Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
Congressional research reportFeb 19, 2014
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Federal Research and Development Funding:
FY2014
-name redacted-, Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
February 19, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R43086
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
Summary
Congress completed action on the FY2014 regular appropriations bills with enactment of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), in January 2014. The act contains the 12
regular appropriations bills that fund federal departments and agencies and provide funding for
most research and development (R&D) supported by the federal government. Prior to enactment
of P.L. 113-76, FY2014 funding was provided by two continuing resolutions (P.L. 113-46 and
P.L. 113-73). Where possible, CRS has identified and included in this report R&D funding in P.L.
113-76 for agencies and programs. For accounts that include funding for both R&D and nonR&D activities, CRS generally relies on agency reporting of how much is spent on R&D
activities. This report will be updated as agencies make this information available.
President Obama’s budget request for FY2014 included $142.773 billion for research and
development (R&D), a $1.861 billion (1.3%) increase from the FY2012 actual funding level of
$140.912 billion. Both historically and in the President’s request, funding for R&D has been
highly concentrated in a few departments. Under President Obama’s request, seven federal
agencies would have received 95.3% of total federal R&D funding, with the Department of
Defense (47.8%) and the Department of Health and Human Services (22.4%, primarily for the
National Institutes of Health) alone accounting for more than 70% of total federal R&D funding.
Among the largest changes proposed in the President’s request, the R&D budget of the
Department of Defense would have fallen by $4.625 billion (6.3%) from its FY2012 level, while
R&D funding for the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) would have increased by $1.428 billion. The NIST growth was attributable to proposed
increases in funding for its core research laboratories and the establishment of a National
Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) with $1 billion in mandatory funding. As
envisioned, the NNMI would seek to promote the development of manufacturing technologies
with broad applications. P.L. 113-76 does not address the Administration’s proposal for National
Network of Manufacturing Institutes (NNMI).
President Obama requested increases in the R&D budgets of NIST, the National Science
Foundation, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. These accounts were targeted for
doubling over 7 years, from their FY2006 levels, by the America COMPETES Act, and over 10
years by the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. The FY2014 request broke with
President Obama’s earlier budgets, which explicitly stated the goal of doubling funding for these
accounts over their FY2006 aggregate level. Instead the Office of Science and Technology Policy
asserted that the FY2014 request “maintains the President’s commitment to increase funding for
research at these three science agencies.” The President’s FY2014 request set a pace that would
have resulted in doubling of the FY2006 level over a period of more than 17 years. FY2014
funding for these accounts provided by P.L. 113-6 sets a doubling pace of more than 20 years.
The President’s request continued support for three multi-agency R&D initiatives in FY2014,
proposing $1.704 billion for the National Nanotechnology Initiative, a reduction of $159 million
(8.6%) over FY2012, due primarily to reductions in NNI funding at DOD and NSF; $3.968
billion for the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development program, an
increase of $159 million (4.2%) over FY2012; and $2.652 billion for the U.S. Global Change
Research Program, an increase of $151 million (6.0%) over FY2012.
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
In recent years, Congress has used a variety of mechanisms to complete the annual appropriations
process after the start of the fiscal year. This may affect agencies’ execution of their R&D
budgets, including delaying or canceling some planned R&D and equipment acquisition.
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
Contents
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1
Federal R&D Funding Perspectives ................................................................................................ 2
By Agency ................................................................................................................................. 3
By Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment ..................................................................... 4
By Agency and Character of Work Combined .......................................................................... 5
Defense-Related and Nondefense-Related R&D....................................................................... 6
Multiagency R&D Initiatives........................................................................................................... 7
Efforts to Double Certain R&D Accounts ................................................................................. 7
National Nanotechnology Initiative........................................................................................... 9
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program .................... 10
U.S. Global Change Research Program................................................................................... 10
Materials Genome Initiative .................................................................................................... 11
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership ..................................................................................... 11
National Robotics Initiative .............................................................................................. 11
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation ............................................................. 12
Reorganization of STEM Education Programs ....................................................................... 13
Treatment of FY2013 Rescissions and Sequestration in this Report ............................................. 13
FY2014 Appropriations Status....................................................................................................... 15
Department of Defense .................................................................................................................. 16
Department of Homeland Security ................................................................................................ 20
National Institutes of Health .......................................................................................................... 24
Department of Energy .................................................................................................................... 29
National Science Foundation ......................................................................................................... 34
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ........................................................................... 40
Department of Commerce.............................................................................................................. 43
National Institute of Standards and Technology ...................................................................... 43
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ................................................................ 45
Department of Agriculture ............................................................................................................. 47
Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................. 50
U.S. Geological Survey ........................................................................................................... 51
Other DOI Agencies ................................................................................................................ 51
Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 53
Department of Transportation ........................................................................................................ 56
Figures
Figure 1. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling: Appropriations, Authorizations,
and Requests versus Selected Doubling Rates ............................................................................. 9
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
Tables
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2012-FY2014 ..................... 3
Table 2. Federal Research and Development Funding by Character of Work and Facilities
and Equipment, FY2012-FY2014 ................................................................................................ 4
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2012-FY2014 ................................................................................................ 6
Table 4. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling FY2006-FY2014 ........................................ 8
Table 5. Alignment of Agency R&D Funding and Regular Appropriations Bills ......................... 15
Table 6. Department of Defense RDT&E ...................................................................................... 19
Table 7. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs ..................................... 23
Table 8. National Institutes of Health Funding .............................................................................. 28
Table 9. Department of Energy R&D and Related Activities ........................................................ 33
Table 10. NSF Funding by Major Account .................................................................................... 38
Table 11. NASA R&D ................................................................................................................... 42
Table 12. NIST ............................................................................................................................... 45
Table 13. NOAA R&D................................................................................................................... 47
Table 14. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D............................................................................ 50
Table 15. Department of the Interior R&D .................................................................................... 52
Table 16. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account .......................................................... 55
Table 17. Department of Transportation R&D .............................................................................. 59
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 60
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
Overview
The 113th Congress continues 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. 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. However, widespread concerns about the federal debt and
recent and projected federal budget deficits are driving 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 R&D. Its purposes
include addressing specific concerns such as national defense, health, safety, the environment,
and energy security; advancing knowledge generally; developing the scientific and engineering
workforce; and strengthening U.S. innovation and competitiveness in the global economy. Most
of the R&D funded by the federal government is performed in support of the unique missions of
the funding agencies.
Congress plays a central role in defining the nation’s R&D priorities as it makes decisions about
the size and distribution of R&D funding—overall, within agencies, and for specific programs.
Some Members of Congress have expressed concerns about the level of federal funding (for R&D
as for other purposes) in light of the current federal fiscal condition, deficit, and debt. As
Congress moved to complete the FY2014 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.
President Obama released his proposed FY2014 budget on April 10, 2013. Since FY2013 final
appropriations figures (post-sequestration) were not yet available, the President’s budget
compared the FY2014 request generally to FY2012 funding rather than to FY2013 funding. As a
result, some analyses in this report use FY2012 as the base comparison year; in some cases the
analysis of growth rates is also presented in terms of compound annual growth rates (CAGRs).1
This report provides government-wide, multi-agency, and individual agency analyses of the
President’s FY2014 request as it relates to R&D and related activities. The President’s budget
sought $142.773 billion for R&D in FY2014, a 1.3% increase (0.7% CAGR) over the actual
FY2012 R&D funding level of $140.912 billion.2 Adjusted for inflation, the President’s FY2014
R&D request represented a decrease of 2.6% (1.3% CAGR) from the FY2012 level.3
Among its provisions, the R&D funding in the President’s proposed FY2014 budget maintained
an emphasis on increasing support for the physical sciences and engineering, an effort consistent
1
CAGR provides a measure of annual growth. CAGR is a calculated growth rate which, if applied year after year to a
beginning amount, reaches a specified final amount.
2
Funding levels included in this document are in current dollars unless otherwise noted. Inflation diminishes the
purchasing power of federal R&D funds, so an increase that falls short of the inflation rate may reduce real purchasing
power.
3
As calculated by CRS using the GDP (chained) price index from Table 10.1, Gross Domestic Product and Deflators
Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2018, from the President’s FY2014 budget, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/hist10z1.xls.
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
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 Office of Science, the National Science Foundation, and
the Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology’s core laboratory
research and R&D facilities construction funding (collectively referred to as the “targeted
accounts”). Appropriations provided to these agencies fell short of the levels authorized in P.L.
110-69 and P.L. 111-358. (See “Multiagency R&D Initiatives” for detailed information.)
More broadly, in a 2009 speech before members of the National Academy of Sciences, President
Obama put forth a goal of increasing the national (public and private) 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).4 Doing so likely would have required a substantial increase in government
and/or corporate R&D spending. When President Obama set forth the goal in 2009, total U.S.
R&D expenditures were $404.7 billion, or approximately 2.90% of GDP, so reaching the 3% goal
would have required an increase of 3.6% in national R&D spending. Since then, however, GDP
has grown faster than R&D (due, in large measure, to comparatively small growth in federal
R&D funding). As a result, total estimated U.S. R&D expenditures of $428.2 billion in 2011
accounted for a somewhat smaller fraction (2.84%) of GDP than in 2009. Therefore, reaching the
3% goal in 2011 would have required an increase of 5.6% in national R&D spending.5
Analysis of federal R&D funding is complicated by several factors, such as inconsistency among
agencies in the reporting of R&D and the inclusion of R&D in accounts with non-R&D activities.
As a result of these 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), including those shown in Table 1, may differ somewhat from the agency budget
analyses that appear later in this report.
Federal R&D Funding Perspectives
Federal R&D funding can be analyzed from a variety of perspectives that provide different
insights. The following sections examine the data viewed by agency, by the character of the work
supported, by a combination of these two perspectives, and by defense-related and nondefenserelated R&D.
4
The research and experimentation tax credit is frequently referred to as the research and development tax credit or
R&D tax credit, through the credit does not apply to development expenditures. For additional information about the
R&E tax credit, see CRS Report RL31181, Research Tax Credit: Current Law and Policy Issues for the 113th
Congress, by (name redacted).
5
GDP figures from Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business, 31 May 2012; R&D figures from
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, National Patterns of R&D
Resources (annual series).
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
By Agency
The authorization and appropriations process views federal R&D funding primarily from the
perspective of individual agencies and programs. Table 1 provides data on R&D by agency for
FY2012 (actual), FY2013 (estimate), and FY2014 (request) as reported by OMB. This table will
be updated as post-sequestration funding data become available.
Under President Obama’s FY2014 budget request, seven federal agencies would have received
95.3% of total federal R&D funding: Department of Defense (DOD), 47.8%; Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) (primarily the National Institutes of Health), 22.4%;
Department of Energy (DOE), 8.9%; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
8.1%; National Science Foundation (NSF), 4.3%; Department of Commerce (DOC), 1.9%; and
Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1.8%. 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 11 agencies accounted for 98% of FY2012 and FY2014
(requested) federal R&D funding.
The largest agency R&D increases proposed in the President’s FY2014 request, compared with
the FY2012 levels, were for DOE, $1.928 billion (17.8%); DOC, $1.428 billion (113.9%);6 DHS,
$893 million (185.7%); HHS, $669 million (2.1%); NSF, $512 million (9.1%); and NASA, $290
million (2.6%). Under the President’s FY2014 budget request, DOD R&D funding would have
been reduced by $4.625 billion (6.3%) and EPA R&D by $8 million (1.4%).
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2012-FY2014
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change, 2012-2014
FY2014
Request
Dollar
$72,916
$68,291
$−4,625
−6.3%
−3.2%
HHS
31,377
32,046
669
2.1%
1.1%
DOE
10,811
12,739
1,928
17.8%
8.6%
NASA
11,315
11,605
290
2.6%
1.3%
NSF
5,636
6,148
512
9.1%
4.4%
DOC
1,254
2,682
1,428
113.9%
46.2%
USDA
2,331
2,523
192
8.2%
4.0%
DHS
481
1,374
893
185.7%
69.0%
Department/Agency
FY2012
Actual
DOD
FY2013
Estimatea
Percent
CAGR
6
The Department of Commerce total includes the mandatory funding proposal for the National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This program is 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).
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
Change, 2012-2014
FY2014
Request
Dollar
1,160
1,172
12
1.0%
0.5%
DOI
820
963
143
17.4%
8.4%
DOT
921
942
21
2.3%
1.1%
EPA
568
560
−8
−1.4%
−0.7%
Other
1,322
1,728
406
30.7%
14.3%
Total
140,912
142,773
1,861
1.3%
0.7%
Department/Agency
Department of Veterans Affairs
FY2012
Actual
FY2013
Estimatea
Percent
CAGR
Source: Executive Office of the President, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 2014, Table 21-1.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
a.
FY2013 post-sequestration funding data will be added when available.
By Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment
Federal R&D funding can also be examined by the character of work it supports—basic research,
applied research, or development—and by funding provided for construction of R&D facilities
and acquisition of major R&D equipment. (See Table 2.) President Obama’s FY2014 request
included $33.162 billion for basic research, up $1.422 million (4.5%) from FY2012 (2.2%
CAGR); $34.963 billion for applied research, up $3.345 billion (10.6%) from FY2012 (5.2%
CAGR); $71.463 billion for development, down $3.781 billion (5.0%) from FY2012 (2.5%
CAGR); and $3.185 billion for facilities and equipment, up $875 million (37.9%) from FY2012
(17.4% CAGR).
Table 2. Federal Research and Development Funding by Character of Work and
Facilities and Equipment, FY2012-FY2014
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change, 2012-2014
FY2012
Actual
FY2013
Estimatea
FY2014
Request
Dollar
Percent
CAGR
Basic research
31,740
33,162
$1,422
4.5%
2.2%
Applied research
31,618
34,963
3,345
10.6%
5.2%
Development
75,244
71,463
−3,781
−5.0%
−2.5%
Facilities and Equipment
2,310
3,185
875
37.9%
17.4%
140,912
142,773
1,861
1.3%
0.7%
Total
Source: Executive Office of the President, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government,
Fiscal Year 2014, Table 21-1.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
a.
FY2013 post-sequestration funding data will be added when available.
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
By Agency and Character of Work Combined
Combining these perspectives, federal R&D funding can be viewed in terms of each agency’s
contribution to basic research, applied research, development, and facilities and equipment. (See
Table 3.) The 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
priorities and the mission of each agency contribute, in part, to the composition of that agency’s
R&D spending (i.e., the allocation between basic research, applied research, development, and
facilities and equipment). In the President’s FY2014 budget request, the Department of Health
and Human Services, primarily the National Institutes of Health (NIH), accounted for nearly half
of all federal funding for basic research.7 HHS is also the largest funder of applied research,
accounting for about 45% of all federally funded applied research in the President’s FY2014
budget request.8 DOD is the primary federal agency funder of development, accounting for 86.1%
of total federal development funding in the President’s FY2014 budget request.9
The federal government is the nation’s largest supporter of basic research, funding 53.3% of U.S.
basic research in 2011, primarily because the private sector asserts it cannot capture an adequate
return on long-term fundamental research investments. In contrast, industry funded 22.5% of U.S.
basic research in 2011 (with state governments, universities, and other non-profit organizations
funding the remaining 24.2%).10 In contrast to basic research, industry is the primary funder of
applied research in the United States, accounting for an estimated 51.2% in 2011, while the
federal government accounted for an estimated 38.8%.11 Industry also provides the vast majority
of funding for development. Industry accounted for an estimated 74.6% in 2011, while the federal
government provided an estimated 23.7%.12
7
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United
States Government, Fiscal Year 2014, Table 21-1.
8
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United
States Government, Fiscal Year 2014, Table 21-1.
9
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United
States Government, Fiscal Year 2014, Table 21-1.
10
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2013, National Patterns of
R&D Resources: 2010–11 Data Update, NSF 13-318, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13318/.
11
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2013, National Patterns of
R&D Resources: 2010–11 Data Update, NSF 13-318, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13318/.
12
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2013, National Patterns of
R&D Resources: 2010–11 Data Update, NSF 13-318, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13318/.
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2012-FY2014
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change,
2012 to 2014
FY2012
Actual
FY2013
Estimatea
FY2014
Request
Dollar
Percent
CAGR
Basic Research
Health and Human Services
16,195
16,182
−13
−0.1%
0.0%
National Science Foundation
4,584
5,120
536
11.7%
5.7%
Energy
3,912
4,129
217
5.5%
2.7%
Health and Human Services
14,933
15,660
727
4.9%
2.4%
Defense
4,728
4,602
−126
−2.7%
−1.3%
Energy
3,584
4,405
821
22.9%
10.9%
Defense
66,069
61,499
−4,570
−6.9%
−3.5%
NASA
5,344
5,135
−209
−3.9%
−2.0%
Energy
2,446
3,338
892
36.5%
16.8%
Energy
869
867
−2
−0.2%
−0.1%
Homeland Security
97
778
681
702.1%
183.2%
National Science Foundation
535
548
13
2.4%
1.2%
Applied Research
Development
Facilities and Equipment
Source: Executive Office of the President, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government,
Fiscal Year 2014, April 10, 2013.
Note: Top three funding agencies in each category based on FY2014 request.
a.
FY2013 post-sequestration funding data will be added when available.
Defense-Related and Nondefense-Related R&D
Federal R&D funding can also be characterized as defense-related or nondefense-related.
Defense-related R&D is provided for primarily by the Department of Defense, but includes some
funding at the Department of Energy and the Department of Justice Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Defense-related R&D has generally provided for more than half of total federal
R&D funding for the past two decades, fluctuating between 50% and 70%. Defense related R&D
grew from 52.7% of total federal R&D funding in FY2001 to 60.5% in FY2008 and has since
declined. The President’s request for FY2014 included $73.2 billion in defense-related R&D
funding, or about 51.2% of the total R&D request.
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
Multiagency R&D Initiatives
Although this report focuses primarily on the R&D activities of individual agencies, President
Obama’s FY2014 budget request suppored several multiagency R&D initiatives. The following
sections discuss several of these.
Efforts to Double Certain R&D Accounts
In 2006, President Bush announced the 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, DOE
Office of Science, and the scientific and technical research and services (STRS) and construction
of research facilities (CRF) accounts at the DOC National Institute of Standards and Technology.
In 2007, Congress authorized substantial increases for these targeted accounts under the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69), which set the combined authorization levels for these accounts
for FY2008-FY2010 at a seven-year doubling pace.13 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.14 (See Table 4 for individual and aggregate appropriations for the
targeted accounts.)
In 2010, Congress passed the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358)
which, among other things, authorized appropriations levels for the targeted accounts for
FY2011-FY2013.15 The aggregate authorization levels in this act for the targeted accounts are
consistent with an 11-year doubling path, slower than the America COMPETES Act’s 7-year
doubling path. Moreover, aggregate FY2012 funding for the targeted accounts was approximately
$12.529 billion, $1.631 billion less than authorized in the act, setting a pace to double over 17
years from the FY2006 level—more than twice the length of time originally envisioned in the
2007 America COMPETES Act and more than half longer than the doubling period established
by the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010.16
In his FY2014 budget, President Obama requested $13.532 billion in aggregate funding for the
targeted accounts, an increase of $1.003 billion (8.0%) above the enacted FY2012 aggregate
funding level of $12.529 billion. P.L. 113-6 provided $12.141 billion in FY2013 funding after
reductions for rescissions and sequestration. P.L. 113-76 provides $12.950 billion in FY2014
funding for these accounts, an amount that sets a doubling pace of more than 20 years.
13
CRS Report R41951, An Analysis of Efforts to Double Federal Funding for Physical Sciences and Engineering
Research, by (name redacted)
14
In 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) provided supplemental funding for
several of the targeted accounts (approximately $5.202 billion). This raised funding for the accounts above the target
levels in that year.
15
For additional information, see CRS Report R41231, America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 5116)
and the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69): Selected Policy Issues, coordinated by (name redacted).
16
All doubling path calculations in this report use FY2006 as the baseline. For additional information on the doubling
effort, see CRS Report R41951, An Analysis of Efforts to Double Federal Funding for Physical Sciences and
Engineering Research, by (name redacted)
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
In light of recent appropriations and continuing 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.17 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).18 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. President Obama’s
2014 budget expresses a commitment to increasing funding for the targeted accounts, but does
not commit to doubling, remaining silent on this goal and timeframe. In addition, the Office of
Management and Budget’s Public Budget Database, published as part of the President’s FY2014
request, includes projections of budget authority for the targeted accounts through FY2018;
projected FY2018 funding for the targeted accounts sets a doubling pace of approximately 19
years.
Table 4. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling
FY2006-FY2014
FY2014
Enacted
FY2014
Request
FY2013
Actuala
FY2012
Actual
FY2011
Actual
FY2010
Actual
FY2009
ARRA
FY2009
Actual
FY2008
Actual
FY2007
Actual
Agency
FY2006
Actual
(budget authority, in millions of current dollars)
NSF
5,646
5,884
6,084
6,469
2,402
6,972
6,913b
7,033
6,884
7,626
7,172
DOE/Office of
Science
3,632
3,837
4,083
4,807
1,633
4,964
4,843
4,874
4,621
5,153
5,071
NIST/core
researchc
395
434
441
472
220
515
497
567
580
694
651
NIST/facilities
174
59
161
172
360
147
70
55
56
60
56
9,846
10,214
10,768
11,920
4,615
12,598
12,323
12,529
12,141
13,533
12,950
Total
Source: NIST, budget requests for FY2008-FY2014, available at http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/budget/
index.cfm; DOE, budget requests for FY2008-FY2014, available at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/crorgcf30.htm; NSF,
budget requests for FY2008-FY2014 available at http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
a.
FY2013 figures are agency-reported funding, incorporating reduction for rescissions and sequestration.
b.
Includes $54 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.
Figure 1 shows total funding for the targeted accounts as a percentage of their FY2006 funding
level, and illustrates how actual (FY2006-FY2012), requested (FY2007-FY2014), projected
(FY2015-FY2018), and authorized appropriations (FY2008-FY2013) compare to different
17
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.
18
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: FY2014
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,
thus the effect of inflation on the purchasing power of these funds is not taken into consideration.
Figure 1. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling:
Appropriations, Authorizations, and Requests versus Selected Doubling Rates
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using agency FY2008-FY2014 budget
justifications; the President’s FY2014 budget request; agency authorization levels from the America COMPETES
Act (P.L. 110-69) and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358); agency current plans
for FY2013 appropriations; and P.L. 113-76 for FY2014 appropriations.
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. Funding provided under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) is excluded from the FY2009 “Actual
Appropriations” amount.
National Nanotechnology Initiative
Launched by President Clinton in his FY2001 budget request, the National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) is a multiagency R&D initiative advancing understanding and control of matter at
the nanoscale, where the physical, chemical, and biological properties of materials differ in
fundamental and useful ways from the properties of individual atoms or bulk matter.19
19
In the context of the NNI and nanotechnology, the nanoscale refers to a dimension of 1 to 100 nanometers.
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
The President is requesting $1.704 billion for the NNI in FY2014, a reduction of $159 million
(8.6%) from the FY2012 actual level of $1.863 billion. Among the most substantial changes in
nanotechnology funding under the Administration’s FY2014 request: reductions for DOD ($209
million, 49.1%) and NSF ($35 million, 7.6%), and increases for DOE ($56 million, 17.8%), DHS
($16 million, 86.5%), HHS ($8 million, 1.7%), and DOC ($7 million, 7.0%). Nanotechnology
funding for other NNI agencies would remain essentially flat in FY2014.20
Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Program
Established by the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194), the Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program is the primary mechanism
by which the federal government coordinates its unclassified networking and information
technology (NIT) R&D investments in areas such as supercomputing, high-speed networking,
cybersecurity, software engineering, and information management.
President Obama has requested $3.968 billion in FY2014 for the Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program. This is $159 million (4.2%) above the
FY2012 funding level. The most substantial agency increases in NITRD funding under the
Administration’s FY2014 request are for the DOC (up $51 million, 42.6%), DOE (up $44
million, 8.8%), DOD (up $38 million, 3.0%), DHS (up $22 million, 40.6%), and NSF (up $11
million, 0.9%). The President’s budget would reduce HHS NITRD funding by $6 million (down
1.0%) and NASA by $2 million (down 1.9%).21
U.S. Global Change Research Program
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) coordinates and integrates federal
research and applications to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and
natural processes of global change.
President Obama has proposed $2.652 billion for the U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP) in FY2014, $151 million (6.0%) above the FY2012 estimated level of $2.501 billion.
The most substantial agency increases in USGCRP funding under the Administration’s FY2014
request are for NASA (up $71 million, 5.0%), DOC (up $45 million, 13.8%), DOI U.S.
Geological Survey (up $13 million, 22.2%), and USDA (up $11 million, 9.8%).22
20
Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The 2014 Budget: A World-Leading
Commitment to Science and Research—Science, Technology, Innovation, and STEM Education in the 2014 Budget,
Table 2, April 10, 2013. For additional information on the NNI, see CRS Report RL34401, The National
Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by (name redacted)
21
Ibid. For additional information on the NITRD program, see CRS Report RL33586, The Federal Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development Program: Background, Funding, and Activities, by (name red
acted).
22
Ibid. For additional information on the USGCRP, see CRS Report RL33817, Climate Change: Federal Program
Funding and Tax Incentives, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
10
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
Materials Genome Initiative
Announced in June 2011 by President Obama, the Materials Genome Initiative 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 FY2012 and
requested in the FY2013 budget reflect these efforts.23
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.24 The President’s FY2014 budget does not include a table of agency funding
for the MGI, but the initiative is referred to in the Analytical Perspectives supplement to the
President’s budget25 and multiple times in the National Science Foundation’s FY2014 Budget
Request to Congress.26 Among the agencies funding MGI R&D are DOE, DOD, NSF, and NIST.
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.”27 Two R&D-focused components of the AMP are the National Robotics
Initiative (NRI) and the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI).
National Robotics Initiative
The National Robotics Initiative (NRI) seeks to “develop robots that work with or beside people
to extend or augment human capabilities.”28 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
23
E-mail correspondence between OSTP and CRS, March 14, 2012.
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.
25
Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United
States Government, Fiscal Year 2014, p. 371.
26
National Science Foundation, Fiscal Year 2014 Budget of the U.S. Government, April 10, 2013, http://www.nsf.gov/
about/budget/fy2014/pdf/EntireDocument_fy2014.pdf.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
24
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
microbial contamination.29 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.30 The
President’s FY2014 budget does not include a table of agency funding for the NRI, but is referred
to in the Analytical Perspectives supplement to the President’s budget.31 Also, a brief reference to
NSF’s participation in the NRI appears in the President’s budget for FY2014 as well as multiple
references in NSF’s FY2014 budget request.32
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation
The President’s FY2014 budget once again proposes the establishment of a National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) to promote the development of manufacturing technologies
with broad applications. First proposed in President Obama’s FY2013 budget request, this
initiative would be carried out through a collaboration among NIST, DOD, DOE, and NSF.33
According to NIST, the NNMI would consist 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 requests a mandatory appropriation to NIST of $1 billion over nine years
(FY2014-FY2022) in support of up to 15 NNMI manufacturing innovation institutes. Funding for
the program would be front-loaded with NIST anticipating obligating $147.6 million in FY2014,
and $672 million in spending projected for FY2014-FY2018.35 The joint explanatory statement
accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76) states that “The
agreement does not address the administration’s proposal for National Network of Manufacturing
Institutes (NNMI) because the NNMI legislative proposal has not been considered or approved by
the Congress.”
29
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.
30
Ibid.
31
Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United
States Government, Fiscal Year 2014, p. 371.
32
National Science Foundation, Fiscal Year 2014 Budget of the U.S. Government, April 10, 2013, http://www.nsf.gov/
about/budget/fy2014/pdf/EntireDocument_fy2014.pdf.
33
Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The 2014 Budget: A World-Leading
Commitment to Science and Research—Science, Technology, Innovation, and STEM Education in the 2014 Budget,
April 10, 2013.
34
U.S. Department of Commerce, FY2014 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 2014 Budget of the U.S.
Government, Supplemental Tables, Table S-9, April 10, 2013, p. 203.
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
Reorganization of STEM Education Programs
The Administration’s FY2014 budget proposed a broad reorganization and consolidation of
federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education programs—
including programs with a potential nexus to federal R&D, such as research fellowships at
mission agencies. Under the plan, the National Science Foundation, Department of Education,
and Smithsonian Institution would become lead federal agencies for graduate/undergraduate
STEM education, kindergarten-through-grade 12 STEM education, and informal science
education, respectively.
The President proposed that certain STEM education programs at other federal agencies be
reduced and their associated budget authority allocated to the three lead agencies. Other federal
STEM education programs, including those at the lead agencies, also would have been
consolidated under the plan. About half of existing federal STEM education programs would have
been affected.
The House Committee on Appropriations report and the Senate Committee on Appropriations
report both rejected the proposed reorganization plan for programs within the purview of the
FY2014 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations act. The House report
noted that there may be individual instances in which the Committee accepts a change. The
Senate report deferred action on the reorganization until the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) finalizes STEM education program assessments as required by the America
COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358). The explanatory statement rejected the
proposed reorganization (unless expressly noted) and directed OSTP to examine—in consultation
with federal agencies and major external stakeholders—other possible reorganizations of the
federal STEM education effort. 36
Treatment of FY2013 Rescissions and Sequestration
in this Report
Rescissions specified in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L.
113-6), coupled with sequestration requirements in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L.
112-25) and sequestration process modifications made in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of
2012 (ATRA, P.L. 112-240) have complicated analysis of the level of federal R&D funding
provided to federal agencies. The complication is particularly pronounced with respect to
accounts, programs, projects, and activities that include both R&D and non-R&D funding as
rescissions and sequestration reductions may be applied unequally to the R&D and non-R&D
functions. Accordingly, in those cases where the FY2013 R&D funding level cannot be
determined with a high level of confidence, no figures are provided. FY2013 figures will be
added as agencies provide additional information that allows for an accurate determination of
R&D funding. Appropriations accounts for some agencies contain only R&D; for most of those
agencies, the post-rescission/pre-sequestration funding levels are included. Similarly, for those
accounts with both R&D and non-R&D related activities that this report tracks in their entirety,
post-rescission/pre-sequestration funding levels are included. The remainder of this section
36
For more information on federal STEM education programs, see CRS Report R42642, Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: A Primer, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
13
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
provides background on the acts that require sequestration and the processes to be used in
arriving at the amounts to be sequestered, as well as CRS resources that provide additional
information.
FY2013 discretionary appropriations were considered in the context of the BCA, which
established discretionary spending limits for FY2012-FY2021. The BCA also tasked a Joint
Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to develop a federal deficit reduction plan for Congress
and the President to enact by January 15, 2012. Because deficit reduction legislation was not
enacted by that date, an automatic spending reduction process established by the BCA was
triggered; this process consists of a combination of sequestration and lower discretionary
spending caps, initially scheduled to begin on January 2, 2013. The “joint committee”
sequestration process for FY2013 requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
implement across-the-board spending cuts at the account and program level to achieve equal
budget reductions from both defense and nondefense funding at a percentage to be determined,
under terms specified in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
(BBEDCA, Title II of P.L. 99-177, 2 U.S.C. 900-922), as amended by the BCA. For further
information on the Budget Control Act, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011,
by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA, P.L. 112-240), enacted on January 2, 2013,
made a number of significant changes to the procedures in the BCA that will take place during
FY2013. First, the date for the joint committee sequester to be implemented was delayed for two
months, until March 1, 2013. Second, the dollar amount of the joint committee sequester was
reduced by $24 billion. Third the statutory caps on discretionary spending for FY2013 (and
FY2014) were lowered. For further information on the changes to BCA procedures made by
ATRA, see CRS Report R42949, The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012: Modifications to the
Budget Enforcement Procedures in the Budget Control Act, by (name redacted)
Pursuant to the BCA, as amended by ATRA, President Obama ordered that the joint committee
sequester be implemented on March 1, 2013. The accompanying OMB report indicated a dollar
amount of budget authority to be canceled to each account containing non-exempt funds. The
sequester will ultimately be applied at the program, project, and activity (PPA) level within each
account. Because the sequester was implemented at the time that a temporary continuing
resolution was in force, the reductions were calculated on an annualized basis and will be
apportioned throughout the remainder of the fiscal year. Although full year FY2013 funding has
been enacted, the effect of these reductions on the budgetary resources that will ultimately be
available to an agency at either the account or PPA level remain unclear until further guidance is
provided by OMB as to how these reductions should be applied.
Section 3004 of P.L. 113-6 is intended to eliminate any amount by which the new budget
authority provided in the act exceeds the FY2013 discretionary spending limits in Section
251(c)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended by the Budget
Control Act of 2011 and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. As enacted, this section
provides 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 requires the percentages to be increased if OMB estimates that additional rescissions
are 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.
Congressional Research Service
14
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
FY2014 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 eight of the 12 regular appropriations bills.
For each agency covered in this report, Table 5 shows the corresponding regular appropriations
bill that provides funding for the agency, including its R&D activities.
Congress completed action on the FY2014 regular appropriations bills with enactment of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76) in January 2014. The act contains the 12
regular appropriations bills that fund all federal departments and agencies and provide funding for
most research and development (R&D) supported by the federal government. Prior to enactment
of P.L. 113-76, FY2014 funding was provided by two continuing resolutions (P.L. 113-46 and
P.L. 113-73).
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
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
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, FY2014 Status Table of Appropriations, available at http://crs.gov/Pages/
AppropriationsStatusTable.aspx?source=QuickLinks.
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
Department of Defense37
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 appropriations
request. 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 are requested through the Defensewide Procurement
appropriations request. 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
Operations and Maintenance appropriation request. 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 has asked 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
37
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: FY2014
Forces Fund, the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Capability Fund. Another transfer fund is the Mine Resistant and Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund
(MRAPVF). 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.
For FY2014, the Obama Administration requested $67.520 billion for DOD’s baseline Title IV
RDT&E. This was $5.449 billion less than what was available in FY2012 for both baseline and
OCO RDT&E. It was $2.339 billion less than what was provided for baseline FY2013 RDT&E
funding in the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6). However, this
does not consider the subsequent sequestration. According to the department’s FY2014 Budget
Briefing Documents, sequestration reduced the FY2013 RDT&E funding to $63.400 billion.
Therefore, the FY2014 request would have been $4.120 billion above the FY2013 sequestered
balance. The Administration also requested $117 million in OCO RDT&E, approximately half of
what was appropriated for OCO RDT&E in FY2013. The FY2014 OCO RDT&E request was
directed almost exclusively toward classified programs.
In addition to the baseline Title IV RDT&E request, the Administration requested $684 million in
RDT&E through the Defense Health Program, $613 million in RDT&E through the Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction program, and $56 million in RDT&E through the National
Defense Sealift Fund for FY2014.
The House approved its version of the DOD appropriations bill (H.R. 2397) on July 24, 2013.
The House provided $66.399 billion for Title IV RDT&E, $1.121 billion less than what was
requested. It also approved $117 million for OCO RDT&E, as requested. Reductions in the
baseline program were often associated with program delays or program increases which the
House considered to be unjustified. Two relatively large increases were $250 million for the
Office of the Secretary to help administer the Rapid Innovation Fund and $173 million for missile
defense programs within the Israeli Cooperative Programs line item. The House also approved
$56 million in RDT&E for the National Defense Sealift Fund (as requested) and $604 million in
RDT&E for the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program ($9 million below the
request). The House approved $1.356 billion in RDT&E for the Defense Health Program (nearly
doubling the request), which includes an additional $20.5 million added on the floor of the House.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the DOD appropriations bill (S.
1429) on August 1, 2013. The Committee recommended $65.807 billion in baseline Title IV
RDT&E, a little under $600 million below the House approved figure. Relatively large increases
were an additional $173 million for the Israeli Cooperative Program, with the increase focused on
missile defense technology, and $150 million for the Rapid Innovation Program. Relatively large
reductions included $106 million in the Army’s Warfighter Information Network, $143 million in
the Missile Defense Agency’s Midcourse Defense Segment (with those funds transferred to the
agency’s operations and maintenance account), $169 million in the Army’s Manned Ground
Vehicles program, and $192 million in the Air Force’s CSAR HH-130 recapitalization program.
Except for the missile defense midcourse program, reductions were attributed to restoring
acquisition accountability. The Senate Appropriations Committee also recommended $56 million
for the National Defense Sealift Fund (as requested), $604 million for the Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction program (as requested), and $1.319 billion for RDT&E in the Defense
Health Program. The Senate Appropriations Committee provided $89 million in OCO-related
RDT&E, providing none of the requested funds for Navy OCO-related funding, but increasing
the Army’s OCO RDT&E request by $7 million.
Congressional Research Service
17
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76) provided $62.995 billion for baseline
Title IV RDT&E, $4.525 billion below what was requested, and $6.864 billion below what was
appropriated in FY2013 before sequestration. The act provided another $135 million for OCOrelated RDT&E, $18 million above the request. The act provided $45 million for the National
Defense Sealift Fund ($11 million below the request), $1.552 billion for RDT&E in the Defense
Health Program ($868 million above the request), and $604 million in RDT&E for Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction ($9 million below the request).
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 and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), collectively aggregated within the
Defensewide account. RDT&E funding also can be characterized by budget activity (i.e., the type
of RDT&E supported). Those budget activities designated as 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 (basic research,
applied research, and advanced technology development, respectively) constitute what is called
DOD’s Science and Technology Program (S&T) and represent the more 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.
The FY2014 Title IV baseline S&T funding request was $11.984 billion, $0.074 billion below
what was available for S&T in FY2012. According to its FY2014 Budget Request Overview, the
FY2014 S&T budget request emphasizes activities aligned with the department’s recent shift in
strategic focus from Iraq and Afghanistan to the Asia-Pacific region. This is reflected in funding
for technologies aimed at defeating anti-access/area denial capabilities of potential adversaries,
counter weapons of mass destruction, efficient operations in cyberspace and space, electronic
warfare, and high-speed kinetic strike capability.
The House approved $12.317 billion in Title IV baseline S&T funding, $333 million more than
what was requested. Each of the three S&T-related budget activities in all the accounts was
increased above the requested level. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$12.050 million in Title IV baseline S&T funding. The Consolidated Appropriations Act provided
$12.185 billion in Title IV baseline S&T funding.
Within the S&T program, basic research (6.1) receives special attention, particularly by the
nation’s universities. DOD is not a large supporter of basic research, when compared to NIH or
NSF. However, over half of DOD’s basic research budget is spent at universities and represents
the major contribution of funds in some areas of science and technology (such as electrical
engineering and material science). The Administration requested $2.165 billion for basic research
for FY2014.
The House approved $2.170 billion in basic research, roughly what was requested. The increase
of $5 million went to the Historically Black Colleges and Universities line item in the
Congressional Research Service
18
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
Defensewide account. The Senate Appropriations Committee also recommended $2.170 billion in
basic research. However, it increased the Navy’s Defense Research Science program by $5
million. The Consolidated Appropriations Act provided $2.167 billion.
Table 6. Department of Defense RDT&E
(in millions of dollars)
FY2013
Enacteda
FY2012
Actual
Budget Account
Base +
OCO
Base
FY2014
Request
OCO
Base
FY2014
House
OCO
Base
FY2014
Senate
OCO
Base
Army
8,705
8,668
30
7,989
7
7,961
7
7,576
Navy
17,723
16,946
53
15,975
34 15,368
34
15,403
Air Force
26,631
25,407
53
25,703
9 24,947
9
24,946
17,667
17,876b
66
17,695
66
OCO
Base
14
OCO
7,126
14
14,950
34
9
23,585
9
66
17,086
78
Defensewide
19,722
18,613
Dir. Test & Eval.
188
224
186
247
186
246
72,970 69,859
248 67,520
117 66,399
117 65,807
89 62,995
Total Title IV—
By Accountc
112
FY2014
Enacted
135
Budget Activity
6.1 Basic Research
2,010
2,128
2,165
2,170
2,170
2,167
6.2 Applied
Research
4,730
4,720
4,627
4,679
4,642
4,643
6.3 Advanced Dev.
5,318
5,623
5,192
5,467
5,238
5,375
6.4 Advanced
Component Dev.
and Prototypes
13,579
12,635
19
12,057
11,775
11,908
7
11,448
7
6.5 Systems Dev.
And Demo
13,573
13,990
17
13,699
7 13,046
12,611
7
11,521
7
6.6 Management
Supportd
5,694
4,515
5
4,325
4,166
6.7 Op. Systems
Dev.e
28,065
26,247
206
25,456
110 25,106
110
Total Title IV—
by Budget
Activityc
72,970 69,859
247 67,520
117 66,410f
56
56
7
4,370
24,868
4,313
75
23,528
122
117 65,807
89 62,995
135
56
45
Title V—
Revolving and
Management
Funds
National Defense
Sealift Fund
51
37
Title VI—Other
Defense
Programs
Office of Inspector
General
0
Congressional Research Service
0
19
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
FY2013
Enacteda
FY2012
Actual
Budget Account
Base +
OCO
Base
FY2014
Request
OCO
Base
FY2014
House
OCO
Base
FY2014
Senate
OCO
Base
FY2014
Enacted
OCO
Base
Defense Health
Program
1,274
1,307
684
1,356g
1,319
1,552
Chemical Agents
and Munitions
Destruction
411
647
613
604
604
604
74,706 71,850
247 68,873
117 68,415
117 67,786
89 65,196
Grand Totalc,h
OCO
135
Source: CRS, adapted from the Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2014 RDT&E Programs (R-1), April
2013, relevant FY2014 Budget Justification (R-2) documents, H.R. 933, H.R. 2397, H.Rept. 113-113, S. 1429, and
S.Rept. 113-85.
a.
Includes rescission of 0.1% pursuant to Section 3001, Div. G of H.R. 933, but not sequester.
b.
Includes $10 million reduction made on the House floor to offset a $10 million increase in prostate cancer
research in the Defense Health Program.
c.
Total may differ from sum of components due to rounding.
d.
Includes funding for the Director of Test and Evaluation.
e.
Includes funding for classified programs.
f.
Does not include the $10 million reduction to Defensewide RDT&E made on the House floor.
g.
Includes $10 million added on the House floor for prostate cancer and additional $10.5 million added
for breast cancer and post-traumatic stress research.
h.
The “Grand Total” figure uses the “Total Title IV—by Account” figure.
Department of Homeland Security38
The President requested $1.838 billion for R&D and related programs in the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) in FY2014. This was a 64% increase from $1.123 billion in FY2013.39
The total included $1.527 billion for the Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T), $291
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-passed bill
would have provided $1.225 billion for S&T, $291 million for DNDO, and $10 million for Coast
Guard RDT&E. The Senate-reported bill would have provided $1.218 billion for S&T, $289
million for DNDO, and $20 million for Coast Guard RDT&E. The enacted appropriations were
$1.220 billion for S&T, $285 million for DNDO, and $19 million for Coast Guard RDT&E. (See
Table 7.)
38
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
39
FY2013 amounts in this section are 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. They do
not include funding appropriated by the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2). That act appropriated
approximately $3 million for the S&T Directorate and approximately $4 million for DNDO.
Congressional Research Service
20
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
The S&T Directorate is the primary DHS R&D organization.40 Led by the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, the S&T Directorate performs R&D in several laboratories of its own
and funds R&D performed by the DOE national laboratories, industry, universities, and others.
The Administration requested $1.527 billion for the S&T Directorate for FY2014. This was 91%
more than the FY2013 operating plan level of $801 million. The increase resulted largely from
the request for $714 million in Laboratory Facilities for construction of the National Bio- and
Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF). The NBAF is a planned replacement for the current Plum Island
Animal Disease Center. According to DHS, the FY2014 request (together with anticipated gift
funds from the state of Kansas) would have been sufficient to fully fund NBAF construction,
which DHS expects to complete in FY2020. The total estimated cost of the NBAF project,
including the Kansas contribution and federal funds already appropriated, is $1.230 billion. The
previous estimate in the FY2012 budget was $725 million.41 Also in S&T, the Administration’s
request for $31 million for University Programs in FY2014 was a decrease of 19% from $38
million in the FY2013 operating plan. This decrease reflected a reduction in funding for
university centers of excellence and the elimination of funding for scholarships and fellowships.
The latter proposal was part of a government-wide consolidation of STEM education activities,
discussed earlier in the “Reorganization of STEM Education Programs” section of this report.
The House bill would have provided $1.225 billion for S&T. This total included $404 million for
NBAF construction, the amount needed to “fully leverage funding contributions by the State of
Kansas” (i.e., to provide the 2-to-1 federal matching funds required for $202 million in state
bonds). The House provision of $40 million for University Programs would have increased
funding for university centers of excellence; the House report did not address the proposed
elimination of scholarship and fellowship funding in University Programs.
The Senate bill would have provided $1.218 billion for S&T. Like the House bill, it included
$404 million for NBAF, sufficient to “fully leverage” state contributions. The Senate
recommendation of $33 million for University Programs “recognize[d] the requested reduction ...
resulting from the consolidation of the Scholars and Fellows program within the National Science
Foundation.”
The enacted appropriation for S&T was $1.220 billion. This total included the same amount as
the House and Senate bills for NBAF and $40 million for University Programs. According to the
joint explanatory statement, this level of funding for University Programs “will allow S&T to
fund all existing centers [of excellence] at an appropriate level and establish a new center.” No
funds were provided for the S&T scholarships and fellowships program. According to DHS, it
will work with NSF to ensure that consolidated STEM education activities align with DHS needs.
The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office is the DHS organization responsible for nuclear detection
research, development, testing, evaluation, acquisition, and operational support. The
Administration requested $291 million for DNDO for FY2014, a decrease of 4% from $303
million in the FY2013 operating plan. In the Research, Development, and Operations account,
funding for Systems Architecture and Systems Development were to decrease relative to FY2013,
40
For more information, see CRS Report R43064, The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress, by (name
redacted).
41
Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification: FY2012, “Science and Technology
Directorate: Research, Development, Acquisitions, and Operations,” p. 134. The FY2013 budget did not present a cost
estimate for NBAF. At the time the FY2013 budget was released, DHS was reassessing whether to go forward with the
NBAF project.
Congressional Research Service
21
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
while funding for Transformational R&D and Assessments were to increase. These shifts
appeared to reflect DNDO’s ongoing transition from large-scale, government-sponsored
technology development initiatives to a commercial-first approach to technology acquisition. In
the Systems Acquisition account, the request of $14 million for Human Portable Radiation
Detection Systems (HPRDS) was a 50% decrease from $27 million in FY2013. The DHS budget
justification for HPRDS, however, described the request as an increase relative to the $8 million
the program received under the FY2013 continuing resolution. It is unclear how the higher
amount the program received in the FY2013 operating plan will affect the program’s plans for
FY2014. The House bill would have provided the requested amount for DNDO. The Senate bill
would have provided $289 million, with small reductions in the Management and Administration
account and each of the six elements of the Research, Development, and Operations account. The
enacted appropriation was $285 million. This total included $4 million less than the
Administration requested for Transformational R&D, together with other small reductions similar
to the Senate bill.
In September 2012, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that although the
S&T Directorate, DNDO, and the Coast Guard are the only DHS components that report R&D
activities to the Office of Management and Budget, several other DHS components also fund
R&D and activities related to R&D.42 The GAO report found that DHS lacks department-wide
policies to define R&D and guide reporting of R&D activities, and as a result, DHS does not
know the total amount its components invest in R&D. The report recommended that DHS
develop policies and guidance for defining, reporting, and coordinating R&D activities across the
department, and that DHS establish a mechanism to track R&D projects. In March 2013, the
explanatory statement for the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013
(P.L. 113-6) directed the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, to establish a review process for all R&D and related work within
DHS.43 In April 2013, citing its September 2012 report, GAO listed DHS R&D as an area of
concern in its annual report on fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative federal programs.44 The
House bill would have directed DHS to submit a report on reforms to its R&D programs,
including a formal process for setting R&D priorities, a formal process for DHS-wide
involvement in R&D decision-making and review, metrics for R&D program status and return on
investment, and the implementation of GAO’s recommendations. The Senate bill language
included no provision on this topic, but report language directed DHS to implement policies and
guidance for defining and overseeing R&D, in accordance with the GAO recommendations. The
Senate report also directed DHS to “expeditiously continue” the implementation of R&D
portfolio reviews in additional DHS components “to improve the coordinated approach to R&D
and related activities within DHS.” The joint explanatory statement directed DHS to comply with
the language in the House and Senate reports about R&D prioritization and review; to brief the
appropriations committees on its schedule and plans for future portfolio reviews; and, in
accordance with GAO’s recommendations, to implement policies and guidance for defining and
overseeing R&D department-wide.
42
Government Accountability Office, Department of Homeland Security: Oversight and Coordination of Research and
Development Should Be Strengthened, GAO-12-837, September 12, 2012.
43
Congressional Record, March 11, 2013, p. S1547.
44
Government Accountability Office, 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and
Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, GAO-13-279SP, April 2013.
Congressional Research Service
22
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
Table 7. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
Actual
FY2013 FY2014
Op. Plan Request
FY2014
House
FY2014 FY2014
Sen. Cte. Enacted
Directorate of Science and Technology
$673
$801
$1,527
$1,225
$1,218
$1,220
Management and Administration
135
127
130
129
129
129
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
538
674
1,397
1,096
1,089
1,091
Research, Development, and Innovation
266
432
467
467
467
462
Laboratory Facilities
182
158
858
548
548
548
Acquisition and Operations Support
54
46
42
42
42
42
University Programs
37
38
31
40
33
40
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
290
303
291
291
289
285
Management and Administration
38
38
38
37
37
37
Research, Development, and Operations
215
216
211
211
209
205
Systems Architecture
30
29
21
21
21
21
Systems Development
51
27
21
21
21
21
Transformational R&D
40
71
75
75
75
71
Assessments
38
31
40
40
39
39
Operations Support
33
34
31
31
30
30
National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center
23
24
23
23
23
23
37
50
43
43
43
43
Radiation Portal Monitors Program
2
1
7
7
7
7
Securing the Cities
22
21
22
22
22
22
Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems
14
27
14
14
14
14
U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E
28
20
20
10
20
19
TOTAL
991
1,123
1,838
1,527
1,527
1,524
Systems Acquisition
Sources: FY2012 actual and FY2014 request from DHS FY2014 congressional budget justification,
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/budget/dhs-budget.shtm. FY2013 operating plan from Department of Homeland
Security, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2013 PostSequestration Operating Plan, April 26, 2013. FY2014 House from H.R. 2217 as passed by the House and H.Rept.
113-91. FY2014 Senate Committee from H.R. 2217 as reported in the Senate and S.Rept. 113-77. FY2014
enacted from P.L. 113-76 and joint explanatory statement, Congressional Record, January 15, 2014, pp. H934 and
H937-H938.
Notes: FY2013 operating plan amounts do not include approximately $7 million appropriated by the Disaster
Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2). Totals may differ from sum of components due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
23
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
National Institutes of Health45
The FY2014 President’s Budget requested a program level total of $31.331 billion for NIH, an
increase of $2.180 billion (7.5%) over the FY2013 post-sequester operating plan level of $29.151
billion, and $471 million (1.5%) more than the comparable FY2012 amount of $30.860 billion
(see Table 8). The request would have given most of the institutes and centers roughly
proportional increases, while a few specific activities would have received larger increases
accounting for most of the additional funding.
On July 11, 2013, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1284 (S.Rept. 113-71), its
FY2014 bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies (Labor/HHS). The committee-recommended program level funding for NIH
would be $31.184 billion, $147 million (0.5%) lower than the President’s request, $2.033 billion
(7.0%) over the FY2013 operating plan, and $324 million (1.0%) more than FY2012. The
committee report, after explaining the $147 million cut compared to the Administration’s request
(see below), characterized the total for NIH as “effectively equal to the budget request.” The
House did not take action on a stand-alone FY2014 Labor/HHS bill. From October 2013 through
mid-January 2014, federal agencies operated under the provisions of P.L. 113-46, the Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 2775), signed into law by President Obama on October 17, 2013.
The act provided continuing appropriations for FY2014 until January 15, 2014, generally at
FY2013 post-sequestration levels. A short-term funding measure (H.J.Res. 106) provided funding
through January 18, 2014, giving Congress time to pass the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2014 (P.L. 113-76). The act provides a program level total of $30.150 billion for NIH, a $1 billion
increase over the FY2013 post-sequester operating plan level.
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.46 The agency’s organization consists of the Office of the NIH
Director and 27 institutes and centers. The Office of the Director (OD) sets overall policy for NIH
and coordinates the programs and activities of all NIH components, particularly in areas of
research that involve multiple institutes. The 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 OD. 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
45
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Biomedical Policy, CRS Domestic Social Policy
Division. For background information on NIH, see CRS Report R41705, The National Institutes of Health (NIH):
Organization, Funding, and Congressional Issues, by (name redacted).
46
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FY2014 Budget in Brief, April 10, 2013, p. 34, http://www.hhs.gov/
budget/fy2014/fy-2014-budget-in-brief.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
24
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (Interior/Environment). Those two bills
provide NIH’s discretionary budget authority. In addition, NIH has received mandatory funding
of $150 million annually that is provided in the Public Health Service (PHS) Act for a special
program on type 1 diabetes research, and also receives $8.2 million annually 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.
Except for the mandatory diabetes funding, Congress does not usually specify amounts for
particular diseases or research areas. Similarly, NIH does not expressly budget by disease
category.47 Some bills may propose authorizations for designated research purposes, but funding
would generally remain subject to the discretionary appropriations process.
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, also called 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. Section 205 of the FY2012 Labor/HHS appropriations act capped the set-aside at 2.5%,
which drew over $700 million from the NIH budget. The same amount was assessed in FY2013
under the continuing appropriations act. The FY2014 President’s Budget proposes to increase the
PHS set-aside to 3.0%; the Senate committee rejected the increase, largely because of its effect on
NIH. The committee estimated that the increased assessment would have taken an extra $147
million from NIH.48 In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 3547), the assessment is
set at 2.5%. By convention, budget tables such as Table 8 do not subtract the amount of the
evaluation tap from the agencies’ appropriations.49
FY2014 President’s Budget Request and Senate Committee Recommendation. In the request,
most of the institutes and centers would have received increases of about 1% compared to
FY2012 and about 7% compared to the FY2013 operating level, with selected exceptions
reflecting program priorities. The Senate committee largely supported the Administration’s
priorities, with a few variations. NIH describes its areas of emphasis for FY2014 under four broad
themes that build on current activities, provide for some new initiatives, and continue the
implementation of an organizational restructuring for translational medicine begun in FY2012.
Theme 1: Investing in Basic Research. About 53% of the proposed budget would have been for
basic research on the causes of disease onset and progression. In neurosciences, about $40 million
was requested for the new multi-agency Brain Research through Application of Innovative
Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative to develop tools for the study of complex brain functions.
The Senate committee supported that amount as an initial investment. To improve the handling,
47
See NIH website, “Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC),”
http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx.
48
See S.Rept. 113-71 on S. 1284, p. 41 and p. 83.
49
For further information on the PHS Evaluation Set-Aside, see CRS Report R43304, Public Health Service Agencies:
Overview and Funding, coordinated by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
25
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
sharing, and analysis of large digital datasets of information, $41 million was requested for a new
program called Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K) through the NIH Common Fund.
Theme 2: Advancing Translational Sciences. Translational medicine, a function of all the ICs,
focuses on converting basic research discoveries into clinical applications that benefit patients. In
the FY2012 appropriations act, Congress approved an NIH reorganization that consolidated
various programs into a new National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS).
NCATS explores improved methods to test possible new therapies and encourage their
commercialization and dissemination into clinical practice. The FY2014 request for NCATS was
$666 million, an increase of $91 million (16%) over its FY2012 first-year budget. The Senate
committee approved $661 million, a 15% increase over FY2012 and $119 million (22%) above
the FY2013 operating plan level. Over $40 million of the increase would go to expanding the
Cures Acceleration Network (CAN) from $10 million at its start in FY2012 to $50 million in
FY2014. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 3547), allocated $633 million for
NCATS and $9.8 million for CAN.
Theme 3: Recruiting and Retaining Diverse Scientific Talent and Creativity for the Research
Workforce. NIH analysis of the biomedical workforce and future training needs has led to a
special focus on promoting diversity and understanding barriers to career advancement. NIH is
implementing new measures, supported by the Senate committee, to assist trainees and track their
career progress. The request included $32 million for a new Workforce Diversity Initiative being
piloted through the NIH Common Fund. It will support a consortium of under-resourced
institutions and create a National Research Mentoring Network. NIH requested $776 million for
its major research training program, the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards,
with stipend increases for trainees. The request was $14 million (2%) above the FY2012 level and
$39 million (5%) above the FY2013 operating plan.
Theme 4: Restoring American Competitiveness. The NIH budget summary offers economic
arguments for support of health research.50 It cites studies of the impact of health research on, for
example, reductions in death rates and increased life expectancy, as well as studies linking NIH
funding to direct and indirect support of U.S. jobs and to growth of private investment in life
sciences research. The summary discusses global competition in the sciences, especially Asian
and European R&D efforts, and warns of erosion in the U.S. leadership position, an observation
echoed in the committee report.
The following are selected other program changes and areas of emphasis in NIH accounts.
Alzheimer’s disease research: To continue implementing the research components of the
National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), NIH estimates it will spend $562 million on
AD research in FY2014, up $59 million (12%) from FY2012. The total budget request for the
National Institute on Aging (NIA), at 7% above FY2012, included an increase of $80 million
(24%) for research on AD. The Senate committee recommended a 6% increase for NIA over
FY2012 (14% over the FY2013 operating plan), but declined to specify an amount for AD
research. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 3547), provided a 4.5% increase for
50
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, FY2014 Justification of Estimates for
Appropriations Committees, Vol. I - Overview/Executive Summary, April 10, 2013, pp. ES-24-28,
http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY14/Tab%201%20-%20Executive%20Summary_final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
26
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
NIA over FY2012 (12.5% over the FY2013 operating plan), but did not specify an amount for AD
research.
Institutional Development Awards (IDeA): The IDeA program, housed in the National Institute
of General Medical Sciences, supports research capacity and infrastructure grants at institutions
in states that have historically received less NIH research support. For FY2014, NIH requested
$225 million for IDeA, reversing an increase Congress gave the program in FY2012. The Senate
committee rejected the proposed cut and recommended restoring the FY2012 level of $276
million, commenting also that the eligibility criteria for the grants should be revisited. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 3547), allocated $273 million for IDeA.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education: As part of a proposed
government-wide reorganization of STEM education (see “Reorganization of STEM Education
Programs”), the Administration planned to eliminate or consolidate nine NIH STEM programs
totaling $26 million, including a $15.4 million reduction in the Science Education Partnership
Awards program in OD. Both the Senate committee and the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2014 (H.R. 3547) directed NIH to continue funding the programs.
Office of the Director/Common Fund: The FY2014 request for OD included new funding for the
Common Fund and for strategic initiatives, such as $31 million for a new Biomedical Innovation
Opportunities-Fund (BIO-F) to facilitate a rapid response to new ideas and unexpected scientific
opportunities. The Common Fund 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 was $573 million, $28 million (5%)
higher than the FY2012 level, including funding for the new BD2K program. The Senate
committee recommended $568 million for the Common Fund, while the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 3547) provided $533 million.
Research Project Grants: The main funding mechanism for supporting extramural research is
research project grants (RPGs), which are competitive, peer-reviewed, and largely investigatorinitiated. The FY2014 budget requested total funding for RPGs of $16.9 billion, representing
about 54% of NIH’s proposed budget. The amount is an increase of $382 million (2%) over the
FY2012 level and $1.384 billion (9%) over the FY2013 operating plan. The request would
support an estimated 36,610 RPG awards, 351 more grants than in FY2012 and 1,708 more grants
than in FY2013. Within that total, 10,269 would be competing RPGs, 1,283 (14%) more than in
FY2012 and 1,986 (24%) more than in FY2013. (“Competing” awards means new grants plus
competing renewals of existing grants.) The average cost of a competing RPG in FY2014 is
estimated to be about $456,000, up from about $421,000 in FY2012. The increase is mainly due
to the cycling of high-cost HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials Networks grants into competing status in
FY2014. After adjusting for those large grants, the average cost of competing RPGs is estimated
to be about $420,000, or approximately the same as in FY2012. To maximize the number of new
and competing grants in FY2014, NIH proposed continuing the FY2012 grant awards policy of
eliminating inflation increases for future year commitments for all competing and non-competing
awards.51 Adjustments for special needs, however, such as equipment and added personnel, would
51
National Institutes of Health, NIH Fiscal Policy for Grant Awards - FY2012, Notice NOT-OD-12-036, January 20,
2012, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-036.html. See also the NIH Extramural Financial
Operations website at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/financial/index.htm for yearly plans and resources.
Congressional Research Service
27
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
continue to be accommodated. The Senate committee and the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2014 (P.L. 113-76) did not comment on specific funding mechanisms or grants policies.
Table 8. National Institutes of Health Funding
(in millions of dollars)
FY2012
Actuala
FY2013
Operating
Planb
FY2014
Request
FY2014
Final Bill
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
5,063
4,779
5,126
4,923
National Heart, Lung, & Blood Institute (NHLBI)
3,073
2,901
3,099
2,989
Dental/Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
410
387
412
399
Diabetes/Digestive/Kidney (NIDDK)c
1,794
1,693
1,812
1,744
Neurological Disorders/Stroke (NINDS)
1,623
1,532
1,643
1,588
Allergy/Infectious Diseases (NIAID)d
4,482
4,231
4,579
4,359
General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
2,426
2,291
2,401
2,364
Child Health/Human Development (NICHD)
1,319
1,245
1,339
1,283
National Eye Institute (NEI)
701
662
699
682
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
684
646
691
665
1,120
1,040
1,193
1,171
Arthritis/Musculoskeletal/Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
535
505
541
520
Deafness/Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
416
392
423
404
National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
145
136
146
141
Alcohol Abuse/Alcoholism (NIAAA)
459
433
464
446
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
1,051
993
1,072
1,025
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)d
1,478
1,395
1,466
1,446
Nat’l Human Genome Research Inst (NHGRI)
512
483
517
498
Biomedical Imaging/Bioengineering (NIBIB)
338
319
339
329
Complementary/Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)
128
121
129
124
Minority Health/Health Disparities (NIMHD)
276
260
283
268
Fogarty International Center (FIC)
69
66
73
68
Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)
574
542
666
633
National Library of Medicine (NLM)
365
318
382
328
Office of Director (OD)
1,457
1,436
1,473
1,400
Buildings & Facilities (B&F)
125
118
126
129
30,623
28,926
31,094
29,926
79
75
79
77
30,702
29,001
31,173
30,003
150
142
150
139
8
8
8
8
National Institutes/National Centers;
Other Components
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
Subtotal, Labor/HHS Appropriation
Superfund (Interior appropriation to NIEHS)e
Total, NIH discretionary budget authority
Pre-appropriated type 1 diabetes fundsf
PHS Evaluation Tap fundingg
Congressional Research Service
28
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
National Institutes/National Centers;
Other Components
FY2012
Actuala
FY2013
Operating
Planb
FY2014
Request
FY2014
Final Bill
Total, NIH program level
30,860
29,151
31,331
30,150
Sources: FY2012 Actual and FY2014 Request are adapted by CRS from National Institutes of Health, Justification
of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2014, Vol. I—Overview/Supplementary Tables, April 10, 2013, p. ST2, http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY14/FY%202014_Supplementary%20Tables.pdf. FY2013 Operating Plan is
from NIH Office of Budget, “Operating Plan—Allocation by IC,” http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/cy.html. FY2014
Final Bill amounts are from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, (P.L. 113-76), H.R. 3547 Joint
Explanatory Statement, Division H, http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-HR3547-JSOM-G-I.pdf.
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 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 FY2014, 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). FY2013 IC and NLM amounts are not comparable to FY2012 and FY2014 as the FY2013 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 f).
d.
The FY2014 request shifts a $27 million program on HIV/AIDS behavioral health research from the National
Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). The
Senate committee concurred, noting that the resulting decrease in NIMH funding did not reflect a cut to
core NIMH activities.
e.
This is a separate account in the Interior/Environment appropriations for National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) research activities related to Superfund. FY2014 Final Bill amount is
from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, (P.L. 113-76), H.R. 3547 Joint Explanatory Statement,
Division G, http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-HR3547-JSOM-G-I.pdf.
f.
Mandatory funds available to NIDDK for type 1 diabetes research under PHS Act §330B (provided by P.L.
111-309 and P.L. 112-240). Funds have been appropriated through FY2014. The FY2014 amount was
reduced by $11 million (7.2%) due to the FY2014 sequestration.
g.
Additional funds for NLM from PHS Evaluation Set-Aside (§241 of PHS Act).
Department of Energy52
The Administration requested $12.618 billion in FY2014 for Department of Energy (DOE) R&D
and related activities, including programs in three major categories: science, national security, and
energy. This request was 17.1% more than the estimated FY2013 appropriation (after rescissions
and sequestration) of $10.779 billion. The House bill would have provided $9.888 billion. The
Senate committee recommended $12.219 billion. The enacted appropriation was $11.767 billion.
(See Table 9 for details.)
52
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
29
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
The request for the DOE Office of Science was $5.153 billion, an increase of 11.5% from the
FY2013 post-sequester appropriation of $4.621 billion. There is no authorized funding level for
the Office of Science in FY2014; the most recent authorization act (the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010, P.L. 111-358) authorized appropriations through FY2013. The
House bill would have provided $4.653 billion, an amount that the Administration stated “would
eliminate all funding for new grants and likely lead to terminations of ongoing awards ...
operations at all major scientific user facilities would be reduced or would cease.”53 The Senate
committee recommended the requested amount. The enacted appropriation was $5.071 billion.
The Obama Administration’s previous goal of doubling the combined funding of the Office of
Science and two other agencies is now “a commitment to increase funding” for those agencies.54
For further discussion of the doubling goal and how it has evolved through successive
Administrations and congressional action, see the section “Efforts to Double Certain R&D
Accounts” above. The original target announced by the Bush Administration was to achieve the
doubling in the decade from FY2006 to FY2016. The FY2014 request for the Office of Science
was 42% more than its FY2006 baseline. The House and Senate committee recommendations
were respectively 28% and 42% above the baseline. The enacted appropriation was 40% above
the baseline.
The Office of Science includes six major research programs. The request of $1.862 billion for the
largest program, basic energy sciences (BES), was an increase of $261 million relative to $1.601
billion in FY2013 (post-sequester). The House bill would have provided $1.583 billion. The
Senate committee recommended $1.805 billion. The final appropriation was $1.713 billion.
Within BES, DOE announced plans to issue a solicitation in FY2014 for new Energy Frontier
Research Centers (EFRCs) and renewals of existing centers. The request included $169 million
for EFRCs, an increase intended to allow DOE to forward-fund some of the new and renewed
centers. The House bill would have provided $60 million for EFRCs. The Senate committee
recommended $100 million. The final appropriation included up to $100 million. Also in BES,
the request included funds to increase operations at existing DOE synchrotron light sources as
well as $95 million for the start of construction of the Linac Coherent Light Source II (LCLS-II).
The House bill would have provided $47.5 million for LCLS-II. The Senate committee
recommended the requested $95 million. The final appropriation was $75.7 million. In the BES
Materials Sciences and Engineering program, the request included $8.5 million for the
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). The House bill would have
provided no funding for EPSCoR. The Senate committee recommended $20 million. The final
EPSCoR appropriation was $10 million.
In the Office of Science fusion energy sciences program, the request proposed to increase the
U.S. contribution to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) from $105
million in FY2012 to $225 million in FY2014. In 2008, the cost for the U.S. share of ITER, a
multi-year international construction project, was estimated to be between $1.45 billion and $2.2
billion. Schedule delays, design and scope changes, and other factors have likely increased ITER
53
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy on H.R.
2609, July 8, 2013.
54
Executive Office of the President, “The President’s Plan for Science and Innovation: Increasing Funding for Key
Science Agencies in the 2014 Budget,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/2014_R&
Dbudget_agencies.pdf. Compare Executive Office of the President, “The President’s Plan for Science and Innovation:
Doubling Funding for Key Science Agencies in the 2013 Budget,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/ostp/fy2013rd_doubling.pdf, and similar documents in previous years.
Congressional Research Service
30
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
costs and delayed formal approval of a revised cost estimate. Pending a new official estimate,
DOE believes that funding of $225 million per year will allow it to meet its international
obligations, up to the achievement of ITER’s intermediate “first plasma” milestone, for a total
cost of $2.4 billion. The requested increase for U.S. ITER funding in FY2014 was to be offset
partially by a decrease in funding for domestic fusion activities. In particular, no FY2014 funding
was requested for research or operations at the Alcator C-Mod tokamak, a fusion reactor that was
shut down in FY2013. The House bill would have provided $7.5 million less than the request for
the U.S. contribution to ITER, but $55 million more than the request for domestic fusion
activities, including $22 million for FY2014 operations and research at Alcator C-Mod. The
Senate committee recommended $183.5 million for the U.S. contribution to ITER, contingent on
submission of a baseline cost, schedule, and scope estimate. The Senate committee’s
recommended total for fusion energy sciences was the requested amount and included no funding
for Alcator C-Mod. The final appropriation for fusion energy sciences was $506 million,
including $200 million for the U.S. contribution to ITER and $22 million for Alcator C-Mod. The
joint explanatory statement directed DOE to submit a 10-year strategic fusion plan that assumes
U.S. participation in ITER and assesses funding priorities for the domestic fusion program in
various budget scenarios.
The request for biological and environmental research in the Office of Science was $625 million,
up 3.8% from $578 million in FY2013 (post-sequester). This total was divided approximately
evenly between two programs: biological systems science and climate and environmental
sciences. The House bill would have provided $494 million for biological and environmental
research. The House committee report stated that “the Committee continues to support the
Biological Systems Science program”; it did not mention the climate and environmental sciences
program. The Senate committee recommended the requested amount for both programs. The final
appropriation was $610 million. The joint explanatory statement was silent regarding the
allocation of this amount between biological systems science and climate and environmental
sciences.
The request for DOE national security R&D was $3.283 billion, a 9.9% increase from $2.987
billion in FY2013 (post-sequester). The House bill would have provided $3.209 billion, while the
Senate committee recommended $3.398 billion. Most of the requested increase was in the Naval
Reactors program. Increased funding was proposed for Naval Reactors operations and
infrastructure to permit recapitalization of facilities, infrastructure, and capital equipment. Naval
Reactors construction funding was to increase, and was expected to increase further in future
years, as construction begins on the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization project. The House bill
included $93 million less than the request for Naval Reactors operations and infrastructure and
did not include funding for the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization project. The Senate
committee recommended $66 million more than the request for Naval Reactors, with increases
spread across several activities. The final appropriation for Naval Reactors was $1.095 billion,
less than in either the House or the Senate bill. This total included no funds for the Spent Fuel
Handling Recapitalization project and $99.4 million less than the request for operations and
infrastructure. In the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account, the request of $389 million for
R&D included certain costs for nuclear detection satellites that were previously paid by the
Department of Defense. The House bill would have provided the requested amount for nuclear
nonproliferation R&D. The Senate committee recommended an increase of $20 million for the
development of advanced nuclear detection technologies. The final appropriation was $399
million, an increase of $10 million. In the Weapons Activities account, the Administration
requested an increase in funding for nuclear weapons science and a decrease in funding for
research on inertial confinement fusion and advanced simulation and computing. The House bill
Congressional Research Service
31
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
and the Senate committee recommendation would both have increased funding for inertial
confinement fusion, rather than decreasing it. Other Weapons Activities reductions in the Senate
bill were largely a result of accounting changes. The final appropriation for weapons activities
was $1.672 billion; allocations within this amount were similar to the House bill.
The request for DOE energy R&D was $4.182 billion, up 31.9% from $3.171 billion in FY2013
(post-sequester). The House bill would have provided $2.026 billion. The Senate committee
recommendation was $3.668 billion. The final appropriation was $3.508 billion. The request
proposed to increase funding for R&D in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) by 58%, from $1.599 billion in FY2013 (post-sequester) to $2.528 billion in FY2014,
with increases requested for most EERE programs. The House bill would have provided $786
million and rescinded $157 million in unobligated balances from prior years.55 The Senate
committee recommended $2.034 billion. Within EERE, Advanced Manufacturing (formerly
Industrial Technologies) was to receive $365 million under the request, more than triple its
FY2013 level. The Advanced Manufacturing request included $177 million to create Clean
Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institutes (consistent with the previously discussed “National
Network for Manufacturing Innovation”). Other focus areas for requested funding increases in
EERE included batteries and energy storage, concentrating solar power, a demonstration of
commercial-scale biofuels production under the Defense Production Act,56 and grid integration
for energy efficient buildings. Under the House bill, nearly every EERE program would have
decreased relative to FY2013, with Advanced Manufacturing ($120 million, up about 10%) being
a rare exception. The Senate committee recommended $126 million for Advanced Manufacturing.
Also in EERE, the Senate committee directed DOE to terminate the Energy Efficient Buildings
Hub, which it said has shown “no measurable benefit.” The Administration’s proposed decrease
of $88 million for fossil energy R&D was mostly from the coal program. Funding for fossil
energy R&D in the House bill would have been $39 million more than the request, but would
have included $43 million less than requested for carbon capture. The Senate committee
recommended the requested amount. The final appropriation was $562 million, an increase of
$141 million above the request. That increase was directed almost entirely toward the coal
program. The request for the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) was $379
million, an increase of $104 million or 38%. The House bill would have provided $70 million for
ARPA-E, including the House committee recommendation of $50 million and a $20 million
increase provided by a floor amendment. Despite this reduction in funding, the House committee
report stated that the committee “remains supportive of ARPA-E’s efforts.” The Senate committee
recommended the requested amount for ARPA-E. The final appropriation was $280 million.
55
The House committee recommendation was $811 million. Two House floor amendments reduced funding for the
Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability, and Efficiency account by a total of $25 million without specifying the
activities within the account to which the reductions should apply. The figure of $786 million given here assumes that
the full $25 million reduction would have been applied to EERE R&D, which is the largest activity in the account.
56
See CRS Report R42568, The Navy Biofuel Initiative Under the Defense Production Act, by (name redacted) et al.
Congressional Research Service
32
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
Table 9. Department of Energy R&D and Related Activities
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
Actual
FY2013
Op. Plan
FY2014
Request
FY2014
House
FY2014
Sen. Cte.
FY2014
Enacted
$4,935
$4,621
$5,153
$4,653
$5,153
$5,071
Basic Energy Sciences
1,645
1,601
1,862
1,583
1,805
1,713
High Energy Physics
771
748
777
773
807
798
Biological and Environmental Research
592
578
625
494
625
610
Nuclear Physics
535
520
570
552
570
570
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
428
418
466
432
494
479
Fusion Energy Sciences
393
380
458
506
458
506
Other
571
376
395
313
394
396
Science
National Security
3,103
2,987
3,283
3,209
3,398
3,188
Weapons Activitiesa
1,665
1,554b
1,624
1,697
1,653
1,672
Naval Reactors
1,080
994
1,246
1,109
1,312
1,095
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D
348
430
389
389
409
399
Defense Environmental Cleanup Tech. Dev.
10
10
24
14
24
22
3,121
3,171
4,182
2,026
3,668
3,508
1,653
1,599
2,528
786d
2,034
1,671
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability R&D
96
94
119
64
99
106
Fossil Energy R&D
337
508
421
450
421
562
Nuclear Energy
760
719
735
656
735
889
Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy
275
251
379
70
379
280
11,159
10,779
12,618
9,888
12,219
11,767
Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energyc
Total
Source: FY2012 actual and FY2014 request from DOE’s FY2014 congressional budget justification,
http://energy.gov/cfo/downloads/fy-2014-budget-justification. FY2013 operating plan from personal
communication between CRS and DOE, December 6, 2013. FY2014 House from H.R. 2609 as passed by the
House and H.Rept. 113-135. FY2014 Senate from S. 1245 as reported and S.Rept. 113-47. FY2014 enacted from
P.L. 113-76 and joint explanatory statement, Congressional Record, January 15, 2014, pp. H881-H893.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
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, and National Security Applications. Additional R&D activities may take place in
the subprograms of Directed Stockpile Work that are devoted to specific weapon systems, but these funds
are not included in the table because detailed funding schedules for those subprograms are classified.
b.
Estimated by CRS.
c.
Excluding Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.
d.
Not adjusted for rescission of $157 million in unobligated prior-year balances. House floor amendments
reduced funding for Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability, and Efficiency by a total of $25 million without
specifying the activities within that account to which the reductions should apply. In this table, the full $25
million reduction is assumed to apply to energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D, which is the
account’s largest activity.
Congressional Research Service
33
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
National Science Foundation57
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.”58 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 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 provides $7.172 billion to the NSF in FY2014. This
amount is $287.8 million (4.2%) more than the foundation’s post-sequestration, post-rescission
FY2013 current plan (e.g., estimated) funding level of $6.884 billion. The Administration initially
sought $7.626 billion in funding for the NSF in FY2014. The House Committee on
Appropriations recommended a total of $6.995 billion. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended a total of $7.426 billion. Division B of the “Joint Explanatory Statement” (JES)
published in the January 15, 2014, Congressional Record adopted House59 and Senate60
appropriations committee report language, unless otherwise indicated. Congress had not enacted
specific FY2014 appropriations authorizations for NSF.61 (For additional detail on NSF funding
see Table 10.)
In its budget documents NSF indicated that its overarching priorities for FY2014 included the
following six programs.
•
Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems (CEMMSS)—The
FY2014 request was $300.4 million, which was $156.1 million (108.2%) more
than the FY2012 actual amount of $144.3 million.62
•
Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science, Engineering, and
Education (CIF21)—The FY2014 request was $155.5 million, which was $64.2
million (70.4%) more than the FY2012 actual amount of $91.2 million.
•
NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps)—The FY2014 request was $24.9 million, which
was $18.1 million (267.1%) more than the FY2012 actual amount of $6.8
million.
57
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.
58
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-507).
59
This section refers to H.Rept. 113-171, which accompanied H.R. 2787 (Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2014) when it was reported from committee, as the “House report.”
60
This section refers to S.Rept. 113-78, which accompanied S. 1329 (Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2014) when it was reported from committee, as the “Senate report.”
61
NSF relies on its organic act for budget authority in FY2014.
62
FY2014 NSF budget documents compare FY2014 requested levels with FY2012 actual levels because policymakers
had not yet agreed upon FY2013 appropriations when the President submitted his FY2014 budget request to Congress.
Congressional Research Service
34
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
•
Integrated NSF Support Promoting Interdisciplinary Research and Education
(INSPIRE)—The FY2014 request was $63.0 million, which was $33.9 million
(116.5%) more than the FY2012 actual amount of $29.1 million.
•
Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES)—The FY2014
request was $222.8 million, which was $65.3 million (41.4%) more than the
FY2012 actual amount of $157.6 million.
•
Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC)—The FY2014 request was $110.3
million, which was $3.1 million (2.8%) less than the FY2012 actual amount of
$113.4 million.
Since FY2006, overall increases in the NSF budget have been at least partially driven by a
“doubling path policy.” Under this policy, Congress and successive Administrations have 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”). However, actual funding for the targeted accounts has not typically reached
authorized levels. Doubling path funding authorizations ended in FY2013.63 Some legislators
have expressed concern about pursuing the doubling effort given the nation’s fiscal challenges,
including one who urged observers “to be realistic about the notion of doubling the NSF
budget.”64 Other analysts have asserted that without the doubling path policy in place, funding
levels for targeted accounts might have fallen over the past half-decade.65 Congress had not
reauthorized the doubling path policy as of the date of this report.
Congress typically appropriates to NSF at the major account level. NSF’s major accounts are
Research and Related Activities (R&RA); Education and Human Resources (E&HR); Major
Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC); Agency Operations and Awards
Management (AOAM); National Science Board (NSB); and the Office of Inspector General
(IG).66
R&RA is the largest NSF account and the primary source of research funding at the NSF.67 The
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 provides $5.809 billion in funding for R&RA in FY2014.
This amount is $265.2 million (4.8%) more than the post-sequestration, post-rescission FY2013
current plan funding level of $5.544 billion. The Administration initially sought $6.212 billion in
funding for R&RA in FY2014; noting “strong support for cross-cutting research priorities such as
advanced manufacturing, clean energy and sustainability, break-through materials, robotics,
cyberinfrastructure, and cybersecurity.” The House Committee on Appropriations recommended
$5.676 billion for R&RA in FY2014. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended
63
The most recent authorization levels for the targeted accounts, specified in the America COMPETES Reauthorization
Act (P.L. 111-358), were for FY2011, FY2012, and FY2013.
64
Opening Statement of Ranking Member Dan Lipinksi, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, “The National Science Foundation’s FY2013 Budget
Request,” hearings, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., February 28, 2012.
65
Testimony of Dr. Jeffrey L. Furman, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, “Five Years of the America COMPETES Act: Progress, Challenges, and Next Steps,” hearings, 112th
Cong., 2nd sess., September 19, 2012.
66
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.
67
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
35
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
$6.018 billion. NSF consolidated certain R&RA sub-accounts in FY2013, moving from 11
directorates and offices to 8.68
Compared to FY2012 enacted levels, the FY2014 request for R&RA included increases for all but
one major sub-account.69 As was the case in FY2013, the largest increase—by both amount
($138.0 million) and percentage (34.6% more than the FY2012 level of $398.6 million)—was in
the International and Integrative Activities account (IIA), for which the Administration sought
$536.6 million in FY2014. Also as with FY2013, over half of the growth in IIA was attributable
to requested increases in funding for the Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF).70 The secondlargest increase—by amount ($86.6 million) and percentage (10.5% over the FY2012 level of
$824.6 million)—went to the Engineering (ENG) directorate. The Administration sought $911.1
million for ENG in FY2014. About a third of the growth in the ENG account stemmed from
requested increases for small business research programs in ENG’s Division of Industrial
Innovation and Partnerships (IIP).71
With respect to R&RA, the JES accepted proposed terminations and reductions; provided the
requested funding level ($50.0 million) for the International Ocean Discovery Program; and
rejected Senate report limits on OneNSF72 initiatives while encouraging NSF to assess and refine
the balance between OneNSF activities and core research in FY2015 and future budget years.73
The House report provided $13.9 million for new investments in cognitive science and
neuroscience research, offered the requested levels for various (unspecified) R&RA advanced
manufacturing proposals, and supported a temporary reduction in Antarctic research funding in
order to provide funds for the implementation of certain recommended safety and management
changes. Among other things, the Senate report also provided the full request for SEES ($222.8
million).
Widely tracked programs and activities in the R&RA account include Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), the Division of Astronomical Sciences (AST), and
the Directorate on Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE). The Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014 provides $158.2 million for EPSCoR (about $10 million over FY2013
current plan levels) in FY2014. The Senate report recommended the requested level ($163.6
million); the House report did not specify. The FY2014 request for AST was $243.6 million, or
$8.9 million (3.8%) more than the FY2012 actual level of $234.7 million. With respect to AST,
the Senate report stated that the committee “expects NSF to fully support the scientific and
68
The FY2014 NSF budget request adjusts funding levels for all reported years to account for this change.
The FY2014 NSF budget request decreases funding for the U.S. Artic Research Commission by about -3.4%, from
$1.45 million in FY2012 to $1.40 million in FY2014.
70
The FY2014 NSF budget request seeks $162.6 million for the R&RA contribution to the GRF. This amount is $74.1
million (83.7%) more than the FY2012 actual R&RA funding level of $88.5 million. E&HR also contributes to the
GRF.
71
The FY2014 request for IIP is $225.5 million. This amount is $37.7 million (20.1%) more that the FY2012 actual
level of $187.8 million. About 80% of this increase would support growth in the NSF Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. For more information on these programs,
see CRS Report 96-402, Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program, by (name redacted).
72
The FY2014 budget request does not include the term “OneNSF.” However, NSF described the six programs
identified as “FY2014 Priorities” in its FY2014 budget request (e.g., CEMMSS, CIF21, SEES, etc.) as “OneNSF”
initiatives in its FY2013 budget request.
73
The Senate report initially directed NSF to apply the $194.0 million reduction to R&RA (from the requested level) to
the OneNSF initiatives.
69
Congressional Research Service
36
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
education activities at the Division of Astronomical Sciences,” including funding for the National
Radio Astronomy Observatory at FY2012 levels and full support of instruments and facilities.
The House report did not specify funding for AST. The FY2014 request for SBE was $272.4
million. This amount was $18.2 million, or 7.1%, more than the FY2012 actual funding level of
$254.2 million. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, JES, House report, and Senate report
were silent on funding for SBE in FY2014. This marks a change from FY2013, when
policymakers enacted language prohibiting NSF from funding certain SBE grants (i.e., political
science) unless the foundation certified that each funded project promoted national security or the
economic interest of the United States.74
The Consolidate Appropriations Act, 2014 provides $846.5 million to E&HR in FY2014. This
amount is $13.2 million more than the FY2013 post-sequestration, post-rescission level of $833.3
million. E&HR is the primary source of funding for science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education at the NSF. The House Committee on Appropriations
recommended $825.0 million for E&HR in FY2014. The Administration requested, and the
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended, $880.3 million. Approximately 44.0% of the
FY2014 E&HR request would have supported R&D activities. E&HR funding for R&D has been
increasing. In FY2010, FY2011, and FY2012 (all actual) the percentage of E&HR funding that
supported R&D was 13.7%, 25.9%, and 30.3%, respectively.
As mentioned earlier in “Reorganization of STEM Education Programs,” the Administration
proposed a reorganization and consolidation of many federal STEM education programs in
FY2014.75 Under the Administration’s plan, NSF would have played a leadership role in the
federal undergraduate and graduate STEM education efforts. (The Department of Education and
Smithsonian Institution would have focused on K-12 education and informal STEM education,
respectively.) The foundation’s FY2014 budget request highlighted several NSF changes
associated with the plan. These included establishment of the Catalyzing Advances in
Undergraduate STEM Education (CAUSE) program;76 expansion of the GRF such that it would
become a primary source for all federal research fellowships; and the creation of the NSF
Research Traineeship (NRT), which would have replaced the Integrative Graduate Education
Research Traineeship (IGERT). It was unclear how the expansion of the GRF—which was to
become the National Graduate Research Fellowship (NGRF)—would have affected the
availability of fellowships for mission-driven research at other federal science agencies. The
Administration sought $123.1 million in funding for CAUSE, $325.1 million for the NGRF, and
$55.1 million for the NRT in FY2014.
The JES and House and Senate appropriations committee reports rejected the proposed
reorganization plan, except as specifically noted. The JES further directs the Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP) to reexamine other possible reorganizations of the federal STEM
education effort “after engaging in an inclusive development process (involving the interagency
community and major external stakeholders).” The Senate report deferred action on the
reorganization until OSTP finalizes STEM education program assessments as required by the
74
More information about this limitation is available on the Political Science program website, http://www.nsf.gov/
funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5418.
75
Although the details of the plan appear to be in flux, the Administration proposes reducing the number of federal
STEM education programs by about 50% and shifting approximately $180.0 million in budget authority from various
federal agencies to the NSF, Department of Education, and Smithsonian Institution. Some programs within the three
receiving agencies would also be consolidated, as would STEM education programs at other federal agencies.
76
The CAUSE program would consolidate three E&HR programs, three R&RA programs, and one NSF-wide program.
Congressional Research Service
37
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358). The Senate report also asked
NSF to work with OSTP to determine “how NSF could implement a broader program for
graduate and undergraduate programs across the entire Federal Government, and to identify
which programs across Government could benefit from such a program.”77 The House report
specifically rejected the establishment of the CAUSE program or the transition to a federal
government-wide GRF program.
Other accounts that fund R&D at the NSF include the Major Research Equipment and Facilities
Construction (MREFC) account. MREFC received $200.0 million in FY2014. This amount is
about $4 million more than the FY2013 post-sequestration, post-rescission funding level of
$196.2 million. The FY2014 request for the MREFC account was $210.1 million. FY2014
funding was to provide a final year of support for the Advanced Interferometer GravitationalWave Observatory and Ocean Observatories Initiative, as well as the first year of funding for the
Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST). Funding for the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope
and National Ecological Observatory Network would continue. The House report provided an
amount ($182.6 million) that was equal to the request for continuing projects, but would not have
covered costs of the first year of construction for the LSST. The Senate report provided the
requested level and welcomed the start of LSST construction. The JES specifies that FY2014
MREFC funding includes the requested levels for on-going projects, as well as initial funding for
the LSST. The JES authorizes NSF to submit a transfer proposal if additional funds are necessary
for the LSST in FY2014.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 provided $298.0 million, $4.3 million, and $14.2
million (respectively) for AOAM, NSB, and OIG in FY2014. The Administration sought $304.3
million, $4.5 million, and $14.3 million (respectively) for these accounts in FY2014.
The FY2014 NSF budget request also included funding for three multi-agency initiatives:
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI, $430.9 million), Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development (NITRD, $1.227 billion), and U.S. Global Change
Research Program (USGCRP, $326.4 million).
Table 10. NSF Funding by Major Account
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Account
FY2013
Current
Plana
FY2014
Request
FY2014
House
Committee
FY2014
Senate
Committee
FY2014
Enacted
Biological Sciences
$678.9
$760.6
n/a
n/a
n/a
Computer and Information
Science and Engineeringb
858.5
950.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
Engineering
813.5
911.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
Geosciencesb
1,265.8
1393.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
Mathematical and Physical
Sciences
1,249.5
1386.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
242.5
272.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
Social, Behavioral, and
Economic Sciences
77
S.Rept. 113-78, p. 124.
Congressional Research Service
38
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
Account
FY2013
Current
Plana
FY2014
Request
FY2014
House
Committee
FY2014
Senate
Committee
FY2014
Enacted
International and
Integrative Activitiesb
433.5
536.6
n/a
n/a
n/a
U.S. Arctic Research
Commission
1.4
1.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
$5,543.7
$6,212.3
$5,676.2
$6,018.3
$5,808.9
Education and Human
Resources
833.3
880.3
825.0
880.3
846.5
Major Research
Equipment and Facilities
Construction
196.2
210.1
182.6
210.1
200.0
Agency Operations and
Award Management
293.6
304.3
294.0
298.4
298.0
National Science Board
4.1
4.5
4.1
4.5
4.3
Office of the Inspector
General
13.2
14.3
13.2
14.3
14.2
$6,884.1
$7,625.8
$6,995.1
$7,425.9
$7,171.9
Research and Related
Activities, Total
NSF, Total
Source: Numbers in the “FY2013 Current Plan” column are from the NSF Current Plan, posted on the NSF
website on April 9, 2013, and available at http://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/113/highlights/cu13_0409.jsp.
Numbers in the “FY2014 Request” column are from the FY2014 NSF Budget Request to Congress. Numbers in the
columns titled, “FY2014 House Cte.” and “FY2014 Senate Cte.” are from House and Senate committee reports
on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies funding for FY2014, respectively. Numbers in the column
titled, “FY2014 Final” are from H.R. 3547 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014).
Notes: The term “n/a” means not available. Numbers are rounded. Totals may differ from the sum of the
components due to rounding.
a.
FY2013 NSF current plan estimates include reductions required by the sequester and by applicable
rescissions in P.L. 113-6 (Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013).
b.
On September 7, 2012, NSF announced that it was realigning the Research and Related Activities account.
Under the new account structure, the Office of Cyberinfrastructure became a division within the
Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering and the Office of Polar Programs
became a division within the Geosciences directorate. The offices of International Science and Engineering
and Integrative Activities have merged to become the Office of International and Integrative Activities.
Congressional Research Service
39
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
National Aeronautics and Space Administration78
The Administration requested $16.516 billion for NASA R&D in FY2014. This amount was 6.5%
more than the $15.504 billion in NASA’s operating plan for FY2013.79 The House committee
recommended $15.397 billion. The Senate committee recommended $16.794 billion. The final
appropriation was $16.445 billion. For a breakdown of these amounts, see Table 11. There is no
authorized level for NASA funding in FY2014; the most recent authorization act (the NASA
Authorization Act of 2010, P.L. 111-267) authorized appropriations through FY2013. Bills that
would authorize FY2014 appropriations for NASA include H.R. 2687, H.R. 2616, and S. 1317.
The FY2014 request for Science was $5.018 billion, a 4.9% increase from the FY2013 operating
plan. The House and Senate committees recommended $4.781 billion and $5.154 billion
respectively. In Planetary Science, the request included $40.5 million for observation of nearEarth objects and $50 million for management of a Department of Energy (DOE) program to
produce plutonium-238, which some spacecraft use for power generation. In previous years,
congressional policymakers disagreed about whether NASA or DOE should fund DOE
production of plutonium-238 for NASA. The House and Senate committee recommendations for
Planetary Science were respectively $1.315 billion and $1.318 billion. Among other differences
relative to the request, the House committee recommended increases for exploration of Mars and
the outer planets and no funding for plutonium-238 production. The Senate committee’s
recommended increase was entirely for Mars exploration. The final appropriation for Planetary
Science was $1.345 billion. This total included increases for exploration of Mars and the outer
planets and up to the requested amount for plutonium-238 production. In Earth Science, the
request included $30 million to begin development of future land imaging capabilities to replace
the current Landsat satellites, operated by the U.S. Geological Survey, as well as funds to assume
responsibility for certain Earth-observing satellite instruments previously held by the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The House committee recommended
$1.659 billion for Earth Science, and its report stated that no funds should be spent on the
proposed Landsat and NOAA-related activities. The Senate committee recommended
approximately the requested amount for Earth Science, including the requested funds for land
imaging, but its report expressed concern about the Administration’s approach and directed
NASA to submit a plan for implementing future Landsat satellites at substantially lower cost. The
final appropriation for Earth Science was $1.826 billion. The explanatory statement took the
Senate report’s position on land imaging and directed NASA to submit a plan to Congress before
expending funds on some of the disputed sensors for NOAA. The request for the James Webb
Space Telescope (JWST) was $658.2 million. NASA expects FY2014 to be the peak funding year
for JWST and states that the budget and schedule for the JWST program remain consistent with
the 2011 revised plan. 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 committee recommended $584.0 million for
JWST in FY2014, while the Senate committee recommended the requested amount. The final
appropriation was the requested amount.
78
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
79
Based on the August 29, 2013, NASA operating plan, which reflected numerous changes to the enacted FY2013
amounts as the result of rescissions, sequestration, transfers, and reprogramming.
Congressional Research Service
40
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
The request for Aeronautics was $565.7 million, a 6.8% increase from the FY2013 operating
plan. The request for Integrated Systems Research included a new program on advanced
composite materials and structures. In the Fundamental Aeronautics program, NASA planned to
explore options for the future of its rotorcraft research; this planning was to be coordinated with
other government agencies and industry partners. The House committee recommended $566.0
million for Aeronautics, while the Senate committee recommended $558.7 million. The final
appropriation was $566.0 million.
For Space Technology, the Administration requested $742.6 million, a 20.8% increase from the
FY2013 operating plan. The requested increase was to support existing projects that are moving
from the planning and design phase to the more expensive tasks of hardware manufacture and
demonstration. The request also included funds to accelerate the development of high-power solar
electric propulsion technology for future spacecraft. The House and Senate committee
recommendations were respectively $576.0 million and $670.1 million. The final appropriation
was $576.0 million.
The Administration’s request for Exploration in FY2014 was $3.916 billion, an increase of 5.7%
from the FY2013 operating plan. This account funds development of the Orion Multipurpose
Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket, which were
mandated by the 2010 authorization act for human exploration beyond Earth orbit. The account
also funds development of a commercial crew transportation capability for future U.S. astronaut
access to the International Space Station. Relative to the FY2013 operating plan, the request of
$821.4 million for commercial crew was an increase of 56.5%, while the request of $2.730 billion
for Orion, the SLS, and related ground systems (known collectively as Exploration Systems
Development) was a decrease of 5.3%. As in previous years, this apparent difference in human
spaceflight priorities between Congress and the Administration was controversial. According to
NASA, the amounts requested were consistent with the planned schedules for both Orion/SLS
and commercial crew. NASA officials stated that the request for commercial crew was necessary
to make commercial crew transportation services available in 2017, while the request for Orion
and SLS was sufficient for an uncrewed flight of the SLS in 2017 and a crewed flight in 2021.
The House committee recommended $3.612 billion, including $500 million for commercial crew
and $2.825 billion for Exploration Systems Development. The Senate committee recommended
$4.209 billion, including $775 million for commercial crew and $3.118 billion for Exploration
Systems Development. The final appropriation was $4.113 billion, including $696 million for
commercial crew and $3.115 billion for Exploration Systems Development.
The request for the International Space Station (ISS) was $3.049 billion, an increase of 9.8% from
the FY2013 operating plan. The ISS account includes the cost of commercial cargo flights for ISS
resupply. The first such flight was in May 2012. A second provider launched its first flight in
January 2014. The House committee recommended $2.860 billion. The Senate committee
recommended the requested amount. The final appropriation was approximately $2.955 billion.80
NASA has proposed a mission to capture a small asteroid robotically, redirect it into orbit around
the Moon, and explore it with astronauts as one of the first destinations for Orion and the SLS.
The FY2014 budget request included initial funding for this mission in three different accounts:
$20 million in Science for identification and characterization of a suitable asteroid, $45 million in
Exploration for mission definition and planning and development of capture mechanisms, and
80
CRS estimate. See notes to Table 11 for explanation.
Congressional Research Service
41
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
$40 million in Space Technology for development of the solar electric propulsion technology that
would be used to redirect the asteroid’s orbit. The House report called the proposed asteroid
mission “premature” and stated that the House committee’s recommendation “does not include
any of the requested increases associated with the asteroid retrieval proposal.” The Senate report
was silent about this mission. Noting that the proposed mission was “still an emerging concept,”
the joint explanatory statement stated that “NASA has not provided Congress with satisfactory
justification materials,” and additional groundwork “is needed ... prior to NASA and Congress
making a long-term commitment to this mission concept.”
Table 11. NASA R&D
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
Actual
FY2013
Op. Plan
FY2014
Request
FY2014
House Cte.
FY2014
Senate Cte.
FY2014
Enacted
$5,073.7
$4,781.6
$5,017.8
$4,781.0
$5,154.2
$5,151.2
Earth Science
1,760.5
1,659.2
1,846.1
1,659.0
1,846.2
1,826.0
Planetary Science
1,501.4
1,271.5
1,217.5
1,315.0
1,317.6
1,345.0
Astrophysics
648.4
617.0
642.3
622.0
678.4
668.0
James Webb Space Telescope
518.6
627.6
658.2
584.0
658.2
658.2
Heliophysics
644.8
606.3
653.7
601.0
653.8
654.0
Aeronautics
569.4
529.5
565.7
566.0
558.7
566.0
Space Technology
573.7
614.5
742.6
576.0
670.1
576.0
3,707.3
3,705.5
3,915.5
3,612.0
4,209.3
4,113.2
Science
Exploration
3,001.6
2,883.8
2,730.0
2,825.0
3,118.2
3,115.2
Commercial Spaceflight
406.0
525.0
821.4
500.0
775.0
696.0
Exploration R&D
299.7
296.7
364.2
287.0
316.1
302.0
2,789.9
2,775.9
3,049.1
2,860.0
3,049.1
2,955.4a
Exploration Systems Development
International Space Station
Subtotal R&D
12,714.0
12,407.0
13,290.7
12,395.0
13,641.4
13,361.8
Non-R&D Programsb
1,568.5
1,100.6
965.0
967.3
988.4
976.7
Cross-Agency Support
2,993.9
2,711.0
2,850.3
2,711.0
2,793.6
2,793.0
Associated with R&Dc
2,665.1
2,490.1
2,657.4
2,514.8
2,604.9
2,602.8
494.5
660.9a
609.4
525.0
586.9
515.0
440.2
607.0
568.1
487.0
547.2
479.9
Total R&D
15,819.3
15,504.1
16,516.2
15,396.7
16,793.5
16,444.5
Total NASA
17,770.0
16,879.5
17,715.4
16,598.3
18,010.3
17,646.5
Construction & Environmental C&R
Associated with R&Dc
Sources: FY2012 actual and FY2014 request from NASA’s FY2014 congressional budget justification,
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/. FY2013 operating plan as of August 29, 2013, from http://www.nasa.gov/sites/
default/files/files/FY13_op_plan_info_082913Aug.pdf, and personal communication between CRS and NASA,
February 7, 2014. FY2013 House Committee from H.R. 2787 as reported and H.Rept. 113-171. FY2014 Senate
Committee from S. 1329 as reported and S.Rept. 113-78. FY2014 enacted from P.L. 113-76 and joint explanatory
statement, Congressional Record, January 15, 2014, pp. H515-H517.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
a.
Estimated by CRS. The act and the explanatory statement do not specify the share of the Space Operations
account that is to be spent on the International Space Station. This estimate assumes a percentage share
that is the average of the percentage shares specified in the House and Senate reports.
Congressional Research Service
42
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
b.
Space Shuttle, Space and Flight Support, Education, and Inspector General.
c.
Allocation between R&D and non-R&D is estimated by CRS in proportion to the underlying program
amounts in order to allow calculation of a total for R&D. The Cross-Agency Support and Construction and
Environmental Compliance and Remediation accounts consist mostly of indirect costs for other programs,
assessed in proportion to their direct costs.
d.
Includes $14.25 million in supplemental funding appropriated by P.L. 113-2, not shown in the operating plan.
Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology81
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.
In his FY2014 budget, the President requested $928.2 million for NIST, including $693.7 million
for research and development in the STRS account, $153.1 million for the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP) program, $21.4 million for the Advanced Manufacturing
Technology Consortia (AMTech), and $60.0 million for construction.
In January 2014, Congress passed and the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2014 (P.L. 113-76) providing funding for all federal departments and agencies for FY2014. Prior
to the enactment of P.L. 113-76, two continuing resolutions (P.L. 113-46 and P.L. 113-73)
provided FY2014 funding for NIST and other federal departments and agencies.
P.L. 113-76 provides a total of $850.0 million for NIST for FY2014, up $80.6 million (10.5%)
from the FY2013 level and down $78.3 million (8.4%) from the President’s request.82 NIST
funding includes $651.0 million for research and development in the Scientific and Technical
Research and Services (STRS) account, $71.2 million (12.3%) above the FY2013 level and $42.7
million (6.2%) below the request. The Industrial Technology Services (ITS) account received
$143.0 million for FY2014, up $9.4 million (7.0%) from FY2013, but $31.5 million below the
request. ITS funding included $128 million for the Manufacturing Extensions Partnership (MEP)
program ($8.6 million (7.2%) above the FY2013 level; $25.1 million (16.4%) below the request)
and $15 million for the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech) ($0.8 million
(5.6%) above the FY2013 level; $6.4 million (29.9%) below the request). The Construction of
Research Facilities (CRF) account received $56.0 million for FY2014, the same as in FY2013
and $4 million (6.7%) below the request.
81
This section was originally written by (name redact ed), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS
Resources, Science, and Industry Division. It has been subsequently updated by John F. Sargent, Jr., Specialist in
Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
82
All references to FY2013 funding for NIST include reductions for rescissions and the sequester.
Congressional Research Service
43
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014
The House Committee on Appropriations report accompanying H.R. 2787 recommended funding
NIST at $784.0 million, 15.5% below the budget request. The $609.0 million provided for the
STRS account was 12.2% less than the Administration’s proposal, while the $120.0 million for
MEP was 21.6% below the President’s figure. No funding was provided for AMTech. The $55.0
million for construction was 8.3% less than the budget request.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations report to accompany S. 1329 included $947.5 million
for NIST, 2.1% more than proposed by the President. Funding for the STRS account would have
amounted to $703.0 million, 1.3% higher than the budget request. Support for MEP would have
totaled $153.1 million, the same as the Administration’s proposal; however, the $31.4 million for
AMTech represented a 46.7% increase over the President’s recommendation. The $60.0 million
for construction was identical to the budget request.
In addition to the appropriations included in the budget proposal that were to be addressed
through the annual appropriations process, the Administration included two new programs that
were to be funded through mandatory appropriations (spending that 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”).83
According to the budget request, NIST would have received $100 million generated by the
proceeds of the spectrum auction to “conduct publ
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.