Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
Congressional research reportDec 5, 2013
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Federal Research and Development Funding:
FY2013
name redacted
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
December 5, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R42410
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
Summary
President Obama’s budget request for FY2013 included $140.820 billion for research and
development (R&D), a $1.951 billion (1.4%) increase from the FY2012 estimated funding level
of $138.869 billion. The FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L.
113-6), signed into law on March 26, 2013, provided year-long appropriations to all agencies for
FY2013. The law included divisions incorporating five of the regular appropriations bills—
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies;
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies; Department of Defense; Department of
Homeland Security; and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies—and
included continuing appropriations for agencies covered under the other regular appropriations
bills. Agency appropriations were subject to one or more rescissions as well as sequestration. For
several agencies, research and development (R&D) funding is included in accounts with nonR&D activities. For such agencies, unless Congress provides funding at the full request level as
requested, it is not possible to know the agency’s R&D funding level. In such cases, the funding
level may not be known until it is included in the President’s FY2015 budget request and/or
agency budget justifications. When final appropriations are not resolved until after the President’s
next fiscal year budget request is prepared (as was the case for FY2013 appropriations and the
President’s FY2014 request) funding for agency R&D may not be known until the subsequent
year’s budget request. However, some agencies may opt to provide funding estimates, publicly or
privately (for example, in response to a CRS inquiry). Determination of funding levels can be
complicated by a number of factors, including rescissions, sequestration, supplemental funding,
transfers, and reprogramming. Agency analyses in this report use the most current information
available at the time this report was published.
Funding for R&D is highly concentrated in a few departments. Under President Obama’s FY2013
budget request, seven federal agencies would have received 95.8% of total federal R&D funding,
the largest among them being the Department of Defense (50.6%) and the Department of Health
and Human Services (22.3%, primarily for the National Institutes of Health). Among the largest
changes proposed in the President’s request, the R&D budget of the Department of Defense
would have fallen by $1.535 billion (2.1%), while R&D funding for the Department of
Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would have increased by
$1.329 billion. The proposed NIST growth was fueled by increases in funding for its core
research laboratories and by the establishment of two new initiatives: $1 billion for the National
Network for Manufacturing Innovation, which seeks to promote the development of
manufacturing technologies with broad applications, and $300 million for a Wireless Innovation
(WIN) Fund to help develop cutting-edge technologies for public safety users.
President Obama also requested increases in the R&D budgets of NIST, the National Science
Foundation, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science that were targeted for doubling
over 7 years, from their FY2006 levels, by the America COMPETES Act, and over 11 years by
the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. The funding requested for FY2013 was
consistent with a doubling timeframe of 17 years, much longer than authorized by either act.
The President’s budget request sought support for three multi-agency R&D initiatives in FY2013:
$1.766 billion for the National Nanotechnology Initiative, an increase of $70 million (4.1%) over
FY2012; $3.807 billion for the Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development program, an increase of $69 million (1.8%); and $2.633 billion for the U.S. Global
Change Research Program, an increase of $136 million (5.6%).
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
Contents
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1
Federal R&D Funding Perspectives ................................................................................................ 3
Agency Perspective ................................................................................................................... 4
Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment Perspective ....................................................... 5
Combined Perspective ............................................................................................................... 5
Multiagency R&D Initiatives........................................................................................................... 7
Doubling Effort.......................................................................................................................... 7
National Nanotechnology Initiative......................................................................................... 10
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program .................... 11
U.S. Global Change Research Program................................................................................... 11
Materials Genome Initiative .................................................................................................... 11
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership ..................................................................................... 12
National Robotics Initiative .............................................................................................. 12
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation ............................................................. 12
FY2013 Appropriations Status....................................................................................................... 13
Department of Defense .................................................................................................................. 16
Department of Homeland Security ................................................................................................ 19
National Institutes of Health .......................................................................................................... 22
Department of Energy .................................................................................................................... 28
National Science Foundation ......................................................................................................... 30
FY2013 Funding Status of Major NSF Accounts.............................................................. 31
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ........................................................................... 36
Department of Commerce.............................................................................................................. 39
National Institute of Standards and Technology ...................................................................... 39
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ................................................................ 42
Department of Agriculture ............................................................................................................. 44
Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................. 48
U.S. Geological Survey ........................................................................................................... 48
Other DOI Agencies ................................................................................................................ 49
Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 50
Department of Transportation ........................................................................................................ 55
Figures
Figure 1. Doubling of Research Funding for Targeted Accounts: Appropriations and
Authorizations Versus Selected Rates......................................................................................... 10
Tables
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2011-FY2013 ..................... 4
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
Table 2. Federal Research and Development Funding by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2011-FY2013................................................................................................. 5
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2011-FY2013................................................................................................. 6
Table 4. Funding for Targeted Accounts FY2006-FY2011 (Actual), FY2012 (Estimated),
and FY2013 (Estimate) ................................................................................................................. 9
Table 5. Alignment of Agency R&D Funding and Regular Appropriations Bills ......................... 15
Table 6. Department of Defense RDT&E ...................................................................................... 18
Table 7. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs ..................................... 21
Table 8. National Institutes of Health Funding .............................................................................. 26
Table 9. Department of Energy R&D and Related Programs ........................................................ 29
Table 10. NSF Funding by Major Account .................................................................................... 35
Table 11. NASA R&D ................................................................................................................... 38
Table 12. NIST ............................................................................................................................... 41
Table 13. NOAA R&D................................................................................................................... 43
Table 14. U.S. Department of Agriculture Research, Education, and Extension Mission
Area Appropriations ................................................................................................................... 46
Table 15. Department of the Interior R&D .................................................................................... 50
Table 16. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account .......................................................... 54
Table 17. Department of Transportation R&D .............................................................................. 56
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 57
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
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. 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 (e.g., national defense, health, safety, the environment, 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.
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. Some
Members of Congress have expressed concerns about the level of federal funding in light of the
current federal fiscal condition, deficit, and debt. As Congress acted to complete the FY2013
appropriations process it faced two overarching issues: 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. Low or negative growth in the overall R&D
investment may require movement of resources across disciplines, programs, or agencies to
address priorities.
This report provides government-wide, multi-agency, and individual agency analyses of the
President’s FY2013 request as it relates to R&D and related activities and congressional actions
on appropriations legislation, and specific information on appropriations enacted by Congress in
the FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, (P.L. 113-6) for agencies
that have made such information available. Agency FY2013 appropriations were subject to one or
more rescissions as well as sequestration.
For several agencies, research and development (R&D) funding is included in accounts with nonR&D activities. For such agencies, unless Congress provides funding at the full request level as
requested, it is not possible to know the agency’s R&D funding level. In such cases, the funding
level may not be known until it is included in the President’s FY2015 budget request and/or
agency budget justifications. When final appropriations are not resolved until after the President’s
next fiscal year budget request is prepared (as was the case for FY2013 appropriations and the
President’s FY2014 request) funding for agency R&D may not be known until the subsequent
year’s budget request. However, some agencies may opt to provide funding estimates, publicly or
privately (for example, in response to a CRS inquiry). Determination of funding levels can be
complicated by a number of factors, including rescissions, sequestration, supplemental funding,
transfers, and reprogramming. Agency analyses in this report use the most current information
available at the time this report was published.
President Obama’s proposed FY2013 budget, released on February 13, 2012, included $140.820
billion for R&D in FY2013, a 1.4% increase over the estimated FY2012 R&D funding level of
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
$138.869 billion.1 Adjusted for inflation, the President’s FY2013 R&D request represented a
decrease of 0.2% from the FY2012 level.2
Among its provisions, the President’s FY2013 budget 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 sought to achieve this objective by authorizing increased funding
for accounts at three agencies with a strong R&D emphasis in these disciplines: the Department
of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department
of Commerce (DOC) National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) core laboratory
research and R&D facilities construction funding (collectively referred to as the “targeted
accounts”). However, appropriations provided to these agencies for FY2008, FY2009, and
FY2010 fell short of the levels authorized in P.L. 110-69. P.L. 111-358 set authorization levels for
the targeted accounts for FY2011-FY2013 at a slower growth rate than P.L. 110-69. FY2011 and
FY2012 funding for the targeted accounts fell short of their P.L. 111-358 authorized levels. For
FY2013 appropriations not only fell short of the authorized levels for the targeted accounts, but
actually decreased 3.1% from the FY2012 appropriations level. (See “Doubling Effort” later in
this report for a more detailed discussion.)
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 credit);3
however, doing so likely would have required a substantial increase in public and/or private
investment. In 2009, total U.S. R&D expenditures were $400.5 billion,4 or approximately 2.87%
of GDP.5 Based on 2009 figures, reaching President Obama’s 3% goal would have required an
increase of 4.4% in national R&D spending.
In addition, advocates for increased federal R&D funding—including President Obama’s science
advisor, John Holdren—have 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).6 The biomedical research community experienced a variety
1
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.
2
As calculated by CRS using the GDP (chained) price index from Table 10.1, Gross Domestic Product and Deflators
Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2017, from the President’s FY2013 budget. Available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist10z1.xls.
3
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 and Policy Issues for the 113th
Congress, by (name redacted).
4
Preliminary estimate of 2009 U.S. R&D expenditures, National Science Foundation, National Patterns of R&D
Resources:2008, NSF 10-314, Arlington, VA, March 2010, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10314/.
5
Based on 2009 U.S. GDP of $14,369.1 billion as reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic
Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts Table, Table 1.1.5, http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/
TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2007&LastYear=2009.
6
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.
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
of challenges resulting from such a circumstance following the five-year doubling of the National
Institutes of Health (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.7 The current effort to double funding for the targeted accounts has followed a
similar pattern, but on a smaller scale. Funding for the targeted accounts grew by about 28% from
FY2006 to FY2010 (or approximately 6.4% per year), but fell 3.6% between FY2010 and
FY2013.
Analysis of federal R&D funding is complicated by several factors, such as the inclusion of R&D
in accounts with non-R&D activities. As a result of this and other 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) (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 FY2013 budget request was the inclusion
of the Wireless Innovation (WIN) Fund, a part of the Administration’s Wireless Innovation and
Infrastructure Initiative. First proposed in the President’s FY2012 budget request, the WIN Fund
would have received $300 million in FY2013 from receipts generated through electromagnetic
spectrum auctions. The fund was intended to support development of leading-edge wireless
technologies and public safety applications. Under the President’s budget, NIST was to have
received up to $300 million in FY2013 if the WIN fund had been established. NIST intended to
use these funds to work with industry and public safety organizations on research and
development of new standards, technologies, and applications that advance public safety
communications, including establishing a competitive grant fund. The grant fund would have
awarded between $70 million and $75 million per year from FY2014 through FY2016 for related
research, development, and demonstration projects.8 Congress did not authorize the establishment
of the WIN Fund in FY2013.
Federal R&D Funding Perspectives
Federal R&D funding can be analyzed from a variety of perspectives that provide different
insights.
7
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).
8
Wireless Innovation Fund, factsheet, National Institute of Standards and Technology website, http://www.nist.gov/
public_affairs/factsheet/wireless_innov2013.cfm.
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
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 FY2011 (actual),
FY2012 (estimated), and FY2013 (request) as reported by OMB.
Under President Obama’s FY2013 budget request, seven federal agencies would have received
95.8% of total federal R&D funding: Department of Defense (DOD), 50.6%; Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) (primarily the National Institutes of Health), 22.3%;
Department of Energy (DOE), 8.5%; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
6.8%; National Science Foundation (NSF), 4.2%; Department of Commerce (DOC), 1.8%; and
Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1.6%. This report provides an analysis of the R&D budget
requests for these agencies, as well as for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
Department of the Interior (DOI), Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). In total, these agencies account for more than 98% of FY2012 actual
appropriations and FY2013 requested federal R&D funding.
The largest agency R&D increases in the President’s FY2013 request were for DOC, $1.315
billion (104.5%);9 DOE, $884 million (8.0%); HHS, $247 million (0.8%); NSF, $224 million
(3.9%); and NASA, $203 million (2.2%). Under President Obama’s FY2013 budget request,
DOD R&D funding would have been reduced by $1.535 billion (2.1%) and USDA R&D by $34
million (1.5%).
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2011-FY2013
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
FY2011
Actual
FY2012
Estimate
FY2013
Request
Dollar
Change,
2012 to
2013
Defense
77,500
72,739
71,204
-1,535
-2.1%
Health and Human Services
31,186
31,153
31,400
247
0.8%
Energy
10,673
11,019
11,903
884
8.0%
NASA
9,099
9,399
9,602
203
2.2%
National Science Foundation
5,486
5,680
5,904
224
3.9%
Commerce
1,275
1,258
2,573
1,315
104.5%
Agriculture
2,135
2,331
2,297
-34
-1.5%
Veterans Affairs
1,160
1164
1166
2
0.2%
Transportation
953
944
1,076
132
14.0%
Department/Agency
Percent
Change,
2012 to
2013
9
The Department of Commerce total includes mandatory proposals for the Wireless Innovation Network and the
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation at the National Institute for Standards and Technology. These
programs are discussed in the DOC NIST section of this report. Mandatory spending is typically provided in permanent
or multi-year appropriations contained in the authorizing law, and therefore, the funding becomes available
automatically each year, without legislative action by Congress. For additional information on mandatory spending, see
CRS Report RL33074, Mandatory Spending Since 1962, by (name redacted) and (name redacted), Mandatory
Spending Since 1962, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
FY2011
Actual
FY2012
Estimate
FY2013
Request
Dollar
Change,
2012 to
2013
Interior
757
796
854
58
7.3%
Homeland Security
664
577
729
152
26.3%
Environmental Protection Agency
584
568
580
12
2.1%
1,242
1,241
1,532
291
23.4%
142,714
138,869
140,820
1,951
1.4%
Department/Agency
Other
TotalError! Reference source not found.
Percent
Change,
2012 to
2013
Source: Executive Office of the President, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government,
Fiscal Year 2013, Table 22-1.
a.
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 FY2013 request included $30.627 billion for
basic research, up $449 million (1.5%) from FY2012; $33.369 billion for applied research, up
$1.586 billion (5.0%); $74.138 billion for development, down $345 million (0.5%); and $2.690
billion for facilities and equipment, up $265 million (10.9%).
Table 2. Federal Research and Development Funding by Character of Work,
Facilities, and Equipment, FY2011-FY2013
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Dollar
Change,
2012 to 2013
Percent
Change,
2012 to
2013
FY2011
Actual
FY2012
Estimate
FY2013
Request
Basic research
29,697
30,178
30,627
449
1.5%
Applied research
30,833
31,783
33,369
1,586
5.0%
Development
80,246
74,483
74,138
-345
-0.5%
Facilities and equipment
1,938
2,425
2,690
265
10.9%
142,714
138,869
140,820
1,951
1.4%
Totala
Source: Executive Office of the President, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government,
Fiscal Year 2013, Table 22-1.
a.
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.) In turn, the overall federal R&D budget reflects a wide range of national priorities, from
supporting advances in spaceflight to developing new and affordable sources of energy. These
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
priorities and the mission of each agency contribute, in part, to the composition of an agency’s
R&D spending (i.e., the allocation between basic research, applied research, development, and
facilities and equipment). The federal government is the nation’s largest supporter of basic
research, funding 53.2% of U.S. basic research in 2009, primarily because the private sector
asserts it cannot capture an adequate return on long-term fundamental research investments. In
contrast, industry funded only 21.7% of U.S. basic research in 2009 (with state governments,
universities, and other non-profit organizations funding the remaining 25.1%).10 In the President’s
FY2013 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.11
In contrast to basic research, industry is the primary funder of applied research in the United
States, accounting for an estimated 48.1% in 2009, while the federal government accounted for an
estimated 42.2%.12 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 FY2013
budget request.13 Industry also provides the vast majority of funding for development. Industry
accounted for an estimated 77.6% in 2009, while the federal government provided an estimated
21.3%.14 DOD is the primary federal agency funder of development, accounting for 87.0% of
total federal development funding in the President’s FY2013 budget request.15
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2011-FY2013
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
FY2011
Actual
FY2012
Estimated
FY2013
Request
Dollar
Change,
2012 to
2013
Percent
Change,
2012 to
2013
Health and Human Services
16,013
16,051
16,010
-41
-0.3%
National Science Foundation
4,636
4,778
4,987
209
4.4%
Energy
3,979
3,918
4,096
178
4.5%
Health and Human Services
15,066
14,919
15,192
273
1.8%
Defense
4,328
4,737
4,477
-260
-5.5%
Basic Research
Applied Research
10
National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2012, NSB 12-01, Appendix Table 4-8, January 2012,
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/appendix.htm.
11
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United
States Government, Fiscal Year 2012, Table 22-1, February 14, 2011.
12
National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2012, NSB 12-01, Appendix Table 4-9, January 2012,
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/appendix.htm.
13
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Table 22-1, February
13, 2012, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf.
14
National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2012, NSB 12-01, Appendix Table 4-10, January 2012,
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/appendix.htm.
15
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Table 22-1, February
13, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
FY2011
Actual
FY2012
Estimated
FY2013
Request
Dollar
Change,
2012 to
2013
3,575
3,857
4,152
295
7.6%
Defense
71,205
65,786
64,536
-1,250
-1.9%
NASA
5,299
4,975
5,131
156
3.1%
Energy
2,361
2,387
2,855
468
19.6%
Energy
758
857
800
-57
-6.7%
Commerce
254
209
632
423
202.4%
National Science Foundation
395
452
458
6
1.3%
Energy
Percent
Change,
2012 to
2013
Development
Facilities and Equipment
Source: Executive Office of the President, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government,
Fiscal Year 2013, February 13, 2012.
Note: Top funding agencies based on FY2013 request.
Multiagency R&D Initiatives
Federal R&D funding can also be viewed in terms of multiagency efforts, such as the National
Nanotechnology Initiative and presidential initiatives. President Obama’s FY2013 budget request
sought funding for six multiagency R&D initiatives discussed below.
Doubling Effort
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-FY2016) 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.16 However, 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. 111117) fell below these targets, growing at a pace consistent with doubling over approximately 11
years.17 (See Table 4 for individual and aggregate appropriations for the targeted accounts.)
16
For additional information, see CRS Report RL34328, America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected
Issues, by (name redacted).
17
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).
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
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-FY2013.18 The aggregate authorization levels in this act for the targeted accounts were
consistent with an 11-year doubling path, slower than the America COMPETES Act’s 7-year
doubling path. Appropriations fell below the levels set in P.L. 111-358 for FY2011 and FY2012.
In his FY2013 budget, President Obama requested $13.073 billion in aggregate funding for the
targeted accounts, an increase of $544.0 million (4.3%) above the enacted FY2012 aggregate
funding level of $12.529 billion, but below the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of
2010 (P.L. 111-358) level of $15.105 billion. Estimated FY2013 appropriations for the targeted
accounts as provided by P.L. 113-6, incorporating reductions due to rescissions and sequestration,
were $12.141 billion,19 $2.964 billion (19.6%) below the FY2013 authorized level, $388.1
million (3.1%) below the FY2012 appropriation level, and $457.1 million (3.6%) below FY2010
(actual) appropriations (the fiscal year preceding the authorizations provided under the America
COMPETES Reauthorization Act). The compound annual growth rate between FY2006 (actual)
appropriations and FY2013 (estimated) appropriations is 3.0%, a pace that would result in
doubling in somewhat more than 23 years—more than three times the length of time originally
envisioned in the 2007 America COMPETES Act and more than twice the doubling period
established by the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010.20
In light of ongoing 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.21 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).22 The
FY2013 budget request, like the FY2012 budget request, reiterated President Obama’s intention
to double funding for the targeted accounts from their FY2006 levels but did not specify the
length of time over which the doubling is to take place. In addition, the Office of Management
and Budget’s Public Budget Database, published as part of the President’s FY2013 request,
included projections of budget authority for the targeted accounts through FY2017 that would set
a doubling pace of more than 21 years.
18
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).
19
Estimate based on figures cited in agency operating plans/current plans as of October 31, 2013.
20
All doubling path calculations in this report use FY2006 as the baseline. For additional information on the doubling
effort, see CRS Report R41951, An Analysis of Efforts to Double Federal Funding for Physical Sciences and
Engineering Research, by (name redacted)
21
Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 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.
22
Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 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.
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
Table 4. Funding for Targeted Accounts
FY2006-FY2011 (Actual), FY2012 (Estimated), and FY2013 (Estimate)
(in millions of current dollars)
FY2012
Actual
FY2013
Est.Error
!
Reference
source
not
found.
FY2006
Actual
FY2007
Actual
FY2008
Actual
FY2009
Actual
FY2009
ARRA
FY2010
Actual
FY2011
Actual
NSF
5,646
5,884
6,084
6,469
2,402
6,972
6,913a
7,033
6,884
DOE/Office of Science
3,632
3,837
4,083
4,807
1,633
4,964
4,843
4,874
4,621
NIST/core researchc
395
434
441
472
220
515
497.4
567
580
NIST/facilities
174
59
161
172
360
147
70
55
56
9,846
10,214
10,768
11,920
4,615
12,598
12,323
12,529
12,141
Agency
Totald
Source: NIST, budget requests for FY2008-FY2013, http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/budget/index.cfm, and
NIST enacted, http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/approps-summary2014.cfm ; DOE, budget requests for
FY2008-FY2013, http://www.cfo.doe.gov/crorgcf30.htm, and DOE current plan, http://science.energy.gov/~/
media/budget/pdf/sc-congressional-appropriations/fy-2014/FY-2012_FY_2014_Request_Science_Stat_Table.pdf;
NSF, budget requests for FY2008-FY2013, http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget, and NSF operating plan,
http://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/113/highlights/cu13_0409.jsp.
a.
FY2013 figures are agency estimates that incorporate reductions due to rescissions and sequester.
b.
Includes $54.0 million transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard for icebreaking services (per P.L. 112-10).
c.
NIST core research is performed under its scientific and technical research and services (STRS) account.
d.
Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
Figure 1 shows aggregate funding for the targeted accounts as a percentage of their FY2006
funding level, and illustrates how actual (FY2006-FY2013), requested (FY2007-FY2013),
projected (FY2014-FY2017), 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.
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
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, 2012, and 2013, and current plans/operating plans for FY2013; the President’s FY2013 budget
request; and agency authorization levels from the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) and the America
COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358).
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%, the 15-year doubling represents
annual increases of 4.7%, and the 20-year doubling represents annual increases of 3.3%. 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-FY2012 is 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 FY2011FY2013 are based on aggregate funding for the target accounts as authorized by the act.
National Nanotechnology Initiative
The President requested $1.766 billion in funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative
(NNI) for FY2013, $70 million (4.1%) above the FY2012 estimated level of $1.696 billion.
Under the Administration’s FY2013 request, nanotechnology funding would have increased at the
DOE by $127 million (40.3%), at the NSF by $9 million (2.1%), at the DOC by $7 million
(7.0%), and at the EPA by $2 million (11.8%) over FY2012 funding levels. Under the 2013
request, nanotechnology funding for the DOD would have fallen by $72 million (19.9%), while
nanotechnology funding for other NNI agencies would have remained essentially flat.23 Final
23
Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Science, Technology, Innovation, and
STEM Education, Table 2, February 13, 2011. For additional information on the NNI, see CRS Report RL34401, The
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
FY2013 appropriations figures for NNI R&D are not expected to be available until the President’s
FY2015 budget is released.
Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Program
President Obama requested $3.807 billion in FY2013 funding for the Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program, $69 million (1.8%)
above FY2012 funding. The NITRD request included increases of $69 million (6.1%) for NSF,
$33 million (5.9%) for DOE, $20 million (16.4%) for DOC, and $17 million (36.2%) for DHS.
Under the 2013 request, DOD NITRD funding would have been reduced by $67 million (5.7%),
while NITRD funding for other agencies would have remained essentially flat.24 Final FY2013
appropriations figures for NITRD R&D are not expected to be available until the President’s
FY2015 budget is released.
U.S. Global Change Research Program
President Obama proposed $2.563 billion for the U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP) in FY2013, $136 million (5.6%) above the FY2012 estimated level of $2.427 billion.
Four agencies would have received the bulk of the FY2013 USGCRP funding increase under the
President’s request: NASA (up $79 million, 5.7%); DOC, including the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and NIST (up $23 million, 7.2%); DOE (up $19 million, 9.0%), and
the DOI (U.S. Geological Survey) (up $9 million, 15.3%).25 Final FY2013 appropriations figures
for USGCRP R&D are not expected to be available until the President’s FY2015 budget is
released.
Materials Genome Initiative
Announced in June 2011, the Materials Genome Initiative (MGI) is a multi-agency initiative
to create new knowledge, tools, and infrastructure with a goal of enabling U.S. industries to
discover, manufacture, and deploy advanced materials twice as fast than is possible today.
Agencies are currently developing implementation strategies for the Materials Genome
Initiative with a focus on: (1) the creation of a materials innovation infrastructure, (2)
achieving national goals with advanced materials, and (3) equipping the next generation
materials workforce. Materials science funding opportunities announced in FY 2012 and
requested in the FY 2013 Budget reflect these efforts.26
(...continued)
National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by (name redacted)
24
Ibid.
25
Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Innovation, Education, and
Infrastructure, Table 2, February 14, 2011. For additional information on the USGCRP, see CRS Report RL33817,
Climate Change: Federal Program Funding and Tax Incentives, by (name redacted).
26
E-mail correspondence between OSTP and CRS, March 14, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
In congressional testimony, OSTP Director John Holdren stated that the purpose of the Materials
Genome Initiative is to “speed our understanding of the fundamentals of materials science,
providing a wealth of practical information that American entrepreneurs and innovators will be
able to use to develop new products and processes” in much the same way that the Human
Genome Project accelerated a range of biological sciences by identifying and deciphering the
human genetic code.27 The Obama Administration has not published FY2012 or FY2013 funding
levels for the MGI.
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership
In June 2011, President Obama launched the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP), an
effort to bring together “industry, universities, and the Federal government to invest in emerging
technologies that will create high-quality manufacturing jobs and enhance our global
competitiveness.”28 Two R&D-focused components of the AMP are the National Robotics
Initiative (NRI) and the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI). The
President’s FY2013 budget included $2.2 billion for federal advanced manufacturing R&D, a
19% increase over FY2012.29
National Robotics Initiative
The National Robotics Initiative (NRI) seeks to “develop robots that work with or beside people
to extend or augment human capabilities.”30 Among the goals of the program are increasing labor
productivity in the manufacturing sector, assisting with dangerous and expensive missions in
space, accelerating the discovery of new drugs, and improving food safety by rapidly sensing
microbial contamination.31 In FY2012, four agencies—NSF, NIH, NASA, and USDA—issued a
joint solicitation to provide research funding for next-generation robotics. In addition, the
Department of Defense, through multiple component agencies, is supporting the NRI through the
Defense University Research Instrumentation Program. DOD is supporting the purchase of
equipment to assist in robotics research to advance defense technologies and applications,
including unmanned ground, air, sea, and undersea vehicles and autonomous systems.32
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation
The President’s FY2013 budget also proposed establishment of a National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) to promote the development of manufacturing technologies
27
John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, testimony
before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Science and Space, hearing
on “Keeping America Competitive Through Investments in R&D,” March 6, 2012, http://commerce.senate.gov/public/
?a=Files.Serve&File_id=fed566eb-e2c8-49da-aec5-f84e4045890b.
28
Ibid.
29
Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury, testimony before the House Committee on the
Budget, hearing on “The President’s Fiscal Year 2013 Revenue and Economic Policy Proposals,” February 16, 2012,
http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/GeithnerTestimony02162012.pdf.
30
Ibid.
31
Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, website, August 3, 2011,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/03/supporting-president-s-national-robotics-initiative.
32
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
with broad applications. This initiative was to have been carried out through a collaboration
between NIST, DOD, DOE, and NSF with mandatory funding of $1 billion.33
According to NIST, the NNMI would have consisted of
a network of institutes where researchers, companies, and entrepreneurs can come together to
develop new manufacturing technologies with broad applications. Each institute would have
a unique technology focus. These institutes will help support an ecosystem of manufacturing
activity in local areas. The Manufacturing Innovation Institutes would support manufacturing
technology commercialization by helping to bridge the gap from the laboratory to the market
and address core gaps in scaling manufacturing process technologies.34
The President’s budget proposed mandatory spending of $1 billion over 10 years (FY2013FY2022) in support of the NNMI, with initial funding of $206 million in FY2013. Funding for
the program would be front-loaded with $839 million in spending projected for FY2013FY2017.35 Congress provided no funding for this initiative for FY2013.
FY2013 Appropriations Status
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. As
of September 14, 2012, five of the eight regular appropriations bills that provide R&D funding
for agencies covered in-depth in this report had passed the House; none had passed the Senate.
On September 13, 2012, the House passed Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (H.J.Res.
117) providing appropriations for all agencies through March 27, 2013,
at a rate for operations as provided in the applicable appropriations Acts for fiscal year 2012
and under the authority and conditions provided in such Acts, for continuing projects or
activities (including the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees) that are not otherwise
specifically provided for in this joint resolution, that were conducted in fiscal year 2012, and
for which appropriations, funds, or other authority were made available in the [12 regular
FY2012 appropriations acts and the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 11277)].36
H.J.Res. 117 also included several modifications to FY2012 funding levels. Among the
modifications that may have affected federal R&D funding were: an increase of 0.612% above
the funding levels provided under the 12 regular appropriations act, except for amounts provided
for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism; a $363.2 million (5.0%) increase
in funding for the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) Weapons Activities
33
According to OSTP, funding for the NNMI is mostly separate from the $2.2 billion proposed investment in advanced
manufacturing under the AMP, though there is an overlap of $137 million. E-mail correspondence between OSTP and
CRS, March 14, 2012.
34
U.S. Department of Commerce, FY2013 Budget in Brief, February 2012, p. 123, http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/
budget/FY13BIB/fy2013bib_final.pdf.
35
Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, Fiscal Year 2013 Budget of the U.S.
Government, February 2012, Table S-9, p. 217.
36
H.J.Res. 117, as passed by the House.
Congressional Research Service
13
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
over its FY2012 level; and $100.0 million above the FY2012 level for NNSA’s Defense Nuclear
Proliferation account for domestic uranium enrichment research, development, and
demonstration. On September 22, the Senate passed H.J.Res. 117 without amendment. On
September 25, 2012, the bill was sent to President Obama who signed it into law (P.L. 112-175)
on September 28.
On March 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6) providing appropriations for all agencies through the end
of FY2013. P.L. 113-6 included five regular appropriations acts as Divisions A-E:
•
Division A: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013.
•
Division B: Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2013.
•
Division C: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2013.
•
Division D: Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2013.
•
Division E: Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013.
Division F, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, provided continuing
appropriations for all departments and agencies not covered in Divisions A-E.
Section 3001 of Division G provided across-the-board rescissions that were applicable to various
projects and activities in Divisions A through E. For security discretionary budget authority in
Divisions A through E, 0.1% was rescinded. For nonsecurity discretionary budget authority,
2.513% was rescinded in Divisions A and E, and 1.877% was rescinded in Division B.37 (See
CRS Report R42782, FY2013 Continuing Resolutions: Analysis of Components and
Congressional Action, by (name redacted), for additional information.)
Section 3004 of P.L. 113-6 was intended to eliminate any amount by which the new budget
authority provided in the act exceeded the FY2013 discretionary spending limits in Section
251(c)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. As enacted, this section
provided two separate across-the-board rescissions—one for non-security budget authority and
one for security budget authority—of 0%, to be applied at the program, project, and activity level.
The section required the percentages to be increased if OMB estimated that additional rescissions
were needed to avoid exceeding the limits. Subsequent to the enactment of P.L. 113-6, OMB
calculated that additional rescissions of 0.032% of security budget authority, and 0.2% of nonsecurity budget authority, would be required.
In addition to the rescissions, FY2013 appropriations were subject to additional reductions
through sequestration as required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), as amended
by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240).
37
“Security” and “nonsecurity” are defined Section 250(c)(4)(A) and (B) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA). Security budget authority includes discretionary appropriations associated with agency
budgets for the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the
National Nuclear Security Administration, intelligence community management, and budget function 150. Nonsecurity
budget authority is all other discretionary appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
14
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
Where available, this report includes FY2013 funding levels incorporating the effects of the
rescissions and sequestration.
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://crs.gov/Pages/AppropriationsStatusTable.aspx?source=
QuickLinks.
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, FY2013 Status Table of Appropriations, available at http://crs.gov/Pages/
AppropriationsStatusTable.aspx?source=QuickLinks.
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
Department of Defense38
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 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.
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
38
This section was written by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
16
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
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 FY2013, the Obama Administration requested $69.408 billion for DOD’s baseline Title IV
RDT&E and another $246 million in OCO RDT&E. The FY2013 request was $2.902 billion and
$280 million, respectively, below what Congress appropriated for FY2012. In addition, the
Administration requested $673 million in RDT&E through the Defense Health Program, $647
million in RDT&E through the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction program, and $43
million in RDT&E through the National Defense Sealift Fund. Congress authorized $69.938
billion for the baseline RDT&E account (Title II in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013, P.L. 112-239) and $246 million in additional OCO RDT&E. In regards to
appropriations, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriation Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6)
provided $69.859 billion for baseline RDT&E (not adjusted for sequestration). This was more
than requested, but nearly $6 billion less than appropriated in FY2012. P.L. 113-6 appropriated
$248 million in OCO RDT&E. The act also appropriated $6 million less than what was requested
for the National Defense Sealift Fund and appropriated nearly double the requested level for
RDT&E in the Defense Health Plan.
RDT&E funding can be analyzed 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, 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 research-oriented part of
the RDT&E program. Budget activities 6.4 and 6.5 focus on the development of specific weapon
systems or components (e.g., the Joint Strike Fighter or missile defense systems), for which an
operational need has been determined and an acquisition program established. Budget activity 6.6
provides management support, including support for test and evaluation facilities. Budget activity
6.7 supports system improvements in existing operational systems.
Many congressional policymakers are particularly interested in S&T funding since these funds
support the development of new technologies and the underlying science. Some in the defense
community see ensuring adequate support for S&T activities as imperative to maintaining U.S.
military superiority. The knowledge generated at this stage of development can also contribute to
advances in commercial technologies.
According to its FY2013 Budget Request Overview, DOD was seeking to “maintain a strong
S&T posture” going forward. The FY2013 Title IV baseline S&T funding request was $11.861
billion, $343 million less than what Congress appropriated for S&T in FY2012. Congress
authorized $11.839 billion for S&T, but appropriated $12.471 billion.
Within the S&T program, basic research (6.1) receives special attention, particularly from the
nation’s universities. DOD is not a large funder of basic research compared to the National
Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation. However, over half of DOD’s basic
Congressional Research Service
17
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
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
Administration requested $2.117 billion for basic research for FY2013, $5 million more than
what Congress appropriated for Title IV basic research in FY2012. Congress authorized $2.127
billion and appropriated $2.128 billion for basic research.
Table 6. Department of Defense RDT&E
(in millions of dollars)
Budget
Account
FY2012
Actual
FY2013
Authorized
Base +
OCO
Base
FY2013
Request
OCO
Base
FY2013
House
OCO
Base
FY2013
P.L. 113-6a
FY2013
Senate
CO
Base
OCO
Base
OCO
Army
9,760
8,495
15
8,929
20
8,593
15
8,428
42
8,668
30
Navy
17,866
17,309
60
16,883
60
16,988
61
16,646
19
16,946
53
Air Force
27,421
25,383
53
25,428
53
25,118
53
25,374
53
25,407
53
Defensewide
20,895
18,551
112
17,982
112
19,100
107
18,419
112
18,613
112
Dir. Test &
Eval.
192
200
Total Title
V—By
Accounta
76,135
69,938
6.1 Basic
Research
1,878
2,127
2,117
2,116
2,127
2,128
6.2 Applied
Research
4,329
4,488
4,478
4,563
4,599
4,720
6.3
Advanced
Dev.
5,340
5,224
5,266
5,530
5,449
5,623
6.4
Advanced
Component
Dev. and
Prototypes
14,142
13,036
20
12,409
24
13,197
20
12,622
35
12,635
19
6.5 Systems
Dev. And
Demo
14,346
14,474
2
14,695
2
14,110
2
13,856
14
13,990
17
6.6
Management
Supporta
5,661
4,317
5
4,263
5
4,402
5
4,471
5
4,515
5
6.7 Op.
Systems
Dev.b
30,441
26,272
213
26,180
214
26,064
209
25,966
172
26,247
206
Total Title
IV—by
Budget
Activity
76,135
69,938
240
69,408
246
69,982
236
69,090
226
69,859
247
185
240
69,408
185
246
69,982
224
236
69,090
188
226
69,859
248
Budget
Activity
Title V—
Revolving
and Mgm’t
Funds
Congressional Research Service
18
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
FY2013
Authorized
Budget
Account
Base +
OCO
Base
National
Defense
Sealift Fund
18
43
43
37
33
37
Defense
Health
Program
1,206
673
673
1,218
1,027
1,307
Chemical
Agents and
Munitions
Destruction
393
647
647
647
647
647
77,752
71,301
OCO
FY2013
Request
Base
FY2013
House
FY2013
P.L. 113-6a
FY2012
Actual
OCO
Base
FY2013
Senate
CO
Base
OCO
Base
OCO
Title VI—
Other
Defense
Programs
Grand
Totald
240
70,771
246
71,884
236
70,797
226
71,850
247
Source: CRS, adapted from the Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2013 RDT&E Programs (R-1),
February 2012 and relevant FY2013 Budget Justification (R-2) documents. H.Rept. 112-705, Conference Report
to accompany H.R. 4320. H.Rept. 112-493 to accompany H.R. 5856. S.Rept. 112-196, to accompany H.R. 5856.
Senate Explanatory Statement with regard to H.R. 933, Congressional Record, March 11, 2013.
a.
Does not include final sequestration.
b.
Total may differ from sum of components due to rounding.
c.
Includes funding for the Director of Test and Evaluation.
d.
Includes funding for classified programs.
e.
The “Grand Total” figure uses the “Total Title IV-by Account” figure.
Department of Homeland Security39
For the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the President requested $1.179 billion for
R&D and related programs in FY2013, a 20% increase from FY2012. This total included $831
million for the Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T), $328 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 House bill would have provided a total of
$1.162 billion, including $826 million for S&T, $316 million for DNDO, and $20 million for
Coast Guard RDT&E. The Senate committee recommended the same amounts as the request. The
department’s April 2013 operating plan, reflecting the final continuing resolution, reductions due
to sequestration, and subsequent reprogramming, included $1.123 billion.40 (See Table 7.)
39
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
40
The operating plan did not include approximately $7 million appropriated by the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,
2013 (P.L. 113-2).
Congressional Research Service
19
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
The S&T Directorate is the primary DHS R&D organization.41 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 $831 million for the S&T Directorate for FY2013. This was 24% more
than the FY2012 appropriation of $673 million. Funding for Research, Development, and
Innovation (RDI) would have increased by $212 million. Of the six thrust areas within RDI, the
largest requested increase (from $61 million in FY2012 to $144 million in FY2013) was for
disaster resilience R&D. A reduction of $50 million in the request for Laboratory Facilities
reflected the omission of funding for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), a
planned replacement for the existing Plum Island Animal Disease Center. The $50 million
appropriated in FY2012 for the start of NBAF construction was one-third of what the
Administration had requested. DHS announced plans for an assessment of whether and for what
purpose a facility like NBAF should be built. The assessment was to consider current threats and
review cost, safety, and alternatives to the NBAF plan.
The House bill would have provided $826 million for the S&T Directorate, or $6 million less
than the request. The total included $72 million less than the request for RDI. The House
committee directed DHS to determine how to allocate that reduction across the six thrust areas. In
Laboratory Facilities, the bill would have provided $75 million more than the request. The
committee directed that this increase should be spent on NBAF construction.
The Senate committee recommended S&T funding levels that were the same as the
Administration’s request. Within RDI, however, it specified separate amounts for each of the six
thrust areas, rather than a single total. In recommending no funding for NBAF construction, the
committee noted a total cost estimate for the facility of $1.138 billion.
The April 2013 operating plan included $801 million for the S&T Directorate. Funding for RDI,
at $432 million, was between the House and Senate levels.
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 $328 million for
DNDO for FY2013, an increase of 14% above the FY2012 appropriation of $290 million. The
request included an increase of $44 million for Transformational R&D, a program that the
Administration had previously proposed to transfer to S&T. The proposed increase for
Transformational R&D was partially offset by a proposed reduction of $23 million for Systems
Development. In the Systems Acquisition account, funding for human-portable radiation detectors
would have increased by $20 million, while funding for radiation portal monitors would have
decreased to $1 million from $7 million in FY2012.
The House bill would have provided $316 million for DNDO, or $12 million less than the
request. Most of the reduction would have been in the Transformational R&D program. The bill
directed DHS to provide an updated implementation plan for its responsibilities under the
domestic portion of the global nuclear detection architecture. The House committee stated that it
intended this to be an annual report. The committee report also advocated consolidation of
41
For more information, see CRS Report RL34356, The DHS Directorate of Science and Technology: Key Issues for
Congress, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
20
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
DNDO with the DHS Office of Health Affairs (OHA).42 It stated that consolidation could result in
cost savings and “could provide greater awareness and coordination ... by creating a more visible
focal point for ... coordination and strategic planning” of efforts against weapons of mass
destruction. The committee directed DHS to develop and submit a plan to merge DNDO and
OHA into an Office of Weapons of Mass Destruction Defense for FY2014.
As in the case of S&T, the Senate committee recommended DNDO funding levels that were the
same as the Administration’s request. Like the House committee, the Senate committee directed
DHS to provide an updated implementation plan for its responsibilities under the domestic
portion of the global nuclear detection architecture.
The April 2013 operating plan included $303 million for DNDO, including $71 million for
Transformational R&D.
Table 7. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs
(in millions of dollars)
FY2012
Actual
FY2013
Request
FY2013
House
FY2013
Senate
FY2013
Op. Plan
$673
$831
$826
$831
$801
Management and Administration
135
138
130
138
127
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
538
693
696
693
674
Research, Development, and Innovation
266
478
406
478
432
Laboratory Facilities
182
127
202
127
158
Acquisition and Operations Support
54
48
48
48
46
University Programs
37
40
40
40
38
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
290
328
316
328
303
Management and Administration
38
40
38
40
38
Research, Development, and Operations
215
237
227
237
216
Systems Engineering and Architecture
30
30
30
30
29
Systems Development
51
28
28
28
27
Transformational R&D
40
84
75
84
71
Assessments
38
33
33
33
31
Operations Support
33
36
36
36
34
National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center
23
26
26
26
24
37
51
51
51
50
Radiation Portal Monitors Program
2
1
1
1
1
Securing the Cities
22
22
22
22
21
Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems
14
28
28
28
27
Directorate of Science and Technology
Systems Acquisition
42
H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 12-14. Note that this language was in the introductory section of the committee report, separate
from the main discussion of DNDO.
Congressional Research Service
21
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
FY2012
Actual
FY2013
Request
FY2013
House
FY2013
Senate
FY2013
Op. Plan
U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E
28
20
20
20
20
TOTAL
991
1,179
1,162
1,179
1,123
Sources: FY2012 from DHS FY2014 congressional budget justification, http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-budget. FY2013
request from DHS FY2013 congressional budget justification, http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-budget. FY2013 House
from H.R. 5855 as passed by the House and H.Rept. 112-492. FY2013 Senate Committee from S. 3216 as
reported and S.Rept. 112-169. FY2013 operating plan from Department of Homeland Security, Office of the
Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2013 Post-Sequestration Operating Plan,
April 26, 2013.
Note: FY2013 operating plan amounts do not include approximately $7 million appropriated by the Disaster
Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2).
National Institutes of Health43
The FY2013 President’s Budget request for NIH was $30.860 billion (program level), the same as
FY2012 and $65 million lower than the comparable FY2011 amount of $30.926 billion. The final
FY2012 total dropped below the FY2011 level after adjustment for the rescissions mandated in
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74), and a transfer of funds within HHS.44
On June 14, 2012, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 3295 (S.Rept. 112-176), its
FY2013 bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies (Labor/HHS). The committee recommended funding NIH at $100 million
higher than the President’s request. The House Appropriations Committee did not report a
comparable FY2013 bill, but the House Labor/HHS Subcommittee approved a draft FY2013 bill
on July 18, 2012. The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 1136) provided appropriations for Labor/HHS agencies through the end of FY2013. The law
provided an increase of almost $70 million for the NIH Office of the Director, but also required
an across-the-board rescission of 0.2% for all accounts (pursuant to Section 3004, as interpreted
by OMB). The March 1, 2013, sequestration order and a transfer of funding under the authority of
the HHS Secretary further reduced FY2013 amounts for NIH by $1.553 billion and $173 million
respectively; these reductions are reflected in amounts shown for the FY2013 Operating Plan in
Table 8.
NIH Organization and Sources of Funding. NIH supports and conducts a wide range of basic
and clinical research, research training, and health information dissemination across all fields of
biomedical and behavioral sciences. About 83% of NIH’s budget goes out to the extramural
research community in the form of grants, contracts, and other awards. The funding supports
research performed by more than 300,000 non-federal scientists and technical personnel who
work at more than 2,500 universities, hospitals, medical schools, and other research institutions
around the country and abroad. The agency’s organization consists of the Office of the NIH
Director and 27 institutes and centers. The Office of the Director (OD) sets overall policy for NIH
43
This section was written by (name redacted) and (name redacted), CRS Domestic Social Policy Division. 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).
44
FY2011 funding was provided in P.L. 112-10, The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
22
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
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 an intramural Buildings and Facilities account. (The other three centers, which
perform centralized support services, are funded through assessments on the IC appropriations.)
Funding for NIH comes primarily from the annual Labor/HHS appropriations bill, 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 authorized and directly appropriated in the Public Health Service
(PHS) Act for a special program on type 1 diabetes research; it also receives $8.2 million
annually in discretionary funding for the National Library of Medicine from a transfer within
PHS. The total funding available for NIH activities, taking account of add-ons and transfers, is
the program level.
NIH and other HHS agencies and programs that are authorized under the PHS Act are subject to a
budget assessment called the PHS Program Evaluation Set-Aside or the evaluation tap. Section
241 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. §238j) authorizes the Secretary to use a portion of eligible
appropriations to study the effectiveness of federal health programs and to identify ways to
improve them. Congress sets the percentage level of the tap in the annual Labor/HHS
appropriations acts, and also directs specific amounts of funding from the tap for transfer to a
number of HHS programs. The set-aside has the effect of redistributing appropriated funds for
specific purposes among PHS and other HHS agencies. NIH, with the largest budget among the
PHS agencies, becomes the largest “donor” of program evaluation funds, and is a relatively minor
recipient. The set-aside level for FY2012 was 2.5% of eligible appropriations, making just over
$1.0 billion available for transfer among programs. The FY2013 President’s Budget proposed
increasing the set-aside to 3.2%, which would have increased the NIH contribution by about $200
million. In S. 3295, the Senate Appropriations Committee rejected the proposed increase and
called for the tap to continue at 2.5%. Ultimately, the 2.5% tap was maintained under the
provisions of P.L. 113-6, and NIH was assessed over $700 million as in FY2012. 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.45
FY2013 President’s Budget Request. Most of the ICs were flat-funded in the request with a few
increases and decreases as noted below. NIH described its FY2013 areas of emphasis under four
broad themes that built on current activities and continued implementation of an organizational
restructuring for translational medicine that started in FY2012.
Investing in Basic Research. Congress has given NIH direction to continue its emphasis on
support of basic biomedical and behavioral research, which seeks to understand the causes of
disease onset and progression. About 54% of the FY2013 request was targeted for basic research
in areas such as genetics, regenerative medicine (including stem cells), and environmental and
behavioral influences on health.
45
For further information on the PHS Evaluation Set-Aside, see CRS Report R43304, Public Health Service Agencies:
Overview and Funding, coordinated by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
23
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
Accelerating Discovery Through Technology. The request indicated that NIH would continue to
support development and application of advanced technologies (DNA sequencing, microarray
technology, nanotechnology, new imaging modalities, and computational biology) to increase
understanding of complex diseases and enable development of more effective therapies. A highpriority project, the Cancer Genome Atlas, generates maps of genetic changes found in different
types of cancer.
Advancing Translational Sciences. Translational medicine focuses on converting basic research
discoveries into clinical applications that benefit patients. In 2010, NIH began planning for the
creation of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS). The new entity
pulls together a variety of preclinical and clinical translational sciences resources that were
scattered across the ICs. NCATS was established and funded in the FY2012 appropriations law
(P.L. 112-74), which also abolished the National Center for Research Resources and transferred
its programs to NCATS and several other ICs. The NCATS mission includes exploring more
reliable, rapid, and cost-effective ways to test possible new drugs, diagnostics, and preventive
measures for human use (or new uses for old products). In addition, NCATS fosters partnerships
between extramural researchers, industry, health care, and government entities to speed
commercialization of new therapies.46 The FY2013 request for NCATS was $639 million, $64
million (11%) over its FY2012 first-year budget. The request indicated that nearly $40 million of
the increase would go to expanding the Cures Acceleration Network (CAN) from $10 million to
almost $50 million. The $463 million requested for the Clinical and Translational Science Awards
(CTSA) program included a $1 million increase. CTSA funds a national consortium of medical
research institutions engaged in improving clinical research.
Encouraging New Investigators and New Ideas. NIH has several programs to support
exceptional young scientists and speed their transition to independent research. 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 FY2013, the
same as in FY2012. 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; the President requested $12 million for this program, up from
$8 million in FY2012. For NIH’s major research training program, the Ruth L. Kirschstein
National Research Service Awards, the budget proposed funding of $775 million, $2 million
below FY2012. The request noted this level would support a 2% stipend increase and 16,361
training positions, a decrease of 309 positions. During FY2013, NIH systematically analyzed
biomedical workforce and training needs, with a special focus on promoting diversity in the
workforce and understanding barriers to career advancement.
Selected Other Program Changes in IC Budgets. Institutional Development Awards (IDeA): The
FY2012 appropriation provided the IDeA program with a $50 million increase (22%) to $276
million, and NIH was encouraged to broaden the eligibility criteria for these research capacity
and infrastructure grants. For FY2013, the Administration did not request continuation of the
extra funding—the budget request for the National Institute of General Medical Sciences
(NIGMS) included $225 million for the IDeA program, $51 million less than in FY2012.
46
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.
Congressional Research Service
24
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
National Children’s Study: The budget request for the Office of the Director was $28 million
below FY2012 because requested funding for the National Children’s Study was reduced by
nearly 15% from $193 million to $165 million. The pilot Vanguard Study is moving to a less
resource-intensive phase, and NIH is evaluating more cost-effective sampling approaches for the
study.
Alzheimer’s disease research: In February 2012, the Administration announced that NIH would
devote additional resources to Alzheimer’s disease research in FY2012 and FY2013.47 Within
FY2012 appropriations, NIH planned to redirect $50 million from other research areas to
Alzheimer’s-related grants. In FY2013, HHS planned to make available $80 million from the
Prevention and Public Health Fund (mandatory funding authorized and directly appropriated by
the Affordable Care Act) for a portfolio of new research on Alzheimer’s.
Research Project Grants. The main funding mechanism for supporting extramural investigatorinitiated research is competitive, peer-reviewed research project grants (RPGs). The President’s
Budget requested $16.5 billion for RPGs in FY2013, about 52% of NIH’s proposed budget. This
amount would have supported an estimated 35,888 RPG awards. Within that total, 9,415 would
be competing RPGs (“competing” awards means new grants plus competing renewals of existing
grants). The average cost of a competing RPG in FY2013 was estimated to be $431,000. After
adjusting for certain large high-cost grants that happened to come into competing status in
FY2013 (HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials Networks grants), there was an expected overall reduction of
1% in the average cost of competing RPGs.
NIH proposed several grant-funding policies in order to maximize resources for investigatorinitiated grants and for young, first-time researchers. According to the request, non-competing
(continuation) RPGs would have had their budgets reduced by 1% from the FY2012 level, and
the budgets of competing RPGs would have been negotiated downward by about 1% to avoid
growth in the average award size. NIH planned to continue current policies that equalize the
success rates of new and established investigators in receiving funding. Additional review and
scrutiny was planned for awards to any scientist who already has total grant support of $1.5
million or more.
Other Funding Mechanisms. The FY2013 request also proposed changes for other funding
mechanisms within the NIH budget besides those for RPGs and training awards. Support for
research centers would decrease by $64 million (-2.1%) to $2.966 billion, largely because of the
proposed $51 million drop in funding for the IDeA program mentioned previously. A $108
million (3.6%) increase to $3.076 billion was proposed for the R&D contracts mechanism,
reflecting (among other things) funding to cover the proposed increase in the PHS Program
Evaluation Set-Aside. The NIH intramural research program would gain $21 million (0.6%) for
a total of $3.420 billion. Research management and support requested an increase of $1.7 million
(0.1%) to a total of $1.535 billion. The Office of the Director would decrease by $28 million to
$1.429 billion because of the plans for the National Children’s Study discussed earlier. 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 might benefit
from collaboration between two or more institutes or centers. The request for the Common Fund
47
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “We Can’t Wait: Administration Announces New Steps to Fight
Alzheimer’s Disease,” press release, February 7, 2012, http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/02/20120207a.html.
Congressional Research Service
25
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
was $545 million, the same as the FY2012 level. Buildings and Facilities was $125 million, the
same as FY2012.
FY2013 Senate Committee Recommendation. The committee recommended a total of $30.723
billion in Labor/HHS funding for NIH, a $100 million increase (0.3%) above both the request and
the FY2012 level. The increase over FY2012 was spread across most of the ICs, with some
exceptions reflecting program priorities. The committee recommended a 10% increase for
NCATS and would have allowed up to $40 million to be used for the Cures Acceleration Network
rather than the requested $50 million. No extra funding for the IDeA program would have been
provided in the bill in the NIGMS appropriation, although the committee report included
language referring to an “increase that should be paid for by a reduction in funding across NIH
ICs.” Funding for the National Institute on Aging would also have been increased above the
request to continue the HHS initiative on Alzheimer’s research. The committee disagreed,
however, with the President’s request to allocate $80 million from the Prevention and Public
Health Fund for NIH research on Alzheimer’s.
FY2013 Operating Plan. Final FY2013 funding levels for NIH ICs and for extramural and
intramural programs became clear when HHS released its agency operating plans. For NIH, the
FY2013 program level of $29.151 billion represented a decrease of $1.709 billion (-5.5%) from
the FY2012 level. RPGs will receive $14.906 billion, a reduction of $976 million from the
FY2012 level of $15.882 billion. The operating plan level will support an estimated 33,335 RPG
awards, 1,282 fewer than in FY2012.
Table 8. National Institutes of Health Funding
(in millions of dollars)
FY2012
Actuala
FY2013
Request
FY2013
House
Subcomm.
draft bill
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
5,063
5,069
5,066
5,084
4,779
National Heart/Lung/Blood Institute (NHLBI)
3,073
3,076
3,075
3,085
2,901
Dental/Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
410
408
410
409
387
Diabetes/Digestive/Kidney (NIDDK)c
1,794
1,792
1,795
1,798
1,693
Neurological Disorders/Stroke (NINDS)
1,623
1,625
1,624
1,630
1,532
Allergy/Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
4,482
4,495
4,485
4,509
4,231
General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
2,426
2,379
2,527
2,387
2,291
Child Health/Human Development (NICHD)
1,319
1,321
1,320
1,325
1,245
National Eye Institute (NEI)
701
693
702
695
662
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
684
684
685
686
646
1,120
1,103
1,102
1,124
1,040
Arthritis/Musculoskeletal/Skin (NIAMS)
535
536
535
537
505
Deafness/Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
416
417
416
419
392
National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
145
144
145
145
136
Alcohol Abuse/Alcoholism (NIAAA)
459
457
459
458
433
Component
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
Congressional Research Service
S. 3295
Senate
Committeereported
FY2013
Operating
Planb
26
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
FY2012
Actuala
FY2013
Request
FY2013
House
Subcomm.
draft bill
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
1,051
1,054
1,052
1,057
993
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
1,478
1,479
1,462
1,484
1,395
Nat’l Human Genome Research Inst (NHGRI)
512
511
512
513
483
Biomedical Imaging/Bioengineering (NIBIB)
338
337
338
338
319
Complementary/Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)
128
128
128
128
121
Minority Health/Health Disparities (NIMHD)
276
279
276
280
260
Fogarty International Center (FIC)
69
70
70
70
66
Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)
574
639
575
631
542
National Library of Medicine (NLM)
365
373
367
374
318
Office of Director (OD)
1,457
1,429
1,373
1,431
1,436
Buildings & Facilities (B&F)
125
125
125
125
118
30,623
30,623
30,623
30,723
28,926
79
79
75
79
75
30,702
30,702
30,698
30,802
29,001
150
150
150
150
142
PHS Evaluation Tap fundingf
8
8
0
8
8
Total, NIH program level
30,860
30,860
30,848
30,960
29,151
Component
Subtotal, Labor/HHS Appropriation
Superfund (Interior appropriation to NIEHS)d
Total, NIH discretionary budget authority
Pre-appropriated type 1 diabetes fundse
S. 3295
Senate
Committeereported
FY2013
Operating
Planb
Sources: Adapted by CRS from (1) NIH, Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2013, Vol. I Overview/Supplementary Tables, February 13, 2012, p. ST-2, http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY13/
Vol%201%20Tab%203%20-%20Supplementary%20Tables.pdf, as well as FY2014 NIH Justification; (2) draft
FY2013 bill released by House Labor/HHS Appropriations Subcommittee on July 17, 2012,
http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-112hr-sc-ap-fy13-laborhhsed.pdf; (3) S.Rept. 112-176 on S.
3295; and (4) NIH Office of Budget, Operating Plan—Allocation by IC, http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/cy.html.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
a.
NIH FY2012 appropriations were provided in Division F (Labor/HHS/Education) and Division E
(Interior/Environment) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74). Amounts
shown reflect across-the-board rescissions of 0.189% (Division F) and 0.16% (Division E). FY2012
Actual reflects Secretary’s transfer of $8.727 million to Health Resources and Services
Administration for Ryan White AIDS and Secretary’s net transfer of $18.273 million for
Alzheimer’s disease research to National Institute on Aging (NIA) from other ICs. FY2012 figures
are shown on a comparable basis to the FY2013 request, House committee, and Senate
committee amounts, reflecting transfers from ICs to National Library of Medicine (NLM).
b.
FY2013 Operating Plan reflects final funding levels under P.L. 113-6, the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (which provided a program level total of $30.877 billion),
reduced by the March 1, 2013, sequestration (-$1.553 billion) and the April 3, 2013, administrative
transfers (-$173 million). IC and NLM amounts are not comparable to the other columns as the
FY2013 Operating Plan figures do not reflect transfers from ICs to NLM.
c.
Amounts for the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) do
not include mandatory funding for type 1 diabetes research (see note e).
d.
This is a separate account in the Interior/Environment appropriations for National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) research activities related to Superfund. In FY2013
committee action, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 6091 on July 10, 2012
Congressional Research Service
27
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
(H.Rept. 112-589), and the leadership of the Senate Appropriations Interior/Environment
Subcommittee released a draft bill on Sept. 25, 2012.
e.
Mandatory funds available to NIDDK for type 1 diabetes research under PHS Act §330B
(provided by P.L. 110-275, P.L. 111-309, and P.L. 112-240). Funds have been appropriated through
FY2014.
f.
Additional funds for NLM from PHS Evaluation Set-Aside (§241 of PHS Act).
Department of Energy48
The Administration requested $12.763 billion for Department of Energy (DOE) R&D and related
programs in FY2013, including activities in three major categories: science, national security, and
energy. This request was 8.2% more than the FY2012 appropriation of $11.794 billion. The
House bill would have provided $11.680 billion. The Senate committee recommended $12.240
billion. A final total for the FY2013 operating plan is not yet available. (See Table 9 for details.)
The request for the DOE Office of Science was $4.992 billion, an increase of 2.4% from the
FY2012 appropriation of $4.874 billion. The Administration’s stated goal is to double the funding
of the Office of Science.49 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
FY2013 request was 37% more than the FY2006 baseline. The America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358) authorized $6.007 billion for the Office of Science in
FY2013. The House bill would have provided $4.801 billion. The Senate committee
recommended $4.909 billion. The amount provided under the FY2013 operating plan was $4.621
billion, a reduction of 5.2% from the FY2012 level.
The Office of Science includes six major research programs. A requested increase of $112 million
for the largest program, basic energy sciences (BES), would have funded “new science supporting
a clean energy agenda,” materials and chemistry by design, and joint R&D with the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). Costs for increased utilization of existing BES
facilities and the start of construction of the Linac Coherent Light Source-II, a high-energy x-ray
source, were mostly offset in the Administration proposal by a scheduled ramp-down in
construction for the National Synchrotron Light Source-II. The House bill would have provided
$142 million less than the request for BES. The Senate committee recommended $88 million less
than the request. Both committees rejected the proposal for BES energy frontier research centers
to work jointly with EERE. In the fusion energy sciences program, the request would have
increased the U.S. contribution to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)
by $45 million, but this would have been more than offset by reduced funding for domestic fusion
activities, including the end of operations for the Alcator C-Mod tokamak, a fusion reactor. The
estimated total cost for the U.S. share of ITER, a multi-year construction project, remains in the
range of $1.45 billion to $2.2 billion, but “it is possible that costs will increase.”50 The House bill
would have provided $76 million more than the request for fusion, including domestic funding at
48
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
49
For more information, see CRS Report R41951, An Analysis of Efforts to Double Federal Funding for Physical
Sciences and Engineering Research, by (name redacted)
50
DOE FY2013 congressional budget justification, vol. 4, p. 191.
Congressional Research Service
28
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
the FY2012 level and $28 million more than requested for ITER. The Senate committee’s
recommendation for fusion was the same as the request.
The request for DOE national security R&D was $4.054 billion, an 8.1% increase from $3.752
billion in FY2012. The request for nonproliferation and verification R&D included a one-time
increment of $150 million for domestic uranium enrichment R&D and demonstration. The House
bill would have provided the proposed increment for domestic uranium enrichment; the Senate
committee rejected it. Final figures under the FY2013 operating plan are not yet available.
The request for DOE energy R&D was $3.717 billion, up 17.3% from $3.168 billion in FY2012.
In energy efficiency, funding for the Advanced Manufacturing Office (formerly the Industrial
Technologies Program) would have increased by $174 million, and funding for building
technologies and vehicle technologies would have increased by $91 million each. In renewable
energy, funding for biomass and biorefinery systems would have increased by $71 million, while
funding for water power and for hydrogen and fuel cell technologies would have decreased. A
proposed increase in funding for fossil energy R&D reflected the rescission of unobligated prioryear balances in FY2012; excluding this rescission, the FY2013 request for fossil energy R&D
was a decrease of $105 million, mostly from the coal program. The request for the Advanced
Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) was $350 million, an increase of $75 million. The
House-passed bill and Senate committee report both included less than the request for energy
efficiency, renewable energy, and ARPA-E, and more than the request for fossil energy. Under the
FY2013 operating plan, energy efficiency and renewable energy received $1.599 billion, a
reduction of 4.9% from the FY2012 enacted level; other operating plan amounts are not yet
available.
Table 9. Department of Energy R&D and Related Programs
(in millions of dollars)
FY2012
Enacted
FY2013
Request
FY2013
House
FY2013
Senate
FY2013
Op. Plan
$4,874
$4,992
$4,801
$4,909
$4,621
Basic Energy Sciences
1,688
1,800
1,657
1,712
1,596
High Energy Physics
791
777
777
782
748
Biological and Environmental Research
610
625
542
625
578
Nuclear Physics
547
527
548
540
520
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
441
456
442
456
418
Fusion Energy Sciences
401
398
475
398
385
Other
396
410
361
396
376
Science
National Security
3,752
4,054
4,006
3,952
n/a
Weapons Activitiesa
2,307
2,398
2,381
2,426
n/a
Naval Reactors
1,080
1,089
1,087
1,089
n/a
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
354
548
528
418
n/a
Defense Environmental Cleanup Tech. Devt.
11
20
10
20
n/a
3,168
3,717
2,873
3,378
n/a
1,682
2,072
1,295
1,717
1,599
Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energyb
Congressional Research Service
29
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
FY2012
Enacted
FY2013
Request
FY2013
House
FY2013
Senate
FY2013
Op. Plan
Fossil Energy R&D
347
421
529
461
n/a
Nuclear Energy
765
770
765
785
n/a
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability R&D
99
103
83
103
n/a
Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy
275
350
200
312
n/a
11,794
12,763
11,680
12,240
n/a
Total
Sources: FY2012 and FY2013 request from DOE FY2013 congressional budget justification, http://energy.gov/
cfo/downloads/fy-2013-budget-justification. FY2013 House from H.R. 5325 as passed by the House and H.Rept.
112-462. FY2013 Senate from S. 2465 as reported and S.Rept. 112-164. FY2013 operating plan from DOE
website: Science from funding summary dated August 19, 2013, at http://science.energy.gov/budget/; Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy from “Fiscal Year 2013 Budget,” http://www4.eere.energy.gov/office_eere/
current_budget.php, updated October 28, 2013. Other FY2013 operating plan amounts are not available (n/a/).
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of their components due to rounding. All amounts are reduced for
rescissions and use of prior-year balances. FY2012 amounts are reduced to reflect allocation of the contractor
pay freeze rescission in Sec. 309 of P.L. 112-74.
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 prorated shares of Readiness in Technical
Base and Facilities and Legacy Contractor Pensions. 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.
Excluding Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.
National Science Foundation51
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.”52 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 requested a total of $7.373 billion in funding for NSF in FY2013. This amount was
$268.4 million (3.8%) more than the foundation’s FY2012 actual funding level of $7.105 billion
and $926.9 million (11.2%) less than the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L.
111-358, COMPETES 2010) authorized level of $8.300 billion. The House-passed Commerce,
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013 (H.R. 5326, H.Rept. 112-463),
would have provided $7.333 billion top line to NSF. This amount was $40.6 million (0.6%) less
than the request and $59.4 million (0.8%) more than the $7.273 billion Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommendation (S. 2323, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
51
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.
52
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-507).
Congressional Research Service
30
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
Appropriations Act, 2013, and S.Rept. 112-158). Final (post-sequestration, post-rescission)
FY2013 current plan funding for the NSF was $6.884 billion. This amount was $220.6 million
(3.1%) less than the FY2012 actual funding level and $1.416 billion less than authorized.
Since FY2006, NSF budget increases have been at least partially driven by the “doubling path”
policy. In accordance with this policy, Congress and successive Administrations sought to double
funding for the NSF, Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and National Institute of
Standards and Technology’s core laboratory and construction accounts (collectively “the targeted
accounts”).53 As authorized by COMPETES 2010, targeted account funding would have increased
at a compound annual growth rate of 6.3%, which was close to the 6.4% growth rate in actual
appropriations during the previous authorization period (FY2008 to FY2010).54 At a growth rate
of 6.3%, it would have taken approximately 11 years to double funding for the targeted accounts.
The President’s FY 2013 budget request, however, established a 4.1% compound annual growth
rate for targeted accounts. This growth rate was similar to the 4.1% growth rate set by FY2012
enacted appropriations. As originally passed by the House (H.R. 5326 and H.R. 5325) and
recommended by the Senate Committee on Appropriations (S. 2323 and S. 2465), the compound
annual growth rate in funding for the targeted accounts would have been 3.8% and 3.9%,
respectively, in FY2013. The combined effects of sequestration and the rescissions in the final
appropriations act, P.L. 113-6, reduced the FY2013 growth rate further, to 3.0%.55
The full House and the Senate Committee on Appropriations agreed on essentially identical
appropriations levels for five of NSF’s six major accounts in FY2013. (See Table 10.)56 The
primary difference between the two proposals was in the main research account (Research and
Related Activities or R&RA). The House would have provided $59.4 million (1.0%) more to the
R&RA account in FY2013.57 Details about the FY2013 funding status of major NSF accounts
follows.
FY2013 Funding Status of Major NSF Accounts
FY2013 post-sequestration, post-rescission funding for NSF’s main research account, Research
and Related Activities (R&RA), was $5.544 billion. This amount was $214.6 million (3.7%)
less than the FY2012 actual funding level of $5.758 billion and was $1.094 billion (16.5%) less
than the COMPETES 2010 authorized funding level of $6.638 billion.
53
For an analysis of the doubling effort that includes historic trends, see CRS Report R41951, An Analysis of Efforts to
Double Federal Funding for Physical Sciences and Engineering Research, by (name redacted)
54
As authorized by the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358).
55
This calculation compares combined FY2013 actual, current, and enacted appropriations for the targeted accounts to
the FY2006 actual baseline.
56
Funds from major NSF accounts may be merged at the program level and in many cases NSF’s education, facilities,
and research activities are deeply integrated as a matter of practice.
57
R&RA is the primary source of research funding at the NSF and the largest account at the Foundation. Between
FY2003 and FY2012, R&RA’s share of the NSF budget increased by 3.7%. This increase appears to be attributable, at
least in part, to more rapid budget growth in the R&RA account than in other NSF accounts. Between FY2003 actual
and the FY2012 estimate the total NSF budget grew by $1.664 billion. 92.9% of this increase ($1.545 billion) went to
R&RA. By comparison, the average role for R&RA in the total NSF budget during this period was 79.5%. For more
information on historical funding trends at NSF, see CRS Report R42470, An Analysis of STEM Education Funding at
the NSF: Trends and Policy Discussion, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
31
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
The President’s FY2013 request for R&RA was $5.983 billion, $225.0 million (3.9%) more than
the FY2012 actual level and $654.5 million (9.9%) less than the COMPETES 2010 authorized
level. The request highlighted priorities in interdisciplinary research, clean energy, advanced
manufacturing, materials, wireless communications, smart systems, and cybersecurity; and
included increases for all but one of the research directorates.58 The largest requested R&RA
increase (by amount and percentage) was for the Integrative Activities (IA) account. Increases in
IA would have largely applied to the R&RA contribution to the Graduate Research Fellowship
(GRF) program59 and to increased support for the Integrated NSF Support Promoting
Interdisciplinary Research and Education (INSPIRE) program.60 NSF also sought an increase for
the Innovation Corps (I-Corps) program.61
The differences between the House, Senate committee, and the President on FY2013 funding for
R&RA—as included in H.R. 5326, S. 2323, and the FY2013 budget request—were small. H.R.
5326 would have provided $5.943 billion for R&RA in FY2013. S. 2323 would have provided
$5.883 billion. These amounts were about 1-2% less than the FY2013 request ($5.983 billion)
and about 2-3% more than the FY2012 actual ($5.758 billion). An amendment to H.R. 5326 that
was adopted during House floor debate (H.Amdt. 1094) would have eliminated funding for
political science research at NSF.
H.Rept. 112-463 directed NSF to prioritize—of new R&RA activities—cybersecurity, advanced
manufacturing, materials, and research in the natural and physical sciences, math, and
engineering. In particular, the House report provided the requested level of $148.9 million for
NSF’s Advanced Manufacturing initiative. Other R&RA provisions in the House report included
a requirement that I-Corps recipients commit to the domestic production of goods or services
commercialized with NSF assistance; two required reports on the management of scientific
facilities; and language encouraging NSF to establish neuroscience as a cross-cutting theme.
H.Rept. 112-463 also endorsed NSF-proposed changes in R&RA; except for the proposed
termination of the Communicating Science Broadly program, which the House Committee on
Appropriations sought to maintain.
Research provisions in the Senate committee report highlighted R&RA support for scientific
facilities and instrumentation; provided the requested levels for astronomical sciences ($244.6
million) and cybersecurity research ($161.0 million); and expressed concerns about the adequacy
of funding levels for the Academic Research Fleet. The Senate committee report also provided
the requested level of funding ($7.5 million) for Large Synoptic Survey Telescope preconstruction planning. Other R&RA provisions in S.Rept. 112-158 included $158.0 million for
the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) in FY2013. This
58
Increases for the R&RA directorates ranged from 2.1% for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences to 23.4% for
Integrative Activities. The only reduction in the request was to the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, for which NSF
sought a $60,000 (4.1%) reduction from the FY2012 estimate of $1.45 million.
59
The FY2013 IA request for the GRF was $121.5 million, which was $33.0 million (37.3%) more than the FY2012
estimated level of $88.5 million. The FY2013 NSF-wide request for GRF was $243.0 million, which was $45.0 million
(22.7%) over the FY2012 estimate of $198.4 million. GRF was co-funded roughly equally by R&RA and E&HR.
60
The FY2013 IA request for INSPIRE was $31.0 million, $18.7 million (151.0%) more than the FY2012 estimated
level of $12.4 million. The NSF-wide request for INSPIRE was $63.0 million, $42.7 million (209.3%) more than the
FY2012 estimated level of $20.4 million. All but $2.0 million of INSPIRE funding would have come from R&RA.
61
The FY2013 request for the I-Corps program was $19.0 million, $11.4 million (151.3%) more than the FY2012
estimated level of $7.5 million. All but $30,000 of this funding would have come from R&RA accounts.
Congressional Research Service
32
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
amount was slightly below the President’s FY2013 request for $158.2 million and was $7.1
million (4.7%) more than the FY2012 estimate of $150.9 million.
Provisions in the March 11, 2013, explanatory statement incorporated NSF’s proposed R&RA
terminations; adopted by reference House report language relating to advanced manufacturing;
adopted by reference Senate report language on cybersecurity research; and adopted by reference
House report language regarding I-Corps, with the stipulation that if NSF determines that there
are practical considerations preventing implementation, then the foundation will report those
concerns to the appropriations committees. Other R&RA provisions in the explanatory statement
rejected Senate report limitations on OneNSF initiatives, but stated that future growth should not
come at the expense of core functions and encouraged NSF to refine the balance between core
functions and OneNSF initiatives in its FY2014 and future budget requests. The explanatory
statement also provided $247.6 million (pre-sequestration, pre-rescission) for astronomical
sciences, including $164.9 million for infrastructure, and provided $158.2 million (presequestration, pre-rescission) for EPSCoR.
Other accounts that fund R&D at the NSF include the Education and Human Resources
(E&HR) account and Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC).
FY2013 post-sequestration, post-rescission funding for E&HR was $833.3 million and for
MREFC was $196.2 million. These amounts were close to FY2012 actual levels—$830.5 million
and $198.1 million E&HR and MREFC, respectively. The FY2013 current plan funding level for
MREFC was equal to the request62 while the FY2013 current plan funding level for E&HR was
$42.3 million (4.8%) less than the requested amount of $875.6 million.
The FY2013 budget request for E&HR sought to reframe NSF’s education programs—
emphasizing core R&D activities, scholarships, and partnerships with research directorates and
other federal agencies. The President’s request sought $20.0 million in new funding ($5.0 million
for each division) to establish the reframing effort.63 The FY2013 request also sought funding for
a new NSF-wide initiative, Expeditions in Education (E2). The goal for E2 activities was to use
current or emerging areas of science to address STEM education challenges. Funding would
come from both R&RA and E&HR.64 The request for E&HR included $121.5 million for the
GRF program, $11.9 million (10.8%) over the FY2012 estimate. NSF sought to reduce funding
for the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program by $8.1
million (13.6%), from $59.8 million in FY2012 (estimated level) to $51.7 million in FY2013. As
requested, funding for minority-serving institutions (MSIs) would have continued at FY2012
levels.65 The FY2013 NSF budget request did not include specified funding for Hispanic-serving
institutions.
The President’s FY2013 NSF budget request did not include funding for new MREFC projects in
FY2013. Two of MREFC’s four funded projects in FY2013 were in the second-to-last year of
their planned funding cycles.
62
As authorized by P.L. 112-55, NSF transferred $30.0 million from the R&RA account to MREFC in FY2012. This
amount is reflected in the FY2013 request, which was $30.0 million more than the level Congress specified in FY2012.
63
NSF stated that these funds would be used for grants to synthesize existing work, highlight trends and challenges,
and identify future needs.
64
The total request for E2 in FY2013 was $49.0 million, of which $20.5 million will come from E&HR.
65
Funding sources for MSIs include the Historically-Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCUUP), Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP), and the Tribal Colleges and Universities Program
(TCUP), among others.
Congressional Research Service
33
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
Both the full House and the Senate Committee on Appropriations would have funded E&HR and
MREFC at the President’s requested levels in FY2013—$875.6 million and $196.2 million,
respectively. Provisions in H.Rept. 112-463 expressed continued concern about contingency costs
in the MREFC account.
There were substantive differences between House and Senate appropriations committee
recommendations for certain E&HR sub-accounts.66 For example, H.Rept. 112-463 would have
provided the requested level of funding (e.g., no change from FY2012) for NSF’s MSI programs,
while S.Rept. 112-158 would have provided a slight increase. H.Rept. 112-463 would have
funded the Advanced Technology Education (ATE) program at $69.0 million, while S.Rept. 112158 would have provided $64.0 million.67 A third difference was between the two
recommendations for NSF’s Informal Science Education (ISE) program. H.Rept. 112-463
accepted the Administration’s proposed changes to ISE, including a $13.6 million reduction from
the FY2012 estimate of $61.4 million. S.Rept. 112-158 rejected the requested reduction to ISE.
The March 11, 2013, explanatory statement incorporated Senate report funding levels for MSI
programs, directed NSF to fund ISE (now renamed Advancing Informal Science Learning or
AISL) as described in the Senate report, and provided $69.0 million for ATE. The explanatory
statement also incorporated many of NSF’s proposed E&HR reductions.
The FY2013 request provides no increases for NSF’s administrative accounts (e.g., Agency
Operations and Award Management, National Science Board, and Office of Inspector General) in
FY2013. Both the full House and Senate Committee on Appropriations would have provided the
requested funding levels for these accounts in FY2013. FY2013 current plan funding (postsequestration, post-rescission) reduced these accounts by -1.9% (AOAM), -6.8% (NSB) and 6.5% (OIG) from FY2012 actual funding levels.
Both the House and Senate appropriations committees expressed concerns about the “OneNSF
Framework” in FY2013. As proposed, the OneNSF Framework sought to enable operations
across organizational and disciplinary boundaries. This NSF-wide initiative included E2,
INSPIRE, and I-Corps; as well as other investments in smart systems, cyberinfrastructure,
cybersecurity, and the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability (SEES) portfolio.
NSF sought increases over FY2012 estimated levels for six of the seven OneNSF Framework
priorities. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended that NSF reduce funding for
OneNSF activities and encouraged the foundation to focus resources on core programs and
infrastructure. The House Committee on Appropriations expressed concern about a perceived lack
of administrative clarity in OneNSF activities and encouraged NSF to promulgate clear standards
and guidance on the administration of these activities.
Funding for other NSF-wide investments in the FY2013 request included the National
Nanotechnology Initiative ($434.9 million), the Networking and Information Technology
Research and Development program ($1.207 billion), and the U.S. Global Climate Change
Research program ($332.9 million).
66
The FY2013 E&HR re-framing categorized these accounts as Core R&D Programs.
The FY2013 request for ATE was $64.0 million. The House Committee on Appropriations would offset the
recommended $5.0 million increase to ATE with an equivalent reduction to the E&HR contribution to the GRF.
67
Congressional Research Service
34
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
The FY2013 request also proposed cutting or consolidating 11 foundation programs, totaling
$67.0 million. Most of these programs were in the research directorates and had reached their
planned endpoints or were otherwise considered obsolete. As noted above, the House Committee
on Appropriations rejected the proposed termination of the Communicating Science Broadly
program.
Table 10. NSF Funding by Major Account
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Account
FY2012
Actual
FY2013
Authorized
FY2013
Requesta
H.R. 5326
Housepassed
S. 2323
Senate
Committeereported
FY2013
Current
Plan
Biological Sciences
(BIO)
$712.3
n/s
$733.9
n/s
n/s
$678.9
Computer and
Information Science
and Engineering
(CISE)a
937.2
n/s
n/aa
n/s
n/s
858.5
Engineering (ENG)
824.6
n/s
876.3
n/s
n/s
813.5
Geosciences (GEO)a
1,321.4
n/s
n/aa
n/s
n/s
1,265.8
Mathematical and
Physical Sciences
(MPS)
1,308.7
n/s
1,345.2
n/s
n/s
1,249.5
Social, Behavioral,
and Economic
Sciences (SBE)
254.2
n/s
259.6
n/s
n/s
242.5
International and
Integrative Activitiesa
398.6
n/s
n/ab
n/s
n/s
433.5
U.S. Arctic Research
Commission (USARC)
1.45
n/s
1.39
n/s
n/s
1.39
Research and
Related
Activities, Total
$5,758.3
$6,637.9
$5,983.3
$5,942.7
$5,883.3
$5,543.7
Education and
Human Resources
$830.5
$1,041.8
$875.6
$875.6
$875.6
833.3
Major Research
Equip. and Facilities
Construction
$198.1
$236.8
$196.2
$196.2
$196.2
196.2
Agency Ops. and
Award Management
$299.3
$363.7
$299.4
$299.4
$299.4
293.6
Nat’l Science Board
$4.4
$4.9
$4.4
$4.4
$4.4
4.1
Office of the
Inspector General
$14.1
$15.0
$14.2
$14.2
$14.2
13.2
$7,104.7
$8,300.0
$7,373.1
$7,332.5
$7,273.1
6,884.1
NSF, Total
Source: Numbers in the “FY2012 Actual” column are from NSF’s FY2014 Budget Request to Congress. Numbers
in the “FY2013 Request” column are from the FY2013 NSF Budget Request to Congress. Numbers in the “FY2013
Authorized” column are from the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358). Numbers in
the “Full House” column are from H.Rept. 112-463 and H.R. 5326. Numbers in the “Senate Committee” column
Congressional Research Service
35
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
are from S.Rept. 112-158 and S. 2323. Numbers in the “FY2013 Current Plan” column are from National Science
Foundation, “NSF Congressional Highlight: Congress Completes Action on FY 2013 Appropriations,” fact sheet,
April 9, 2013, http://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/113/highlights/cu13_0409.jsp.
Notes: “n/s” means “not specified.” CRS was unable to identify a defined amount of funding for this account.
“n/a” means not applicable. Numbers are rounded. FY2013 current plan funding levels are post-sequestration,
post-rescission.
a.
Beginning in FY2013, NSF realigned four foundation offices. The Office of Cyberinfrastructure
became a division within CISE, the Office of Polar Programs became a division within GEO, and
the offices of International Science and Engineering and Integrative Activities merged and became
the Office of International and Integrative Activities. FY2012 actual and FY2013 current plan
funding levels in this table reflect these consolidations.
b.
Although the NSF realigned four foundation offices at the beginning of FY2013, its FY2013 budget
request reflects the previous account structure, which provided separate lines for CISE and the
Office of Cyberinfrastructure. The FY2013 request for CISE was $709.7 million. The FY2013
request for the Office of Cyberinfrastructure was $218.3 million.
c.
Although the NSF realigned four foundation offices at the beginning of FY2013, its FY2013 budget
request reflects the previous account structure, which provided separate lines for GEO and the
Office of Polar Programs. The FY2013 request for GEO was $906.4 million. The FY2013 request
for the Office of Polar programs was $449.7 million.
d.
Although the NSF realigned four foundation offices at the beginning of FY2013, its FY2013 budget
request reflects the previous account structure, which provided separate lines for the Office of
International Science and Engineering and the Office of Integrative Activities. The FY2013 request
for the Office of International Science and Engineering was $51.3 million. The FY2013 request for
the Office of Integrative Activities was $431.5 million.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration68
The Administration requested $16.291 billion for NASA R&D in FY2013. This amount was 2.8%
more than the $15.850 billion enacted for FY2012, but 11.3% less than the $18.360 billion
authorized by the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-267). The bill passed by the House
would have provided $16.049 billion. The bill reported by the Senate committee would have
provided $16.305 billion. The August 2013 NASA operating plan, reflecting the final continuing
resolution, reductions due to sequestration, and subsequent reprogramming, included $15.491
billion. For a breakdown of these amounts, see Table 11.
The requested increase in NASA R&D funding in FY2013, despite a requested decrease in
funding for NASA as a whole, was made possible by the retirement of the space shuttles. The
space shuttle program was classified as an operational expense, not R&D. The last shuttle flight
was completed in July 2011, and the remaining closeout costs in FY2013 were only about $39
million, compared with $596 million in FY2012 and several billion dollars per year during the
period of shuttle operations.
The Administration’s $4.911 billion request for NASA’s Science account in FY2013 was 3.5%
less than the FY2012 appropriation. Funding for planetary science would have decreased $308.1
million or 20.5%. Most of the proposed reduction for planetary science was in the Mars
exploration program, whose expected costs were reduced by the launch of the Mars Science
Laboratory in November 2011, the planned launch of the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile
68
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
36
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
Evolution Mission (MAVEN) in 2013, and the termination of NASA’s participation (with the
European Space Agency) in the 2016 and 2018 ExoMars missions. NASA planned to develop a
new Mars exploration strategy that would integrate robotic missions funded by the Science
account with human spaceflight and technology development activities in other accounts. Also in
Science, funding for the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) would have increased $98.0
million or 18.5% under the Administration’s request. Following an independent review of JWST
in October 2010, NASA developed a revised plan for the program in 2011. In the FY2012
appropriations conference report, Congress capped the formulation and development cost of
JWST and mandated annual reports on the program by the Government Accountability Office.
The House-passed bill would have provided $5.095 billion for Science, or $184 million more than
the request, including an increase of $88 million for a future Mars sample return mission. The
House report directed that if, in the judgment of the National Research Council, NASA’s new
Mars strategy would not accomplish a sample return mission, NASA should reallocate the $88
million increase to a mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa. The Senate committee recommended
$5.021 billion for Science, or $110 million more than the request, including an increase of $100
million for Mars Exploration. The August 2013 operating plan included $4.782 billion for
Science. Despite this reduction for the account overall, funding for JWST was at the requested
level, and funding for Mars Exploration was approximately 3% more than the request.
The request for Aeronautics was $551.5 million, a decrease of 3.2% from FY2012. The
Administration proposed to transfer research on hypersonic entry, descent, and landing to the
Space Technology account; eliminate most funding for air-breathing hypersonic flight systems;
and combine the hypersonic research remaining in the Aeronautics program with supersonic
research to create a single project on high-speed flight. The House-passed bill would have
provided $569.9 million. The Senate committee recommended the requested amount. Both
committees expressed concern about the planned changes in NASA’s hypersonics research. The
House committee directed NASA to work with the Department of Defense to define agency roles
and propose changes to the division of responsibilities. The Senate committee directed NASA to
provide a report on how it planned to maintain hypersonics expertise either with its own funds or
in collaboration with other agencies. The August 2013 operating plan included $529.5 million for
Aeronautics.
For Space Technology, the Administration requested $699.0 million, an increase of 21.6% from
FY2012. About half of the proposed increase was for technology demonstration missions
designed to bridge the gap between early-stage development and operational use. In February
2012, the National Research Council (NRC) released its assessment of NASA’s draft roadmaps
for space technology development.69 According to NASA, the Space Technology program was
investing at some level in all 16 of the technology areas that the NRC report recommended for
emphasis. The House-passed bill would have provided $632.5 million for Space Technology. The
Senate committee recommended $651.0 million and directed NASA to give priority to ongoing
activities. The August 2013 operating plan included $614.5 million.
The Administration’s request for Exploration in FY2013 was $3.933 billion, a 4.3% increase over
FY2012 but 25.3% less than the authorized level. This account funds development of the
Multipurpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket—
which the 2010 authorization act mandated for human exploration of space beyond Earth orbit—
69
National Research Council, NASA Space Technology Roadmaps and Priorities: Restoring NASA’s Technological
Edge and Paving the Way for a New Era in Space, download.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13354.
Congressional Research Service
37
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
as well as development of the commercial crew transportation systems that NASA intends to use
for U.S. astronaut access to the International Space Station. The shortfall in Exploration funding
relative to the authorization act raised questions about the feasibility of NASA’s planned human
spaceflight program. NASA officials stated that funding at the requested level would permit a
first uncrewed flight of the SLS in 2017, a first crewed flight of the SLS in 2021, and the first
availability of commercial crew transportation services in 2017, but that funding below the
request would jeopardize those schedules. The House-passed bill would have provided $3.712
billion for Exploration, including $112.5 million more than the request for the MPCV and SLS
and their ground systems (collectively known as Exploration Systems Development) and $329.7
million less than the request for commercial crew. The Senate committee recommended $3.909
billion, including $306.5 million more than the request for Exploration Systems Development and
$304.7 million less than the request for commercial crew. The August 2013 operating plan
included $3.706 billion for Exploration, or $227.3 million less than the request. Within this total,
the operating plan included slightly more than the House amount for Exploration Systems
Development and the same as the Senate amount for commercial crew.
The request for the International Space Station (ISS) was $3.008 billion, an increase of 6.3% from
FY2012. Most of the proposed increase would have been for ISS crew and cargo transportation
provided by international partners and commercial companies. (The first commercial cargo flight
to the ISS took place in May 2012.) The House-passed bill would have provided $2.990 billion
for the ISS. The Senate committee recommended $2.958 billion. The operating plan included
$2.776 billion.
The Senate committee recommended $1.641 billion for NASA to acquire operational satellites for
NOAA. In the past, this work had been carried out by NASA on a cost-reimbursement basis using
funds appropriated to NOAA. Because the programs covered by the proposal were considered
acquisitions, not R&D, transferring the appropriation from NOAA to NASA would not have
directly affected NASA R&D funding. As the operating plan was based on the structure of
FY2012 appropriations, FY2013 funding for these activities remained at NOAA.
Table 11. NASA R&D
(in millions of dollars)
Science
FY2012
Actuala
FY2013
Authorized
FY2013
Request
FY2013
House
FY2013
Senate
FY2013
Op. Plan
$5,073.7
$5,509.6
$4,911.2
$5,095.0
$5,021.1
$4,781.6
Earth Science
1,760.5
2,089.5
1,784.8
1,775.0
1,784.7
1,659.2
Planetary Science
1,501.4
1,591.2
1,192.3
1,400.0
1,292.3
1,271.5
Astrophysics
648.4
1,149.1a
659.4
650.0
669.4
617.0
James Webb Space Telescope
518.6
0.0a
627.6
628.0
627.6
627.6
Heliophysics
644.8
679.8
647.0
642.0
647.0
606.3
Aeronautics
569.4
590.0
551.5
569.9
551.5
529.5
Space Technology
573.7
515.0
699.0
632.5
651.0
614.5
Exploration
3,707.3
5,264.0
3,932.8
3,711.9
3,908.9
3,705.5
Exploration Systems Development
3,001.6
4,040.0
2,769.4
2,881.9
3,075.9
2,883.8
Commercial Spaceflight
406.0
500.0
829.7
500.0
525.0
525.0
Exploration R&D
299.7
724.0
333.7
330.0
308.0
296.7
Congressional Research Service
38
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
International Space Station
Subtotal R&D
Non-R&D Programsb
FY2012
Actuala
FY2013
Authorized
FY2013
Request
FY2013
House
FY2013
Senate
FY2013
Op. Plan
2,789.9
3,129.4
3,007.6
2,990.0
2,957.6
2,775.9
12,714.0
15,008.0
13,102.1
12,999.3
13,090.1
12,407.0
1,568.5
1,308.3
1,142.6
1,133.0
2,808.0
1,100.6
Cross-Agency Supportd
2,993.9
3,276.8
2,847.5
2,717.5
2,822.5
2,711.0
Associated with R&D
2,665.1
3,014.1
2,619.1
2,499.6
2,591.5
2,490.1
Construction & Environmental
- Compliance and Remediationd
494.5
366.9
619.2
598.0
679.0
646.6
Associated with R&D
440.2
337.5
569.5
550.1
623.4
593.9
Total R&D
15,819.3
18,359.5
16,290.7
16,049.0
16,305.0
15,491.0
Total NASA
17,770.0
19,960.0
17,711.4
17,447.8
19,399.6
16,865.2
Source: FY2012 actual from NASA FY2014 congressional budget justification, http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/
. FY2013 authorized from NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-267), Sec. 103. FY2013 request from
NASA FY2013 congressional budget justification, http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/2013.html. FY2013 House
from H.R. 5326 as passed by the House and H.Rept. 112-463. FY2013 Senate from S. 2323 as reported and
S.Rept. 112-158. FY2013 operating plan from NASA operating plan summary table dated August 1, 2013,
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/2013.html.
a.
Includes rescissions.
b.
James Webb Space Telescope was included in Astrophysics in the authorization act.
c.
Space Shuttle, Space and Flight Support, Education, Inspector General, and (in the Senate bill only)
NOAA Operational Satellite Acquisition.
d.
Allocation between R&D and non-R&D is estimated by CRS in proportion to the underlying
program amounts (omitting NOAA Operational Satellite Acquisition in the Senate bill, for
comparability) in order to allow calculation of a total for R&D. The Cross-Agency Support and
Construction and Environmental Compliance and Remediation accounts consist mostly of indirect
costs for other programs, assessed in proportion to their direct costs.
Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology70
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a laboratory of the Department of
Commerce with a mandate to increase the competitiveness of U.S. companies through appropriate
support for industrial development of precompetitive, generic technologies and the diffusion of
government-developed technological advances to users in all segments of the American economy.
NIST research also provides the measurement, calibration, and quality assurance techniques that
underpin U.S. commerce, technological progress, improved product reliability, manufacturing
processes, and public safety.
The President’s FY2013 budget requested $857.0 million for NIST, an increase of 14.1% over the
$750.8 million appropriated in FY2012. Included in this figure was $648.0 million for research
70
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
39
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
and development in the Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, 14.3%
above the FY2012 amount of $567.0 million. Under the Industrial Technology Services (ITS)
account, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program was to receive $128.0 million,
a 0.3% decrease from FY2012 funding of $128.4 million. Also included in ITS, the
Administration again proposed the creation of a new activity, the Advanced Manufacturing
Technology Consortia (AMTech), which was not funded when it was included in the FY2012
budget. In FY2013, support for AMTech would total $21.0 million. The requested appropriation
for the construction budget was $60.0 million, 8.3% above the $55.4 million for FY2012.
In addition to the appropriations included in the budget request that are to be addressed through
the annual appropriations process, the Administration proposed two new programs that were to be
funded through mandatory appropriations.71 Up to $300.0 million generated by the proceeds of
the spectrum auction was to support the Wireless Innovation Fund and $1.000 billion was to be
provided for establishment of the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.
S. 2323, as reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations, would have provided $826.0
million in FY2013 funding for NIST, 10.0% above the FY2012 appropriation but 3.6% below the
Administration’s request. Support for the STRS account totaled $623.0 million, 9.9% more than
the previous fiscal year and 3.9% less than the President proposed. MEP would have received
$128.5 million, 0.1% above the FY2012 figure and 0.4% more than the budget request, while
AMTech would have been financed at $14.5 million, 31.0% below the Administration’s budget
proposal. The $60.0 million in the construction account was 8.3% more than in FY2012 and the
same as the budget request.
As passed by the House, H.R. 5326 would have funded NIST at $830.2 million, an increase of
10.6% over FY2012, 3.1% less than the Administration’s budget, and 0.5% more than the Senate
figure. The $621.2 million for the STRS account was an increase of 9.6% above the earlier fiscal
year, but 4.1% less than the President’s request, and 0.3% less than the amount included in S.
2323. Funding for MEP was $128.0 million, 0.3% less than FY2012, the same as the budget
proposal, and 0.4% below the Senate-reported bill. AMTech would have received $21.0 million,
equal to the amount in the Administration request, and 44.8% more than in S. 2323. The $60.0
million included for construction was the same as that in the request and the Senate bill.
Accounting for the rescissions in P.L. 113-6 and sequestration, FY2013 support for NIST
increased 2.4% to $769.4 million.72 Included in this funding was $579.8 million for the STRS
account which was 2.3% above the earlier fiscal year. The $119.4 million for MEP was 7% less
than FY2012 while the AMTech program received initial funding of $14.2 million. The
construction budget increased 1% to $56.0 million.
NIST’s extramural programs, which are directed toward increased private sector
commercialization, have been a source of contention. Some Members of Congress have expressed
skepticism over a “technology policy” based on providing federal funds to industry for the
development of “pre-competitive generic” technologies. This approach, coupled with pressures to
71
Mandatory spending is typically provided in permanent or multi-year appropriations contained in the authorizing
law, and therefore, the funding becomes available automatically each year, without legislative action by Congress. For
additional information on mandatory spending, see CRS Report RL33074, Mandatory Spending Since 1962, by (name
redacted) and (name redacted).
72
Figures from the National Institute of Standards and Technology Appropriations Summary available at
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/approps-summary2014.cfm.
Congressional Research Service
40
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
balance the federal budget, has led to proposals for the elimination of these activities. In 2007, the
Advanced Technology Program was terminated and replaced by the Technology Innovation
Program which operated until support was withdrawn in the final FY2012 appropriation. An
additional extramural program, AMTech, introduced in the FY2012 budget request, also was not
funded until FY2013.73
Increases in spending for NIST laboratories that perform the research essential to the mission
responsibilities of the agency have tended to remain small. As part of the American
Competitiveness Initiative, announced by former President Bush in the 2006 State of the Union
address, the Administration stated its intention to double funding over 10 years for “innovationenabling research” done, in part, at NIST through its “core” programs (defined as the STRS
account and the construction budget). In April 2009, President Obama indicated his decision to
double the budget of key science agencies, including NIST, over the next 10 years. In President
Obama’s FY2011 budget the timeframe for doubling slipped to 11 years; his FY2012 budget was
intentionally silent on a timeframe for doubling. While the final FY2012 appropriation did not
include an increase in support for NIST, there was a 14.0% increase in funding for R&D under
the STRS account.74 The Administration’s FY2013 budget proposal would have increased support
for NIST 14.1% (excluding mandatory appropriations) and included a 14.3% increase in the
STRS account. S. 2323 contained a 10.0% increase in funding for NIST and a 9.9% increase in
funding for the STRS account, while H.R. 5326 included a 10.6% increase for NIST and a 9.6%
increase for STRS. The final FY2013 appropriation after rescissions and sequestration contained
smaller increases in support including 2.4% for NIST and 2.3% more the STRS account.
Table 12. NIST
(in millions of dollars)
FY2012
Enacted
P.L. 112-55
FY2013
Authorized
Scientific and
Technical
Research and
Services
567.0
676.7
Industrial
Technology
Services
128.4
241.7
NIST Program
Technology
Innovation
Program
0
Manufacturing
Extension
Partnership
128.4
165.1
H.R. 5326
Housepassed
S. 2323
Senate
Committeereported
P.L. 113-6
Current
Operating
Plan
648.0
621.2
623.0
579.8
149.0
149.0
143.0
133.6
0
0
0
0
128.0
128.0
128.5
119.4
FY2013
Request
73
For additional information on the MEP and TIP programs, see CRS Report RS22815, The Technology Innovation
Program, and CRS Report 97-104, Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program: An Overview, both by (name red
acted).
74
For additional information on NIST, see CRS Report 95-30, The National Institute of Standards and Technology: An
Appropriations Overview.
Congressional Research Service
41
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
FY2013
Request
H.R. 5326
Housepassed
S. 2323
Senate
Committeereported
P.L. 113-6
Current
Operating
Plan
0
0
0
0
21.0
21.0
14.5
14.2
121.3
60.0
60.0
60.0
56.0
1,039.7
857.0
830.2
826.0
769.4
NIST Program
FY2012
Enacted
P.L. 112-55
FY2013
Authorized
Baldrige Program
0
10.6
AMTech
0
Construction
55.4
NIST Totala
750.8
Mandatory
Appropriations
Wireless
Innovation Fund
300.0
National Network
for Manufacturing
Innovation
1,000.0
Sources: NIST website (available at http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/budget/index.cfm), P.L. 112-10, P.L. 113-6
and Administration’s FY2012 Budget Request.
a.
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration75
The Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
conducts scientific research in areas such as ecosystems, climate, global climate change, weather,
and oceans; supplies information on the oceans and atmosphere; and manages coastal and marine
organisms and environments. NOAA was created in 1970 by Reorganization Plan No. 4.76 The
reorganization was intended to unify elements of the nation’s environmental activities and to
provide a systematic approach for monitoring, analyzing, and protecting the environment.
NOAA’s R&D efforts focus on climate; weather and air quality; and ocean, coastal, and Great
Lakes resources. These efforts support the four long-term goals of NOAA’s Next Generation
Strategic Plan: (1) climate adaptation and mitigation, (2) weather-ready nation,77 (3) healthy
oceans, and (4) resilient coastal communities and economies.78
For FY2013, President Obama requested $650.6 million in R&D funding for NOAA, an 11.9%
increase in funding from the FY2012 actual level of $573.4 million. R&D accounted for 12.9% of
NOAA’s total FY2013 discretionary budget request of $5.055 billion. The R&D request consisted
of $452 million for research (69.4%), $56 million for development (8.6%), and $143 million for
75
This section was written by (name redacted), Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
76
“Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970,” 35 Fed. Reg. 15627-15630, October 6, 1970; also, see
http://www.lib.noaa.gov/noaainfo/heritage/ReorganizationPlan4.html.
77
According to NOAA a weather-ready nation is envisioned as a society that is prepared for and responds to weatherrelated events.
78
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration FY 2012
Budget Summary, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, February 2011,
http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/fy12_bluebook/chapter7_Research_Development.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
42
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
R&D equipment (22.0%). Excluding equipment, about $371 million (73.0%) of the R&D request
would have funded intramural programs and $137 million (27.0%) would have funded extramural
programs.79
NOAA’s administrative structure has five line offices that reflect its diverse mission: National
Ocean Service (NOS); National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); National Environmental
Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS); National Weather Service (NWS); and Office
of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). In addition to NOAA’s five line offices, Program
Support (PS), a cross-cutting budget activity, includes the Office of Marine and Aviation
Operations (OMAO).
Table 13 provides R&D funding levels by line office for FY2012 enacted, the FY2013 request,
and the FY2013 estimate from the NOAA spend plan.80 On April 19, 2012, the Senate Committee
on Appropriations reported S. 2323, and on May 10, 2012, the House passed H.R. 5326. Neither
of the appropriations bills or accompanying committee reports specify R&D funding levels for
NOAA, but total recommended agency funding has been provided in Table 13 for context. For
2013, the NOAA spend plan provides $543.0 million in R&D funding, a 5.3% decrease in
funding from the FY2012 level of $573.4 million. Of the R&D FY2013 total, $414.9 million
funds R&D (76.4%) and $128.1 million funds R&D equipment (23.6%). R&D accounts for
11.4% of NOAA’s total FY2013 discretionary budget of $4.748 billion.
Table 13. NOAA R&D
(in millions of dollars)
FY2013
Request
National Ocean Service
62.4
80.0
62.2
National Marine Fisheries Service
53.6
59.7
32.4
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research
338.6
378.9
336.1
National Weather Service
22.5
21.6
24.3
National Environmental Satellite,
Data, and Information Service
26.7
35.5
25.1
Office of Marine and Aviation
Operationsa
69.6
74.9
62.8
Total R&Db
573.4
650.6
543.0
NOAA Total
4,893.7
5,054.5
Line Offices
H.R. 5326
Housepasseda
S. 2323
Senate
Committeereporteda
FY2012
Enacted
4,944.7
3,418.7d
FY2013
Spend Plan
4,747.8
Sources: Stacy Dennery, NOAA Budget Office, e-mail concerning NOAA R&D, August 7, 2013.
79
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration FY 2013
Budget Summary, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, March 2012,
http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/13bluebook_highlights.html.
80
Stacy Dennery, NOAA Budget Office, e-mail concerning NOAA R&D, August 7, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
43
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
a.
Neither of the appropriations bills or accompanying committee reports specify R&D funding levels
for NOAA or its line offices, but total recommended agency funding has been provided for
context.
b.
All OMAO R&D funding is for equipment.
c.
Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
d.
The large difference in the NOAA total is due to the recommended transfer of satellite
acquisition to NASA.
Department of Agriculture81
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) research and education activities are included in four
organizations: Agricultural Research Service (ARS), National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA),82 Economic Research Service (ERS), and National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS). For these four agencies in FY2013, the President requested $2.598 billion, an increase of
2.6% from the FY2012 enacted level of $2.533 billion. (See Table 14.) Even with the proposed
decline in funding in the FY2013 request, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack stated that
To help sustain record farm income, we will invest in research and development to improve
agricultural productivity. The budget has made a 23% increase in funding for our premier
competitive grants program to support the most worthy projects and continues support for inhouse research and the land grant universities. We’ll continue our efforts to combat
destructive pests and disease that threaten crops and livestock.83
The Agricultural Research Service is USDA’s in-house basic and applied research agency, and
operates approximately 100 laboratories nationwide. The ARS also includes the National
Agricultural Library, a primary information resource on food, agriculture, and natural resource
sciences. The ARS laboratories focus on efficient food and fiber production, development of new
products and uses for agricultural commodities, development of effective biocontrols for pest
management, and support of USDA regulatory and technical assistance programs. The President
requested $1.1 billion for ARS in FY2013, 0.7% above the FY2012 enacted level. The FY2013
request included $50.4 million in program reallocations to address the nation’s most critical
research needs, including a reallocation of $4.0 million for research to develop integrated,
sustainable production systems that will improve food production efficiency and protect the
environment.
The President also proposed elimination of lower priority extramural projects. Priorities in the
FY2013 request included the conversion of agricultural products into biobased products and
biofuels; development of new measures to control bovine tuberculosis and bovine respiratory
diseases; domestic and global market opportunities; new varieties and hybrids of feedstocks; and
new healthier foods with decreased caloric density, and research on detection methods and
countermeasures to foreign animal diseases that could result in catastrophic losses. The FY2013
request proposed an increase of approximately $25 million for research directed at improving
81
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, and updated by
(name redacted), Specialis t in Agricultural Policy.
82
NIFA was formerly the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES).
83
U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Remarks as Prepared for Delivery:Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Before the House
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies,” February
17, 2012, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MsszPy8xBz9CPos_gA.
Congressional Research Service
44
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2013
American agriculture’s adaptability to environmental challenges. This proposal stemmed from
recommendations contained in a 2011 report of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology stating the need for improved accounting of ecosytem services and increased
protection of the environment.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture was established in Title VII, Section 7511 of the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, also known as the 2008 farm bill).
NIFA is responsible for developing partnerships between the federal and state components of
agricultural research, extension, and institutions of higher education. NIFA distributes funds to
State Agricultural Experiment Stations, State Cooperative Extension Systems, land-grant
universities, and other institutions and organizations that conduct agricultural research, education,
and outreach. Included in these partnerships is funding for research at 1862 land-grant
institutions, 1890 historically black colleges and universities, 1994 tribal land-grant colleges, and
Hispanic-serving institutions.84 Funding is distributed to the states through competitive awards,
statutory formula funding, and special grants.
For FY2013, the President requested $1.2 billion for NIFA, 3.0% above the FY2012 enacted
level. The Administration’s FY2013 request for NIFA emphasized competitive, peer-reviewed
allocation of research funding to generate solutions for the most critical needs of agriculture.
Funding for FY2013 included support for grant management, as well as for programs that are
responsive to critical national issues such as agricultural security, local and regional emergencies,
zoonotic diseases, climate change, childhood obesity, and pest risk management.
NIFA is responsible for administering the agency’s primary competitive research grants program,
the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). In addition to supporting fundamental and
applied science in agriculture, USDA maintains that the AFRI makes a significant contribution to
developing the next generation of agricultural scientists by providing graduate students with
opportunities to work on research projects. A focus of these efforts is to provide increased
opportunities for minority and under-served communities in agricultural science. The FY2013
request sought $325.0 million for the AFRI, a proposed increase of $61.0 million over the
FY2012 enacted level. Major initiatives for FY2013 included proposed funding of $30.0 million
for alternative and renewable energy research to develop high-quality, cost-effective feedstocks
for biofuel production; $3.7 million for research to address the adaptation of production systems
to climate varieties; $7.2 million for international food security to improve research and extension
efforts on sustainable plant and animal production systems; and $3.2 million for AFRI’s
Foundational Research Program. Additional research was also requested for global climate
change research to develop mitigation capabilities for agricultural production, and sup
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.