# Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012 > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41706 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** April 6, 2012 - **Citation:** R41706 ## 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 informati [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41706. Public record. Not legal advice.