST Totalb
750.1
1001.1
700.8
680.0
750.8
Sources: NIST website (available at http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/budget.htm), P.L. 111-117, P.L. 112-10,
and Administration’s FY2012 Budget Request.
a.
Excludes FY2011 funding for the Baldrige National Quality Program; funding for this program is included in
FY2011 Enacted columns under ITS for comparison purposes.
b.
Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration68
The Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
conducts scientific research in areas such as ecosystems, climate, global climate change, weather,
and oceans; supplies information on the oceans and atmosphere; and manages coastal and marine
organisms and environments. NOAA was created in 1970 by Reorganization Plan No. 4.69 The
reorganization was intended to unify certain of the nation’s environmental activities and to
provide a systematic approach for monitoring, analyzing, and protecting the environment.
NOAA’s R&D efforts focus on three areas: climate; weather and air quality; and ocean, coastal,
and Great Lakes resources. The FY2012 appropriation funded NOAA R&D at $580.6 million,
$48.4 million (7.7%) less than the FY2011-enacted level of $629.0 million and $156.3 million
(21.2%) less than the FY2012 request of $736.9 million. R&D accounted for 11.9% of NOAA’s
total FY2012-enacted discretionary budget of $4.894 billion. NOAA R&D FY2012-enacted
funding consisted of approximately $406 million for research (70.0%), $37 million for
development (6.4%), and $137 million for R&D equipment (23.6%). Excluding equipment, about
$335 million (75.5%) funded intramural programs and $109 million (24.5%) funded extramural
programs.70
68
This section was written by (name redacted), Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
69
“Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970,” 35 Fed. Reg. 15627-15630, October 6, 1970; also, see
http://www.lib.noaa.gov/noaainfo/heritage/ReorganizationPlan4.html.
70
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration FY 2013
Budget Summary, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, February 2012,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
40
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
NOAA’s administrative structure has evolved into five line offices that reflect its diverse mission,
including the National Ocean Service (NOS); National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS);
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS); National Weather
Service (NWS); and Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). In addition to NOAA’s
five line offices, Program Support (PS), a cross-cutting budget activity, includes the Office of
Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO). NOAA’s FY2012 budget request proposed a budget
neutral reorganization of its administrative structure by establishing a Climate Service (CS) line
office. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2012 (P.L. 112-74) did not include the NOAA
Climate Service as requested by the Administration and recommended by the Senate.
OAR is the primary center for R&D within NOAA. The President’s FY2012 request would have
funded OAR R&D at $175.1 million, a reduction of $214.8 million (55.1%) from the FY2011enacted level of $389.9 million. Most of the reduction would have resulted from moving R&D
funding to the proposed Climate Service. However, the final budget did not include a Climate
Service line office and OAR has retained its R&D funding. For 2012, OAR R&D activities and
equipment were funded at $348.1 million, a decrease of $41.9 million (10.7%) from the FY2011eacted level of $389.9 million. FY2012-enacted R&D funding included $281.9 million for
research and development and $66.2 million for equipment.71 Table 12 provides R&D funding
levels by line office for FY2010-enacted, FY2011-enacted, FY2012-requested, and FY2012enacted funding levels.
The NOAA Research Council, an internal body composed of scientific personnel, developed the
current NOAA 5-Year Research Plan for 2008-2012. The plan identified the most pressing
research challenges as a set of six overarching questions. NOAA’s research and development
portfolio is structured around finding answers to these questions:72
What factors, human and otherwise, influence ecosystem processes and impact our ability to
manage marine ecosystems and forecast their future state?
What is the current state of biodiversity in the oceans, and what impacts will external forces
have on this diversity and how we use our oceans and coasts?
What are the causes and consequences of climate variability and change?
What improvements to observing systems, analysis approaches, and models will allow us to
better analyze and predict the atmosphere, ocean, and hydrological land processes?
How can the accuracy and warning times for severe weather and other high-impact
environmental events be increased significantly?
How are uncertainties in our analysis and predictions best estimated and communicated?
(...continued)
http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/fy13_budget_highlights/chapter8_ResearchDevelopment.pdf.
71
Stacy Dennery, Budget Analyst, NOAA Budget Office, e-mail, March 7, 2012.
72
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration FY 2012
Budget Summary, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, February 2011,
http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/fy12_bluebook/chapter7_Research_Development.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
41
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
Table 12. NOAA R&D
(in millions of dollars)
FY2010
Actual
FY2011
Enacted
FY2012
Request
FY2012
Enacted
P.L. 112-55
NOS
$71.9
$71.6
$91.0
64.5
NMFS
54.6
55.4
84.0
52.0
OAR
405.5
389.9
175.1
348.1
CS
N/A
N/A
246.5
N/A
NWS
41.2
21.5
34.1
20.4
NESDIS
25.7
28.9
28.4
26.7
OMAOa
85.8
61.8
77.8
68.8
Total R&Db
684.7
629.0
736.9
580.6
NOAA Total
4,737.5
4,588.0
5,485.7
4,893.7
NOAA Line Office
Sources: Stacy Dennery, Budget Analyst, NOAA Budget Office, e-mail, March 7, 2012.
Notes: N/A=Climate Service was proposed as a line office in FY2012 request, but the conference agreement did
not include the Climate Service as a line office in the final budget.
a.
All OMAO R&D funding is for equipment.
b.
Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration73
The Administration requested $16.637 billion for NASA R&D in FY2012. This amount was an
increase of 11.0% over the FY2011 enacted level of $14.991 billion. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended $14.941 billion. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$15.885 billion. The final appropriation was $15.850 billion. For a breakdown of these amounts,
as well as the amounts authorized for NASA in FY2012 by the NASA Authorization Act of 2010
(P.L. 111-267), see Table 13.
The increase in NASA R&D funding in FY2012, despite a decrease in funding for NASA as a
whole, was made possible by the retirement of the space shuttles. The space shuttle program is
classified as an operational expense, not R&D. The last shuttle flight was completed in July
2011.74
The Administration’s $5.017 billion request for NASA Science in FY2012 was a 2.0% increase
from FY2011. The request included continuation of a global climate research initiative first
proposed in FY2011 and support for the development and launch of several missions
recommended by the National Academies in the 2007 decadal survey.75 An independent review of
73
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
74
The space shuttle program continued to receive an appropriation in FY2012, mostly to cover a shortfall in the defined
benefit pension plan of the contractor that managed space shuttle operations.
75
National Research Council, Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
42
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) in October 2010 estimated that the project was 15
months behind schedule and $1.4 billion over budget.76 The revised JWST program that NASA
developed in response to this finding has an estimated total lifecycle cost of $8.835 billion and
projects a launch date in 2018.77 The House committee recommended $4.499 billion for Science,
including $100 million less than the request for Earth Science and no funding for JWST. The
Senate committee recommended $5.100 billion, including $156 million more than the request for
JWST, and recommended capping the development portion of the cost of JWST at $8 billion. The
final appropriation was $5.090 billion, including the same amount as the Senate for JWST. The
final bill capped the formulation and development cost of JWST at $8 billion. The conference
report directed the Government Accountability Office to assess the JWST program continuously
and provide annual reports on the program’s management, cost, schedule, and technical status.
The request for Aeronautics was $569 million, an increase of 6.7% from FY2011. The request
included increases for selected research topics, such as the effects of high-altitude ice crystals on
aircraft, in categories identified by the 2010 authorization act (P.L. 111-267, §902). The requested
funding for hypersonics was reduced and focused on foundational research. The House
committee recommended the requested amount and supported NASA’s proposed shifts of
emphasis within the program. The Senate committee recommended $501 million. The final
appropriation was $570 million.
For Space Technology, the Administration requested $1.024 billion. About half of this total ($497
million) was for Crosscutting Space Technology Development (CSTD), a mostly new activity.
The request for CSTD was comparable to the amount authorized for Space Technology in
FY2012 by the 2010 authorization act ($486 million). Most of the remainder of the request for
Space Technology was for two activities transferred from other accounts: Exploration Technology
Development from the Exploration account and Small Business Innovation Research from the
Cross-Agency Support account. The request proposed roughly doubling the funding for the
transferred activities. The House committee recommended a total of $375 million for Space
Technology. The House committee report stated that “NASA’s proposal to more than triple the
size of this program over the course of two fiscal years is premature,” but that ongoing program
planning during FY2012 “will put the program in a stronger position to seek additional resources
in future requests.” The Senate committee recommended $637 million, including $210 million for
CSTD. The Senate committee report expressed “regret” at “not being able to fund this promising
new program more robustly.” The final appropriation was $575 million, to be “prioritized toward
the continuation of ongoing programs and activities.”
The Administration’s request for Exploration in FY2012 was $3.949 billion, a 0.5% increase over
FY2011 but about 25% less than the authorized amount. Before passage of the final FY2011
appropriation, the bulk of this account funded the Constellation program, including the Orion
crew vehicle and the Ares I rocket for carrying humans into low Earth orbit and the heavy-lift
Ares V cargo rocket and other systems needed for a human mission to the Moon. In FY2012, the
(...continued)
and Beyond, 2007, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11820.html.
76
Final report of the JWST Independent Comprehensive Review Panel, October 29, 2010, http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/
499224main_JWST-ICRP_Report-FINAL.pdf; and GAO, NASA: Assessments of Selected Large-Scale Projects, GAO11- 239SP, March 2011, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11239sp.pdf.
77
S.Rept. 112-284, p. 254. Full details of the JWST replan are expected to be released in February 2012 as part of the
FY2013 budget request.
Congressional Research Service
43
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
account instead funds development of the Multipurpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and heavy-lift
Space Launch System (SLS) mandated by the 2010 authorization act. Although this is a
substantial change, many elements of Orion and Ares are included in the MPCV and SLS. The
Exploration request included $2.810 billion for MPCV and SLS in FY2012, compared with “not
less than” $2.994 billion in the FY2011 appropriation and $4.050 billion for FY2012 in the
authorization act. The request also included $850 million in FY2012 to help companies develop
commercial crew transport services to low Earth orbit, compared with $307 million in FY2011
and $500 million for FY2012 in the authorization act.78 The House committee recommended
$3.645 billion for Exploration, including $3.045 billion for MPCV and SLS and $312 million for
commercial crew. The Senate committee recommended $3.775 billion, including $3.000 billion
for MPCV and SLS and $500 million for commercial crew. The final appropriation was $3.771
billion, including $3.060 billion for MPCV and SLS and $406 million for commercial crew. The
conference report directed NASA to develop “a set of science-based exploration goals; a target
destination or destinations that will enable the achievement of those goals; a schedule for the
proposed attainment of those goals; and a plan for any proposed collaboration with international
partners.”
The request for the International Space Station (ISS) was $2.842 billion, an increase of 4.7% from
FY2011. The request included an additional $60 million for ISS research, as well as increased
funding for crew and cargo transportation to and from orbit. Because of the retirement of the
space shuttles in FY2011, transportation services in FY2012 will be obtained under contract with
international partners and commercial providers. The House committee recommended $2.764
billion for the ISS. The Senate committee recommended $2.804 billion. The final appropriation
was $2.830 billion.
Table 13. NASA R&D
(in millions of dollars)
FY2011
Enacted
FY2011
Op. Plan
FY2012
Auth.
FY2012
Request
FY2012
House
FY2012
Senate
FY2012
Final
$4,935.4
$4,919.7
$5,248.6
$5,016.8
$4,499.5
$5,100.0
$5,090.0
Earth Science
n/a
1,721.9
1,944.5
1,797.4
1,697.3
1,765.5
1,765.7
Planetary Science
n/a
1,449.2
1,547.2
1,540.7
1,498.5
1,500.4
1,500.4
Astrophysics
n/a
1,109.5
1,109.3
682.7
682.3
682.2
672.0
Science
James Webb Space Telescopea
—
—
—
373.7
0.0
529.6
529.6
Heliophysics
n/a
639.2
647.6
622.3
621.4
622.3
622.3
Aeronautics
533.9
533.5
584.7
569.4
569.4
501.0
569.9
Space Technology
—
—
486.0
1,024.2
374.6
637.0
575.0
Exploration
3,800.7
3,928.6
5,252.3
3,948.7
3,645.4
3,775.0
3,770.8
Human Exploration Capabilities
2,994.0b
2,982.1
4,050.0
2,810.2
3,045.0
3,000.0
3,060.0
Commercial Spaceflight
n/a
606.8
500.0
850.0
311.7
500.0
406.0
Exploration R&D
n/a
339.7
702.3
288.5
288.7
275.0
304.8
International Space Station
n/a
2,713.6
2,952.2
2,841.5
2,764.2
2,803.5
2,830.0
78
Funding for Commercial Spaceflight in FY2011 also included $299 million to develop commercial cargo services.
Congressional Research Service
44
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
FY2011
Enacted
FY2011
Op. Plan
FY2012
Auth.
FY2012
Request
FY2012
House
FY2012
Senate
FY2012
Final
Subtotal R&D
n/a
12,095.4
14,523.8
13,400.6
11,853.1
12,816.5
12,835.7
Other NASA Programsc
n/a
2,789.0
1,372.8
1,681.4
1,469.9
1,657.2
1,579.3
Cross-Agency Supportd
3,105.2
3,130.7
3,189.6
3,192.0
3,047.0
3,043.1
2,995.0
Associated with R&D
n/a
2,544.1
2,914.2
2,836.1
2,710.8
2,694.7
2,666.9
Associated with Other
n/a
586.6
275.4
355.9
336.2
348.4
328.1
Construction & Environ. C&Rd
393.5
432.8
363.8
450.4
423.6
422.0
390.0
Associated with R&D
n/a
351.7
332.4
400.2
376.8
373.7
347.3
Associated with Other
n/a
81.1
31.4
50.2
46.7
48.3
42.7
Total R&D
n/a
14,991.2
17,770.3
16,636.9
14,940.7
15,884.9
15,849.8
Total NASA
18,448.0
18,448.0
19,450.0
18,724.3
16,793.4
17,938.8
17,800.0
Source: FY2011 enacted from P.L. 112-10. FY2011 operating plan from NASA’s August 2011 operating plan.
FY2012 authorized from P.L. 111-267. FY2012 request from NASA’s FY2012 congressional budget justification,
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/. FY2012 House from H.R. 2596 as reported and H.Rept. 112-169. FY2012
Senate from S. 1572 as reported and S.Rept. 112-78. FY2012 final from P.L. 112-55 and H.Rept. 112-284.
Notes: Totals and subtotals may differ from the sum of their components due to rounding. FY2011 enacted
amounts for some items are not available (n/a) because in most cases P.L. 112-10 did not specify how to allocate
funds below the account level. FY2012 House amounts are adjusted for the 0.1% general rescission (H.R. 2596,
§543). The rescission of $30 million in unobligated prior-year funds in the House bill (H.R. 2596, §528(e)) and the
final act (P.L. 112-55, §528(f)) is not shown here.
a.
Included in Astrophysics prior to the FY2012 request.
b.
P.L. 112-10 provided “not less than” $2,994.0 million for Human Exploration Capabilities.
c.
Space Shuttle, Space and Flight Support, Education, and Inspector General.
d.
Allocation between R&D and non-R&D is estimated by CRS in proportion to the underlying program
amounts in order to allow calculation of a total for R&D. The Cross-Agency Support and Construction and
Environmental Compliance and Remediation accounts consist mostly of indirect costs for other programs,
assessed in proportion to their direct costs.
Department of Agriculture79
U.S. Department of Agriculture research and education activities are included in four
organizations: the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA),80 Economic Research Service (ERS), and National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS). The Administration’s FY2012 request included $2.594 billion for these
activities, an increase of 0.3% over FY2011 funding of $2.586 billion. The House-passed funding
level for these activities was $2.235 billion; the Senate-passed level was $2.539 billion. Final
appropriations for FY2012 provided for in the Consolidated and Further Appropriations Act,
FY2012 (P.L. 112-55) was $2.533 billion, $60.6 million below the Administration’s request and
$52.8 million below the FY2011 enacted level. For a breakdown of these amounts, see Table 14.
79
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
80
NIFA was formerly the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES).
Congressional Research Service
45
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012
The Agricultural Research Service is USDA’s in-house basic and applied research agency, and
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.