# Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2014 > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR43086 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** February 19, 2014 - **Citation:** R43086 ## 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. D [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR43086. Public record. Not legal advice.