Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Congressional research reportFeb 2, 2015
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Federal Research and Development Funding:
FY2015
,name redacted,, Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
February 2, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R43580
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Summary
President Obama’s budget request for FY2015 included $135.352 billion for research and
development (R&D), a $1.670 billion (1.2%) increase from the FY2014 level of $133.682 billion.
Funding for R&D is concentrated in a few departments and agencies. Under President Obama’s
FY2015 budget request, seven federal agencies would have received 95.4% of total federal R&D
funding, with the Department of Defense (DOD, 47.6%) and the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS, 23.0%) accounting for more than two-thirds of all federal R&D funding.
In addition to the FY2015 base budget request, the President proposed an Opportunity, Growth,
and Security Initiative (OGSI) that sought, together with funding for other purposes, $5.3 billion
for R&D at certain agencies, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST,
$2.515 billion), National Institutes of Health ($970 million), NASA ($874 million), National
Science Foundation (NSF, $552 million), Department of Agriculture ($277 million), and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ($180 million). Of the NIST funding, $2.4
billion would have supported the establishment of a National Network for Manufacturing
Innovation.
The R&D budgets of NIST, NSF, and the DOE Office of Science were targeted for doubling over
7 years, from their FY2006 levels, by the America COMPETES Act, and over 11 years by the
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. Although the President’s FY2015 budget
requested increases for these accounts, it departed, as did the FY2014 request, from earlier
Obama and Bush Administration budgets that explicitly stated the doubling goal.
The President’s FY2015 request continued support for three multi-agency R&D initiatives, as it
proposed $1.537 billion for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), $3.786 billion for the
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program, and
$2.501 billion for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The request also
proposed approximately $200 million in FY2015 for a Brain Research through Advancing
Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative, as well as funding for the Materials Genome
Initiative and the National Robotics Initiative.
Congress completed appropriations action for most federal agencies through enactment of the
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235), which was signed
into law on December 16, 2014. The measure provides FY2015 appropriations for agencies
covered by 11 regular appropriations bills, and provides continuing appropriations for the
Department of Homeland Security through February 27, 2015. Appropriations made under this
act providing R&D funding for federal agencies are discussed throughout this report where it is
possible to identify the levels of R&D funding; some appropriations accounts include both R&D
and non-R&D funding and the final level of R&D funding will not be known until agencies with
such accounts identify how these funds will be allocated.
Previously, Congress provided FY2015 appropriations to federal agencies through a series of
continuing resolutions. In recent years, continuing resolutions and sequestration have resulted in
the annual appropriations process being completed after the start of the fiscal year. This can affect
agencies’ execution of their R&D budgets, including the delay or cancellation of planned R&D
activities and acquisition of R&D-related equipment.
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Contents
Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 1
The President’s FY2015 Budget Request ........................................................................................ 3
Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative .................................................................................. 4
Federal R&D Funding Perspectives ................................................................................................ 4
Federal R&D by Agency ........................................................................................................... 5
Federal R&D by Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment ............................................... 6
Federal Role in U.S. R&D by Character of Work ..................................................................... 6
Federal R&D by Agency and Character of Work Combined .................................................... 7
Defense-Related and Nondefense-Related R&D ...................................................................... 8
Multiagency R&D Initiatives .......................................................................................................... 8
Efforts to Double Certain R&D Accounts................................................................................. 8
National Nanotechnology Initiative ......................................................................................... 11
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program .................... 12
U.S. Global Change Research Program .................................................................................. 13
BRAIN Initiative ..................................................................................................................... 13
Materials Genome Initiative .................................................................................................... 14
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership ..................................................................................... 14
National Robotics Initiative .............................................................................................. 15
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation ............................................................. 15
Reorganization of STEM Education Programs ....................................................................... 16
FY2015 Appropriations Status ...................................................................................................... 16
Department of Defense .................................................................................................................. 18
Department of Homeland Security ................................................................................................ 23
National Institutes of Health .......................................................................................................... 27
Department of Energy ................................................................................................................... 32
National Science Foundation ......................................................................................................... 36
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ........................................................................... 42
Department of Commerce ............................................................................................................. 46
National Institute of Standards and Technology ..................................................................... 46
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ................................................................ 49
Department of Agriculture ............................................................................................................. 52
Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................. 55
U.S. Geological Survey ........................................................................................................... 56
Other DOI Agencies ................................................................................................................ 56
Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 59
Department of Transportation........................................................................................................ 62
Federal Highway Administration ............................................................................................ 63
Federal Aviation Administration ............................................................................................. 63
Other DOT Agencies ............................................................................................................... 64
Department of Veterans Affairs ..................................................................................................... 67
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Figures
Figure 1. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling: Appropriations, Authorizations,
and Requests versus Selected Doubling Rates ............................................................................ 11
Tables
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2013-FY2015 ..................... 5
Table 2. Federal R&D Funding by Character of Work and Facilities and Equipment,
FY2013-FY2015 .......................................................................................................................... 6
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2013-FY2015 ................................................................................................ 7
Table 4. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling, FY2006-FY2015 .................................... 10
Table 5. National Nanotechnology Initiative Funding, FY2013-FY2015 ..................................... 12
Table 6. Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program
Funding, FY2013-FY2015 ......................................................................................................... 12
Table 7. U.S. Global Change Research Program Funding, FY2013-FY2015 ............................... 13
Table 8. Alignment of Agency R&D Funding and Regular Appropriations Bills ......................... 17
Table 9. Department of Defense RDT&E ..................................................................................... 21
Table 10. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs .................................. 26
Table 11. National Institutes of Health Funding ............................................................................ 31
Table 12. Department of Energy R&D and Related Activities ...................................................... 35
Table 13. NSF Funding by Major Account.................................................................................... 41
Table 14. NASA R&D ................................................................................................................... 45
Table 15. NIST .............................................................................................................................. 48
Table 16. NOAA R&D .................................................................................................................. 51
Table 17. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D ........................................................................... 54
Table 18. Department of the Interior R&D.................................................................................... 58
Table 19. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account .......................................................... 61
Table 20. Department of Transportation R&D .............................................................................. 66
Table 21. Department of Veterans Affairs R&D ............................................................................ 68
Appendixes
Appendix. Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................... 69
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 73
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
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, shale gas extraction, and defenses against disease. However, widespread concerns about
the federal debt and recent and projected federal budget deficits are driving difficult decisions
about the prioritization of R&D, both in the context of the entire federal budget and among
competing needs within the federal R&D portfolio.
The U.S. government supports a broad range of scientific and engineering R&D. Its purposes
include 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 individual
funding agencies.
The federal R&D budget is an aggregation of the R&D components of each federal agency. There
is no single, centralized source of funds that is allocated to individual agencies. In fact, agency
R&D budgets are developed internally as part of each agency’s overall budget development
process and may be included in accounts that are entirely for R&D and accounts that include
funding for non-R&D activities. These budgets are subjected to review, revision, and approval by
the Office of Management and Budget and become part of the President’s annual budget
submission to Congress. The federal R&D budget is then calculated by aggregating the R&D
components of the appropriations provided by Congress to each federal agency.
Congress plays a central role in defining the nation’s R&D priorities as it makes decisions about
the level and allocation of R&D funding—overall, within agencies, and for specific programs.
Some Members of Congress have expressed concerns about the level of federal spending (for
R&D as for other purposes) in light of the current federal deficit and debt. As Congress acts to
complete the FY2015 appropriations process, it faces two overarching issues: the extent to which
federal R&D investments can grow in the face of increased pressure on discretionary spending
and the prioritization and allocation of the available funding. Low or negative growth in the
overall R&D investment may require movement of resources across disciplines, programs, or
agencies to address priorities. Moving funding between programs/accounts/agencies can become
more complex and difficult if the funding for programs/accounts/agencies is provided through
different appropriations bills.
Structurally, this report begins with a discussion of the overall level of R&D funding requested in
the President’s budget, followed by analyses of requested R&D funding from a variety of
perspectives and for selected multiagency R&D initiatives. The report concludes with discussion
and analysis of the R&D budget requests of selected federal departments and agencies that,
collectively, account for about 98% of total federal R&D funding. A list of definitions associated
with federal R&D funding is provided in the text box on the following page.
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Definitions Associated with Federal Research and Development Funding
Two key sources of definitions associated with federal research and development funding are the Office of
Management and Budget and the National Science Foundation.
Office of Management and Budget. The Office of Management and Budget provides the following definitions of
R&D-related terms in OMB Circular No. A-11, “Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget” (July 2013).
This document provides guidance to agencies in the preparation of the President’s annual budget and instructions on
budget execution.
Conduct of Research. Research and development activities comprise creative work undertaken on a systematic
basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture, and society, and the use of
this stock of knowledge to devise new applications. Includes administrative expenses for R&D, including the
operating costs of research facilities and equipment; does not include physical assets for R&D such as R&D
equipment and facilities or routine product testing, quality control, mapping, collection of general-purpose
statistics, experimental production, routine monitoring and evaluation of an operational program, and the training
of scientific and technical personnel.
Basic Research. Basic research is defined as systematic study directed toward fuller knowledge or understanding
of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications towards processes
or products in mind. Basic research, however, may include activities with broad applications in mind.
Applied Research. Applied research is defined as systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding
necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met.
Development. Development is defined as systematic application of knowledge or understanding, directed
toward the production of useful materials, devices, and systems or methods, including design, development, and
improvement of prototypes and new processes to meet specific requirements.
R&D Equipment. Amounts for major equipment for research and development. Includes acquisition or design
and production of movable equipment, such as spectrometers, research satellites, detectors, and other
instruments. At a minimum, this line should include programs devoted to the purchase or construction of R&D
equipment.
R&D Facilities. Amounts for the construction and rehabilitation of research and development facilities. Includes
the acquisition, design, and construction of, or major repairs or alterations to, all physical facilities for use in R&D
activities. Facilities include land, buildings, and fixed capital equipment, regardless of whether the facilities are to be
used by the government or by a private organization, and regardless of where title to the property may rest.
Includes fixed facilities such as reactors, wind tunnels, and particle accelerators.
National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation provides the following definitions of R&D-related
terms in its Science and Engineering Indicators: 2014 report.
Research and Development. Research and development, also called research and experimental development;
comprises creative work undertaken on a systematic basis to increase the stock of knowledge—including
knowledge of man, culture, and society—and its use to devise new applications.
R&D Plant. In general, R&D plant refers to the acquisition of, construction of, major repairs to, or alterations in
structures, works, equipment, facilities, or land for use in R&D activities. Data included in this section refer to
obligated federal dollars for R&D plant.
Basic Research. The objective of basic research is to gain more comprehensive knowledge or understanding of
the subject under study without specific applications in mind. Although basic research may not have specific
applications as its goal, it can be directed in fields of present or potential interest. This is often the case with basic
research performed by industry or mission-driven federal agencies.
Applied Research. The objective of applied research is to gain knowledge or understanding to meet a specific,
recognized need. In industry, applied research includes investigations to discover new scientific knowledge that
has specific commercial objectives with respect to products, processes, or services.
Development. Development is the systematic use of the knowledge or understanding gained from research
directed toward the production of useful materials, devices, systems, or methods, including the design and
development of prototypes and processes.
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
The President’s FY2015 Budget Request
On March 4, 2014, President Obama released his proposed FY2015 budget. Using FY2014 as the
base comparison year, this report provided government-wide, multi-agency, and individual
agency analyses of the President’s FY2015 request as it relates to R&D and related activities. The
President’s budget sought $135.352 billion for R&D in FY2015, a 1.2% increase over the
estimated FY2014 R&D funding level of $133.682 billion.1 Adjusted for anticipated inflation of
1.7%, the President’s FY2015 R&D request represented a decrease of 0.5% from the FY2014
estimated level.2
President Obama’s FY2015 budget reflected a reduced focus on a primary science and technology
policy effort that Congress and two Administrations have pursued for the past eight years.
Referred to frequently as the “doubling effort,” Congress and Presidents Obama and Bush sought
to increase support for the physical sciences and engineering by doubling funding for accounts at
three federal agencies with a strong R&D emphasis in these disciplines: the Department of
Energy (DOE) Office of Science, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of
Commerce (DOC) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) core laboratory
research and construction of research facilities (collectively referred to as the “targeted
accounts”). The doubling goal was expressed in President Bush’s American Competitiveness
Initiative, in budget requests from President Obama before FY2014, and implicitly in the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L.
111-358). The America COMPETES Act and the reauthorization act set appropriations
authorization levels consistent with a doubling pace of 7 years and 11 years, respectively.3 In
aggregate, appropriations provided to these accounts fell short of the levels authorized in P.L.
110-69 and P.L. 111-358. In the FY2015 budget, the President requested a 1.2% increase in
aggregate funding for the targeted accounts, a pace that would require more than 58 years to
double and one that is below the expected rate of inflation (1.7%). See “Efforts to Double Certain
R&D Accounts” below for more details.
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., through increases in direct federal R&D funding or
through indirect mechanisms such as the research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit).4
1
Funding levels included in this document are in current dollars unless otherwise noted. Inflation diminishes the
purchasing power of federal R&D funds, so an increase that falls short of the inflation rate may reduce real purchasing
power.
2
As calculated by CRS using the GDP (chained) price index for FY2014 and FY2015 in Table 10.1, Gross Domestic
Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2018, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year
2015, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/hist10z1.xls.
3
As used in this report, the term “doubling pace” means the number of years required for funding for the targeted
accounts to double, relative to the FY2006 baseline year, if the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) were to
continue. For example, the doubling pace of the America COMPETES Act is based on the 10.3% CAGR from FY2006
to FY2010, the last year of authorizations under the act. At 10.3% annual growth, funding for the targeted accounts
would double in approximately 7 years. Similarly, the CAGR for the reauthorization act, which authorized
appropriations through FY2013, was 6.3%, a rate that would take approximately 11 years to double.
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 114 th
Congress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Achieving the 3% goal would likely require a substantial increase in government and corporate
R&D spending. When President Obama set forth the goal in 2009, total U.S. R&D expenditures
were approximately 2.90% of GDP. In 2012, R&D as a percentage of GDP was 2.89%, with the
federal government contributing 0.86% (down from 0.91% in 2009) and non-federal sources
contributing 2.02% (up from 1.98% in 2009).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, figures reported by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and 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. Another
complicating factor in the President’s FY2015 budget request was the Opportunity, Growth, and
Security Initiative (OGSI), discussed in the next section.
Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative
In addition to the FY2015 base budget request,6 President Obama proposed an Opportunity,
Growth, and Security Initiative that sought $56 billion, for various purposes, including $5.3
billion for R&D. A large fraction of the OGSI R&D funding ($2.4 billion) would have gone to
NIST to support the establishment of a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation to
promote the development of manufacturing technologies with broad applications (see “National
Network for Manufacturing Innovation” for more details). Among other R&D agencies that
would have received funding under the OGSI proposal were Department of Defense (DOD),
National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
NSF, Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Transportation (DOT), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Department of the Interior (DOI).
There are few details on how agency OGSI funding would have been allocated between R&D and
non-R&D activities.
The President’s request referred to the OGSI as “separate” and “fully-paid-for.”7 The funding
requested in the President’s base budget sought to comply with the FY2015 discretionary
spending cap set by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (Division A of P.L. 113-67). The OGSI
sought funding above the cap and would have been offset by an equal amount of proposed
additional revenue produced by spending reforms and changes in the tax code. Analyses in this
report address only the R&D funding included in the base request, except as specifically noted.
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
5
GDP figures from Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business, May 31, 2012; R&D figures from
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, National Patterns of R&D
Resources (annual series).
6
The term “base budget” is used in the President’s budget to distinguish the main request from additional funding
requested as part of the OGSI.
7
Executive Office of the President (EOP), OSTP, “The FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget: Science,
Technology, and Innovation for Opportunity and Growth,” press release, March 4, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/2015%20Budget%20Release.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
supported, by a combination of these two perspectives, and by defense-related and nondefenserelated R&D.
Federal R&D by Agency
Congress makes decisions about federal R&D funding through the authorization and
appropriations process primarily from the perspective of individual agencies and programs. Table
1 provides data on R&D by agency for FY2013 (actual), FY2014 (estimate), and FY2015
(request) as reported by OSTP.
Under President Obama’s FY2015 budget request, seven federal agencies would have received
more than 95% of total federal R&D funding: the Department of Defense (DOD), 47.6%;
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (primarily NIH), 23.0%; DOE, 9.1%; NASA,
8.5%; NSF, 4.2%; USDA, 1.8%; and DOC, 1.2%. 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), Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In total, these 12 agencies accounted
for more than 98% of current and requested federal R&D funding.
The largest agency R&D increases in the President’s FY2015 request (in dollars, not
percentages), compared with FY2014, were for DOE, $950 million (8.4%); DOD, $574 million
(0.9%); HHS, $157 million (0.5%); Interior, $85 million (10.1%); USDA, $29 million (1.2%);
and DOT, $12 million (1.4%). Under the President’s FY2015 budget request, DHS R&D funding
would have been reduced by $156 million (15.1%), NASA by $112 million (1.0%), and DOC by
$35 million (2.1%).
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2013-FY2015
(budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change, FY2014-FY2015
Department/Agency
FY2013
Actual
FY2014
Estimate
FY2015
Request
Dollar
Percent
Department of Defense
$63,838
$63,856
$64,430
$574
0.9%
Department of Health and Human
Services
29,969
30,912
31,069
157
0.5%
Department of Energy
10,740
11,359
12,309
950
8.4%
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
11,282
11,667
11,555
-112
-1.0%
National Science Foundation
5,319
5,729
5,727
-2
0.0%
Department of Agriculture
2,116
2,418
2,447
29
1.2%
Department of Commerce
1,360
1,632
1,597
-35
-2.1%
Department of Veterans Affairs
1,164
1,174
1,178
4
0.3%
Department of the Interior
785
840
925
85
10.1%
Department of Homeland Security
684
1,032
876
-156
-15.1%
Department of Transportation
829
853
865
12
1.4%
Environmental Protection Agency
532
560
560
0
0.0%
1,714
1,650
1,814
164
9.9%
Other
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Change, FY2014-FY2015
Department/Agency
FY2013
Actual
FY2014
Estimate
FY2015
Request
Dollar
Percent
Total
130,332
133,682
135,352
1,670.0
1.2%
Source: EOP, OSTP, “The FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget: Science, Technology, and Innovation
for Opportunity and Growth,” press release, March 4, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/ostp/2015%20Budget%20Release.pdf.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
Federal R&D 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 FY2015 request
included $32.079 billion for basic research, down $331 million (1.0%) from FY2014; $32.641
billion for applied research, up $582 million (1.8%) from FY2014; $68.017 billion for
development, up $1.540 (2.3%) from FY2014; and $2.615 billion for facilities and equipment,
down $121 million (4.4%) from FY2014.
Table 2. Federal R&D Funding by Character of Work and Facilities and Equipment,
FY2013-FY2015
(budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change,
FY2014-FY2015
FY2013
Actual
FY2014
Estimate
FY2015
Request
Dollar
Basic research
$30,648
$32,410
$32,079
$-331
-1.0%
Applied research
31,199
32,059
32,641
582
1.8%
Development
66,614
66,477
68,017
1,540
2.3%
Facilities and Equipment
1,871
2,736
2,615
-121
-4.4%
130,332
133,682
135,352
1,670
1.2%
Total
Percent
Source: EOP, OSTP, “The FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget: Science, Technology, and Innovation
for Opportunity and Growth,” press release, March 4, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/ostp/2015%20Budget%20Release.pdf.
Note: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
Federal Role in U.S. R&D by Character of Work
A primary policy foundation for public investments in basic research and incentives (e.g., tax
credits) for the private sector to conduct research is the view, widely held by economists, that the
private sector will, left on its own, underinvest in basic research because the social returns (i.e.,
all of the benefits (such as rewards, opportunities, improvements) to society resulting from the
research) exceed the private returns (i.e., the benefits accruing to the investor (such as increased
revenues, higher stock value)). Other factors inhibiting corporate investment in basic research
include long time horizons for commercial applications (diminishing the potential returns due to
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
the time value of money), high levels of technical risk/uncertainty, shareholder demands for
shorter-term returns, and asymmetric and imperfect information. The federal government is the
nation’s largest supporter of basic research, funding 52.6% of U.S. basic research in 2012.8
Industry funded 21.3% of U.S. basic research in 2012, with state governments, universities, and
other non-profit organizations funding the remaining 26.0%.9 In contrast to basic research,
industry is the primary funder of applied research in the United States, accounting for an
estimated 54.0% in 2012, while the federal government accounted for an estimated 36.2%.10
Industry also provides the vast majority of funding for development. Industry accounted for
76.4% of development in 2012, while the federal government provided 22.1% of the funding.11
Federal R&D 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 individual 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 FY2015 budget request, the
Department of Health and Human Services, primarily NIH, accounted for somewhat more than
half of all federal funding for basic research. HHS is also the largest funder of applied research,
accounting for about 45% of all federally funded applied research in the President’s FY2015
budget request. DOD is the primary federal agency funder of development, accounting for 84.9%
of total federal development funding in the President’s FY2015 budget request.12
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2013-FY2015
(budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change, FY2014-FY2015
FY2013
Actual
FY2014
Enacted
FY2015
Request
Dollar
Percent
$15,424
$15,861
$16,085
$224
1.4%
National Science Foundation
4,357
4,711
4,708
-3
-0.1%
Dept. of Energy
3,360
3,907
3,086
-821
-21.0%
14,294
14,851
14,783
-68
-0.5%
Basic Research
Dept, of Health and Human Services
Applied Research
Dept. of Health and Human Services
8
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2013, National Patterns of
R&D Resources: 2011–12 Data Update, NSF 14-304, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf14304/. More recent data are not
yet available.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2015, Table 21-1.
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Change, FY2014-FY2015
FY2013
Actual
FY2014
Enacted
FY2015
Request
Dollar
Percent
Dept. of Defense
4,158
4,376
4,530
154
3.5%
Dept. of Energy
3,852
3,886
4,269
383
9.9%
Dept. of Defense
57,774
57,326
57,747
421
0.7%
NASA
5,064
5,162
6,009
847
16.4%
Dept. of Energy
2,466
2,585
2,927
342
13.2%
Dept. of Energy
571
842
970
128
15.2%
National Science Foundation
372
538
539
1
0.2%
Dept. of Commerce
217
227
250
23
10.1%
Development
Facilities and Equipment
Source: EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2015, March 2014.
Note: The top three funding agencies in each category are listed, based on the FY2015 request.
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 it also includes
some activities at the Department of Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Defenserelated R&D has constituted more than half of total federal R&D funding, fluctuating between
50% and 70% for more than three decades. Defense-related R&D grew from 52.7% of total
federal R&D funding in FY2001 to 60.5% in FY2008, then declined over several years to 56.8%
in 2012.13 The President’s FY2015 budget included $69.465 billion in defense-related R&D
funding, or about 51.3% of the total R&D request.14
Multiagency R&D Initiatives
Although this report focuses primarily on the R&D activities of individual agencies, President
Obama’s FY2015 budget request supported several multiagency R&D initiatives. The following
sections discuss several of these.
Efforts to Double Certain R&D Accounts15
In 2006, President Bush announced the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) which, in part,
sought to increase federal funding for physical sciences and engineering research by doubling
13
CRS analysis of National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2014, NSB 14-01, 2014, Appendix
table 4-33, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/.
14
EOP, OSTP, “The FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget: Science, Technology, and Innovation for
Opportunity and Growth,” press release, March 4, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
2015%20Budget%20Release.pdf.
15
For more information, see CRS Report R41951, An Analysis of Efforts to Double Federal Funding for Physical
Sciences and Engineering Research, by (name redacted)
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
funding over 10 years (FY2006-FY2016) for targeted accounts at three agencies: the National
Science Foundation, the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, and the NIST Scientific
and Technical Research and Services (STRS) and construction of research facilities (CRF)
accounts.
In 2007, Congress authorized substantial increases for these targeted accounts under the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69), which set the combined authorization levels for these accounts
for FY2008 to FY2010 at a seven-year doubling pace from the FY2006 baseline. 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. 111-117), fell below these targets.16 (See Table 4.)
In 2010, Congress passed the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358)
which, among other things, authorized appropriations for the targeted accounts for FY2011 to
FY2013.17 The aggregate authorization levels for the targeted accounts in this act were consistent
with an 11-year doubling path. However, aggregate FY2013 funding subsequently appropriated
for the targeted accounts was approximately $12.201 billion, $2.904 billion less than authorized
in the act. This funding level set a pace to double over 22 years from the FY2006 level—more
than triple the length of time originally envisioned in the 2007 America COMPETES Act and
about twice as long as the doubling period established by the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010.
Budget constraints appear to have put the future of the doubling path 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.18 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).19 The FY2013 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 was to take place.
President Obama’s FY2014 budget expressed a commitment to increasing funding for the
targeted accounts, but did not commit to doubling. In the President’s FY2015 budget, there was
no explicit statement of commitment to increasing funding for the targeted accounts. For FY2015,
President Obama requested $13.105 billion in aggregate funding for the targeted accounts, an
increase of $155 million (1.2%) above the estimated FY2014 aggregate funding level of $12.950
billion. However, adjusted for inflation, funding for the targeted accounts would decline by 0.5%.
Congress has not reauthorized the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, major
provisions of which (including authorizations for the targeted accounts) expired in FY2013, nor
has Congress otherwise authorized appropriations for these accounts in FY2014 or future years.
Two bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives that would set authorization
levels for two or more of these accounts. H.R. 4186, the Frontiers in Innovation, Research,
Science, and Technology Act of 2014, would provide authorizations for FY2014 and FY2015 for
16
In 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) provided $5.202 billion in supplemental
funding for several of the targeted accounts. This increased aggregate funding for the accounts above the target levels
in that year.
17
For more 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)
.
18
EOP, OSTP, The President’s Plan for Science and Innovation: Doubling Funding for Key Basic Research Agencies
in the 2010 Budget, May 7, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ostp/budget/doubling.pdf.
19
EOP, OSTP, The President’s Plan for Science and Innovation: Doubling Funding for Key Basic Research Agencies
in the 2011 Budget, February 1, 2010, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/doubling%2011%20final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
NSF and NIST, but not for the DOE’s Office of Science. H.R. 4159, the America Competes
Reauthorization Act of 2014, would provide authorizations for FY2015 to FY2019 for NSF,
NIST, and the DOE Office of Science.
Figure 1 shows total funding for the targeted accounts as a percentage of their FY2006 funding
level, and illustrates how actual (FY2006-FY2014), requested (FY2007-FY2015), and authorized
appropriations (FY2008-FY2013) compare to different doubling rates using FY2006 as the base
year. The thick black line at the top of the chart is at 200%, the doubling level. The data used in
Figure 1 are in current dollars, not constant dollars, thus the effect of inflation on the purchasing
power of these funds is not taken into consideration.
Table 4. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling, FY2006-FY2015
(budget authority, in millions of current dollars)
FY2006
Actual
FY2007
Actual
FY2008
Actual
FY2009
Actual
FY2009
ARRA
NSF
$5,646
$5,884
$6,084
$6,469
DOE/Ofc. of Science
3,632
3,837
4,083
NIST/STRS
395
434
NIST/CRF
174
9,846
Agency
Total
FY2010
Actual
FY2011
Actual
FY2012
Actual
FY2013
Actual
FY2014
Est.
FY2015
Req.
$2,402
$6,972 $6,913a
$7,033
$6,884
$7,172
$7,255
4,807
1,633
4,964
4,843
4,874
4,681
5,071
5,111
441
472
220
515
497
567
580
651
680
59
161
172
360
147
70
55
56
56
59
10,214
10,768
11,920
4,615
12,598 12,323
12,529
12,201
12,950
13,105
Sources: NIST budget requests, FY2008-FY2015, available at http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/budget/
index.cfm; DOE budget requests, FY2008-FY2015, available at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/crorgcf30.htm; NSF
budget requests, FY2008-FY2015, available at http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget; and the President’s FY2015
budget, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Appendix.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
a. Includes $54 million transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard for icebreaking services (per P.L. 112-10).
Some analysts have raised questions about the efficacy and unintended consequences of the
doubling policy. Among the questions: What is the basis for asserting that a doubling of funding
is the correct target for increases (as opposed to, say, an increase of 30%, 80%, or 120%)? What
is the basis for setting the time period (e.g., 7 years, 11 years) for doubling? Is the optimal
approach to double funding for specific agencies? If so, should funding for the selected agencies
be done in aggregate or individually? Are the agencies chosen the right agencies? Should specific
programs or appropriations accounts be targeted rather than entire agencies? What are the
adjustment costs of a post-doubling slowdown in funding increases?
In an effort to understand the potential consequence of the current doubling effort, a 2009
National Bureau of Economic Research paper analyzed the effects of the NIH doubling (which
took place from 1988 to 2003) and subsequent funding slowdown on the U.S. biomedical
research enterprise. Among its conclusions, the authors found that “future increases in research
spending should be seen in terms of increasing the stock of sustainable activity rather than in
attaining some arbitrary target (i.e., doubling) in a short period.”20 Similar views were expressed
by participants at a roundtable held by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in 2014.21
20
Richard Freeman and John Van Reenen, “What if Congress Doubled R&D Spending on the Physical,” Innovation
Policy and the Economy, vol. 9 (February 2009), p. 28.
21
A video of the “21st Century Cures Roundtable” held on May 6, 2014, is available at
http://energycommerce.house.gov/event/21st-century-cures-roundtable.
Congressional Research Service
10
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Figure 1. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling:
Appropriations, Authorizations, and Requests versus Selected Doubling Rates
Sources: Prepared by CRS based on data from agency budget justifications for FY2008 to FY2015 and agency
authorization levels from the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) and the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358).
Notes: The 7-year doubling pace represents annual increases of 10.4%, the 10-year doubling pace represents
annual increases of 7.2%, the 11-year doubling pace represents annual increases of 6.5%, the 15-year doubling
pace represents annual increases of 4.7%, and the 20-year doubling pace represents annual increases of 3.3%.
Through compounding, these rates would achieve the doubling of funding in the specified time period. The lines
connecting aggregate appropriations, authorizations, and requests for the targeted accounts are for clarification
purposes only.
National Nanotechnology Initiative22
Launched by President Clinton in his FY2001 budget request, the National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) is a multiagency R&D initiative to advance 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.23
The President requested $1.537 billion for the NNI in FY2015, a reduction of $1 million from the
FY2014 actual level of $1.538 billion. Among the changes in nanotechnology funding under the
Administration’s FY2015 request: reductions for DOD ($32 million, 18.1%), DOC ($15 million,
15.6%), and NASA ($4 million, 23.5%) and increases for DOE ($40 million, 13.1%) and DHS
22
For additional information on the NNI, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative:
Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by (name redacted)
23
In the context of the NNI and nanotechnology, the nanoscale refers to lengths of 1 to 100 nanometers. A nanometer
is one-billionth of a meter, or about the width of 10 hydrogen atoms arranged side by side in a line.
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
($8 million, 35.2%). Nanotechnology funding for other NNI agencies would remain essentially
flat in FY2015.24
Table 5. National Nanotechnology Initiative Funding, FY2013-FY2015
(budget authority, in millions of current dollars)
NNI
Change, FY2014-FY2015
FY2013
Actual
FY2014
Estimated
FY2015
Request
Dollars
Percent
$1,550
$1,538
$1,537
-$1
-0.4%
Source: EOP, OSTP, “The FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget: Science, Technology, and Innovation
for Opportunity and Growth,” press release, March 4, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/ostp/2015%20Budget%20Release.pdf.
Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Program25
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 R&D investments in areas such as supercomputing, high-speed networking,
cybersecurity, software engineering, and information management.
President Obama requested $3.786 billion in FY2015 for the NITRD program. This is $114
million (2.9%) below the FY2014 funding level. The most substantial agency increases in NITRD
funding under the Administration’s FY2015 request were for the DOE ($54 million, 9.3%) and
DOC ($6 million, 3.8%). The President’s budget sought to reduce NITRD funding at DOD by
$146 million (11.9%), DHS by $13 million (13.6%), NASA by $7 million (5.6%), HHS by $6
million (1-1%), and NSF by $2 million (0.2%).26
Table 6. Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
Program Funding, FY2013-FY2015
(budget authority, in millions of current dollars)
NITRD
Change, FY2014-FY2015
FY2013
Actual
FY2014
Estimated
FY2015
Request
Dollars
Percent
$3,622
$3,900
$3,786
-$114
-2.9%
Source: OSTP, EOP, “The FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget: Science, Technology, and Innovation
for Opportunity and Growth,” press release, March 4, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/ostp/2015%20Budget%20Release.pdf.
24
EOP, OSTP, 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.
25
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)
.
26
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
U.S. Global Change Research Program27
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. The program seeks to advance global climate change science
and to “build a knowledge base that informs human responses to climate and global change
through coordinated and integrated Federal programs of research, education, communication, and
decision support.”28 Thirteen departments and agencies participate in the USGCRP.
President Obama proposed $2.501 billion for the USGCRP in FY2015, $12 million (0.5%) above
the FY2014 estimated level of $2.489 billion. The most substantial agency increases in USGCRP
funding under the Administration’s FY2014 request were for DOE ($29 million, 13.4%), DOC
($19 million, 5.9%), and DOI ($18 million, 34.3%). The most significant decreases in USGCRP
funding were for NASA ($39 million, 2.7%) and USDA ($23 million, 20.7%).29
Table 7. U.S. Global Change Research Program Funding, FY2013-FY2015
(budget authority, in millions of current dollars)
USGCRP
Change, FY2014-FY2015
FY2013
Actual
FY2014
Estimated
FY2015
Request
Dollars
Percent
$2,379
$2,489
$2,501
$12
0.5%
Source: EOP, OSTP, “The FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget: Science, Technology, and Innovation
for Opportunity and Growth,” press release, March 4, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/ostp/2015%20Budget%20Release.pdf.
BRAIN Initiative
In April 2013, President Obama launched the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative
Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, asserting that
There is this enormous mystery waiting to be unlocked, and the BRAIN Initiative will
change that by giving scientists the tools they need to get a dynamic picture of the brain
in action and better understand how we think and how we learn and how we remember.
And that knowledge could be—will be—transformative.30
Among the agencies participating in the BRAIN Initiative are the Defense Advanced Projects
Research Agency (DARPA), NIH, NSF, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The
research supported under this initiative seeks to facilitate a better understanding of “how the brain
records, processes, uses, stores, and retrieves vast quantities of information, and shed light on the
complex links between brain function and behavior,”31 and to help improve the prevention,
diagnosis, and treatment of brain diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.
27
For additional information on the USGCRP, see CRS Report R43227, Federal Climate Change Funding from
FY2008 to FY2014, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted) .
28
U.S. Global Change Research Program website, http://www.globalchange.gov/about/mission-vision-strategic-plan.
29
Ibid.
30
The White House, “Remarks by the President on the BRAIN Initiative and American Innovation,” speech transcript,
April 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/04/02/president-obama-speaks-brain-initiativeand-american-innovation#transcript.
31
The White House, “Fact Sheet: BRAIN Initiative,” press release, April 2, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2013/04/02/fact-sheet-brain-initiative.
Congressional Research Service
13
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
According to OSTP, federal investment in the BRAIN initiative was approximately $100 million
in FY2014. The President’s budget request sought to double funding to approximately $200
million in FY2015, including $100 million in funding from NIH, $80 million from DARPA, and
$20 million from NSF.32
Materials Genome Initiative
Announced in June 2011 by President Obama, the Materials Genome Initiative (MGI) is a multiagency 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.33
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.34 Such research may contribute to the identification of substitutes for critical
minerals that are in short supply or have at-risk supply chains; the design, development, and use
of materials that could reduce the number and severity of traumatic brain injuries resulting from
blasts, impacts, and collisions incurred in military engagements, motor vehicle accidents, and
athletics; and the development of new lightweight materials for vehicles that could enable new
energy storage and propulsion systems and improve fuel efficiency.35 The President’s FY2015
budget did not include a table of agency funding for the MGI. 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.”36 Two R&D-focused components of the AMP are the National Robotics
Initiative (NRI) and the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI).
32
EOP, OSTP, “Obama Administration Proposes Doubling Support for The Brain Initiative,” press release, March
2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY%202015%20BRAIN.pdf.
33
Email correspondence between OSTP and CRS, March 14, 2012.
34
John P. Holdren, Director, OSTP, EOP, 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-aec5f84e4045890b.
35
The White House, Materials Genome Initiative, website, “Examples of Materials Applications, May 2014,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/mgi/examples.
36
John P. Holdren, Director, OSTP, EOP, 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-aec5f84e4045890b.
Congressional Research Service
14
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
National Robotics Initiative
The National Robotics Initiative seeks to “develop robots that work with or beside people to
extend or augment human capabilities.”37 Among the goals of the program are increasing labor
productivity in the manufacturing sector, assisting with dangerous and expensive missions in
space, accelerating the discovery of new drugs, and improving food safety by rapidly sensing
microbial contamination.38 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. 39 The
President’s FY2015 budget does not include a table of agency funding for the NRI, but the
initiative is referred to in the Analytical Perspectives supplement to the President’s budget.40
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation41
The President’s FY2015 budget again proposed the establishment of a National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation to promote the development of manufacturing technologies with broad
applications. This request was not part of the President’s FY2015 base budget request, but rather
a part of the adjunct $56 billion Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative proposal. (For more
information, see the “Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative” section.) The OGSI included
$2.4 billion to establish up to 45 NNMI institutes. The President’s two previous budget requests
sought mandatory appropriations to NIST of $1 billion in support of up to 15 NNMI
manufacturing innovation institutes.
As originally conceived, 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. 42
Though the NNMI program has not been authorized or funded, four NNMI-like institutes have
been awarded, one is being competed, and a funding commitment has been made by the President
for four more. These centers are being led by DOD and DOE, with additional funding and/or
support being provided by NIST, NASA, NSF, and other agencies.
37
Ibid.
EOP, OSTP, website, August 3, 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/03/supporting-president-s-nationalrobotics-initiative.
39
Ibid.
40
EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2014, p. 371.
41
For additional information on the NNMI, see CRS Report R42625, The Obama Administration’s Proposal to
Establish a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, by (name redacted)
42
DOC, FY2014 Budget in Brief, February 2012, p. 123, http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY13BIB/
fy2013bib_final.pdf.
38
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Reorganization of STEM Education Programs
In FY2014, the Obama Administration proposed a major overhaul of the federal science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education portfolio. That plan would have
affected about 50% of the federal STEM education effort and involved the transfer of STEM
education budget authority between federal agencies.
Although many legislators expressed conceptual support for reorganization as a means to improve
the portfolio, the joint explanatory statement that accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), rejected the proposal overall. It stated that the proposal “contained no
clearly defined implementation plan, had no buy-in from the education community, and failed to
sufficiently recognize or support a number of proven, successful programs.” Some FY2014
appropriations reports accepted some changes on a case-by-case basis. In a March 2014 progress
report the Administration stated that the number of federal STEM education programs had been
reduced by 40% between FY2012 (228 programs) and FY2014 (138 programs).
For FY2015, the Obama Administration proposed what it described as a “fresh” reorganization of
the federal STEM education portfolio. Unlike the FY2014 proposal, which sought to transfer
funding between agencies, the FY2015 proposal sought to consolidate funding within agencies.
According to the Office of Management and Budget, the FY2015 reorganization would have
consolidated or eliminated 31 programs at 9 agencies, affecting $145 million in FY2014 budget
authority. The FY2015 budget request aimed to further reduce STEM education programs to 111
from their FY2014 level of 138. For additional information, see CRS Insight IN10011, The
Administration’s Proposed STEM Education Reorganization: Where Are We Now?, by (name redac
ted)
; CRS In Focus IF00013, The President’s FY2015 Budget and STEM Education (In
Focus), by (name redacted)
; and CRS Report R42642, Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) Education: A Primer, by (name redacted) and (name redacted)
.
FY2015 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 9 of the 12 regular appropriations bills.
For each agency covered in this report, Table 8 shows the corresponding regular appropriations
bill that provides funding for the agency, including its R&D activities.
Congress completed appropriations action for most federal agencies through enactment of the
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, which was passed by the House
on December 11 and by the Senate on December 13, and signed into law on December 16, 2014.
The measure provides FY2015 appropriations for agencies covered by 11 of the regular
appropriations bills, and provides for further continuing Homeland Security appropriations
through February 27, 2015, in Division L of the act.
Previously, Congress has not completed action on any of the 12 regular appropriations bills for
FY2015. The House Committee on Appropriations had reported all but the Labor-HHS
appropriations bill and the House had passed seven of the regular appropriations bills that provide
R&D funding. The Senate Committee on Appropriations had reported six of the regular
appropriations bills that provide R&D funding; the full Senate had not passed any of the regular
appropriations bills.
On September 19, 2014, President Obama signed into law the Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2015 (P.L. 113-164). The act provided continuing FY2015 appropriations to federal
Congressional Research Service
16
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
agencies for continuing projects and activities at the rate and under the authority and conditions
provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), less a 0.0554% rescission,
until December 11, 2014, or until enactment of regular appropriations legislation. H.J.Res. 130
(P.L. 113-202) extended the provisions of P.L. 113-164 through December 13, 2014. H.J.Res. 131
(P.L. 113-203) further extended the provisions of P.L. 113-164 through December 17, 2014.
This report will be updated when Congress and the President complete action on appropriations
for the Department of Homeland Security.
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.
Table 8. 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
Department of Veterans Affairs
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act
Source: CRS website, FY2014 Status Table of Appropriations, available at http://crs.gov/Pages/
AppropriationsStatusTable.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
17
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Department of Defense43
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 9.) 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 and
the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program. RDT&E funds are also appropriated as
part of 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 (funded through Title
V of the defense appropriation bill) supports the procurement, operation and maintenance, and
research and development of the nation’s naval reserve fleet and a U.S. flagged merchant fleet
that can serve in time of need.44
The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF, also funded through Title VI of
the defense appropriation bill) contains RDT&E monies. However, the fund does not contain an
RDT&E line item as do the 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, on occassion, has asked for additional OCO funds in supplemental
requests, if the initial OCO funding is not enough to get through the fiscal year. The OCO budget
has been declining as operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are reduced.
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
43
This section was written by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
44
The Administration requested no funding for the National Defense Sealift Fund in FY2015, requesting instead that
funding for those activities be supported by other programs. Congress did not approve the administration’s request and
continued to provide funding through the National Defense Sealift Fund, including RDT&E funds.
Congressional Research Service
18
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
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 FY2015, the Obama Administration requested $63.534 billion for DOD’s baseline Title IV
RDT&E. This is $569 million above what was enacted for FY2014. The Administration did not
release an OCO budget for FY2015 until June 2014 and then made an amended OCO request in
November. The June OCO request included $80 million for RDT&E activities. The November
OCO request increased that to $225 million.
In addition to the baseline Title IV RDT&E request, the Administration requested $655 million in
RDT&E through the Defense Health Program and $596 million in RDT&E through the Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction program for FY2015. The Administration requested no
RDT&E funding through the National Defense Sealift Fund for FY2015. RDT&E funding for
these activities would be transferred to other Navy accounts.
The House approved its version of the defense appropriations bill (H.R. 4870) on June 20. It
provided $63.363 billion for Title IV RDT&E, $171 million below what was requested, but $398
million above FY2014 funding. It fully funded the request for the Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction RDT&E ($596 million) and increased RDT&E in the Defense Health
Program to $1.278 billion (this includes $32 million added by amendments approved on the
House floor). The House accepted the Administration’s request to transfer funds from the
National Defense Sealift Fund to baseline Title IV Navy program elements. Major changes made
by the House to the budget request included $200 million added to the Air Force account for the
development of liquid-fueled rocket engines; $100 million added to the Air Force account to
recapitalize a program to develop a new combat rescue helicopter; $172 million added to the
Defensewide account for the Israeli Cooperative Program; and $250 million added to the
Defensewide account to continue support for the Rapid Innovation Program.45 General Provision
8106 of the House bill called for a general reduction ($545 million) of the total amount
appropriated by the bill, citing more favorable currency exchange rates. Although not stated in the
provision, general reductions of this sort typically are made proportionately across all program
elements. The House approved figures cited above and below do not factor in this general
reduction.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of H.R. 4870 on July 17 (S.Rept. 113211). The committee recommended $62.567 billion for Title IV RDT&E, $967 million below the
administration’s request. The committee’s recommendation included full funding for the
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction RDT&E and an increase in Defense Health Program
RDT&E to $1.436 billion. The Senate did not agree to abolish the National Defense Sealift Fund,
providing $30 million in RDT&E funding. In major adjustments, the committee did not support
the Army’s requested increase for Patriot Modernization (which the House supported), cutting the
request by $115 million. The committee did not support the House’s addition of $200 million for
new liquid-fueled rocket development, but did add $100 million, as did the House, for the Air
Force’s rescue helicopter recapitalization. The committee provided an extra $174 million for the
Israeli Cooperative Program ($2 million more than the House increase), but only provided $75
million for the Defense Rapid Innovation Fund.
45
The Rapid Innovation Program is designed to help further mature technologies developed with Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) funds so they can be incorporated more
quickly into system acquisition programs.
Congressional Research Service
19
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
FY2015 DOD appropriations were included as Division C of the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015 (P.L. 113-235). President Obama signed the act on
December 16, 2014. The act provided $63.713 billion for Title IV RDT&E, $179 million above
what was requested. The act fully funded the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction
RDT&E and provided $1.731 billion for Defense Health Program RDT&E ($1.076 billion more
than what was requested, $295 million than recommended by the Senate Appropriations
Committee, and $443 million more than approved by the House). The act provided $24 million
for RDT&E in the National Defense Sealift Fund. The act reduced the Patriot Modernization
request by $95 million and no funds were provided for the liquid-fueled rocket development
supported by the House, but it did include $100 million for the rescue helicopter recapitalization.
The act also provided an additional $172 million for the Israeli Cooperative Program, $225
million for the Rapid Innovation Program, and $1 million in RDT&E for the Office of the
Inspector General.
The act also provided $228 million in OCO-related RDT&E. In addition, the act provided $95
million in emergency RDT&E funding in Title X for Ebola Response and Preparedness. Funding
would go to DARPA and the Chemical and Biological Defense Program to develop vaccines,
therapeutics, and diagnostics, and conduct Phase I clinical trials on experimental vaccines and
therapeutics.
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 FY2015 Title IV baseline S&T funding request was $11.515 billion, $494 million below
what was enacted in FY2014. The House approved $11.935 billion for the S&T accounts, more
than what was requested but less than FY2014 levels. This does not include the $545 million
general reduction to the overall appropriation mentioned above, nor does it include $69 million in
undistributed cuts made to the DARPA account.46 The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $12.037 billion for S&T, not counting the general reduction it also recommended.
P.L. 113-235 provided $12.414 billion for S&T, nearly $900 million more than what was
46
Nearly all of this reduction will affect the House S&T figure since all but DARPA’s research management support
line item are S&T activities. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended specific reductions to DARPA’s
request for a net reduction of $66 million. P.L. 113-235 reduced DARPA’s request by $43 million.
Congressional Research Service
20
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
requested. However, this does not include the S&T share of the $386 million general reduction
approved in the final Act.
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 $2.018 billion for basic research
for FY2015. This is $147 million less than what the Administration requested in FY2014, and
$149 million less than what was enacted. The House bill provided $2.026 million for basic
research, not including the general reduction or the potential reductions associated with DARPA’s
undistributed $69 million reduction. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $2.274
billion for basic research, not counting the general reduction it recommended. P.L. 113-235
provided $2.278 billion, not counting the agreed upon general reduction to DOD’s overall
appropriation.
Table 9. Department of Defense RDT&E
(in millions of dollars)
FY2014
Enacted
Budget Account
Base
FY2015
Request
OCO
Base
FY2015
Enactedc
(P.L. 113-235)
House
Approveda
Senate
Committeeb
OCOd
Base
Base
OCO
Base
OCO
OCO
Army
7,123
14
6,594
5
6,720
6,544
2
6,676
2
Navy
14,946
34
16,266
36
15,878
15,920
35
15,958
36
Air Force
23,572
9
23,740
15
23,439
23,083
23,644
15
169
17,078e
16,806
17,226
175
248
214
63,363
62,567
Defensewide
17,078
Dir. Test & Eval.
246
Total Title IV—By
Accountf
62,965
78
16,766
167
135
63,534
225
46
209
83
63,713
228
Budget Activity
6.1 Basic Research
2,167
2,018
2,026
2,274
2,278
6.2 Applied Research
4,641
4,457
4,530
4,592
4,605
6.3 Advanced Dev.
5,201
5,040
5,379
5,171
5,531
6.4 Advanced
Component Dev. and
Prototypes
11,629
7
12,334
12,247
12,456
6.5 Systems Dev.
And Demo
11,517
7
11,087
11,150
10,526
11,005
6.6 Management
Supportg
4,309
4,216
4,261
4,249
4,352
6.7 Op. Systems
Dev.h
23,502
122
24,382
220
23,837
23,298
81
23,590
226
Total Title IV—by
Budget Activityf
62,965
135
63,534
225
63,430i
62,567
83 63,713c
228
Congressional Research Service
5
2
12,352
2
21
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
FY2014
Enacted
Budget Account
Base
FY2015
Request
OCO
Base
OCOd
House
Approveda
Senate
Committeeb
Base
Base
OCO
OCO
FY2015
Enactedc
(P.L. 113-235)
Base
OCO
Title V—Revolving
and Management
Funds
National Defense
Sealift Fund
45
0j
0j
30
24
1,552
655
1,278k
1,436
1,731
Chemical Agents and
Munitions
Destruction
634
596
596
596
596
Inspector General
0
0
0
0
1
Title VI—Other
Defense Programs
Defense Health
Program
Title X—Ebola
Response and
Preparedness
112l
Opportunity,
Growth, and
Security Initiative
2,100m
Grand Totalf
65,196
135
66,997
95
225
63,292e
64,724
83 66,065c
228
Source: CRS, adapted from the Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2015 RDT&E Programs (R-1),
March 2014 and relevant FY2015 Budget Justification (R-2) documents. House of Representatives, Department
of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2015, H.Rept. 113-474, to accompany H.R. 4870. Senate, Department of Defense
Appropriations Bill, 2015, S.Rept. 113-211, to accompany H.R. 4877. Congressional Record, December 11, 2014,
Explanatory Statement submitted by Mr. Rogers, pp. H9364-H9647.
a. Figures in this column do not reflect General Provision 8106 in H.R. 4870, which reduced the House’s total
DOD appropriation by $545 million.
b. Figures in this column do not reflect General Provision 8076 in the Senate version of H.R. 4870, which
reduced the total recommended DOD appropriation by $300 million.
c. Figures in this column do not reflect General Provision 8080 in P.L. 113-235 which reduces DOD’s total
appropriation by $386 million.
d. DOD submitted two F2015 OCO requests: one in June and an amended request in November. This
column reflects the November amended request.
e. Includes a $69 million undistributed reduction to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) program.
f.
Figures may not add due to rounding.
g. Includes funding for Director of Test and Evaluation.
h. Includes funding for classified programs.
i.
Does not include DARPA’s $69 million undistributed reduction.
j.
Transferred to other Navy RDT&E accounts.
k. Includes $32 million added by amendments on the House floor.
l.
Requested as part of the administration’s November 5, 2014, emergency supplemental request.
m. See fact sheet, “The 2015 Budget: Science, Technology, and Innovation for Opportunity and Growth. White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy,” March 2014, p. 4. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
administration/eop/ostp/rdbudgets.
Congressional Research Service
22
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Department of Homeland Security47
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has identified five core missions: to prevent
terrorism and enhance security, to secure and manage the borders, to enforce and administer
immigration laws, to safeguard and secure cyberspace, and to ensure resilience to disasters. New
technology resulting from research and development can contribute to all these goals. The
Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) has primary responsibility for establishing,
administering, and coordinating DHS R&D activities. The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
(DNDO) is responsible for R&D relating to nuclear and radiological threats. Other components,
such as the U.S. Coast Guard, conduct R&D relating to their specific missions.
The President has requested $1.394 billion in FY2015 for R&D and related programs in the
Department of Homeland Security. This would be an 8.5% decrease from $1.524 billion in
FY2014. The requested total includes $1.072 billion for the S&T Directorate, $304 million for
DNDO, and $18 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) in the U.S.
Coast Guard. In the 113th Congress, the House bill (H.R. 4903 as reported) would have provided
$1.430 billion, including $1.107 billion for the S&T Directorate, $312 million for DNDO, and
$11 million for Coast Guard RDT&E. The Senate bill (S. 2534 as reported) would have provided
$1.396 billion, including $1.071 billion for the S&T Directorate, $306 million for DNDO, and
$18 million for Coast Guard RDT&E. Both these bills expired at the end of the 113th Congress.
The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235) provided
continuing appropriations for DHS through February 27, 2015, at the FY2014 rate. In the 114th
Congress, H.R. 240 as passed by the House would provide $1.430 billion, including $1.104
billion for the S&T Directorate, $308 million for DNDO, and $18 million for Coast Guard
RDT&E. (See Table 10.)
The S&T Directorate is the primary DHS R&D organization.48 Led by the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, it performs R&D in several laboratories of its own and funds R&D
performed by the DOE national laboratories, industry, universities, and others. It also conducts
testing and other technology-related activities in support of acquisitions by other DHS
components. The Administration’s request of $1.072 billion for the S&T Directorate in FY2015 is
12.2% less than the FY2014 appropriation of $1.220 billion. The decrease results largely from the
request in Laboratory Facilities for $300 million, versus $404 million in FY2014, for construction
of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF). Within the request for Research,
Development, and Innovation, border security R&D would increase by $7 million; Apex projects
would receive the same funding as in FY2014; and the other four thrust areas would all decrease.
The proposed reduction of $9 million for University Programs would decrease the annual funding
rate for existing university centers of excellence and might also reduce the number of centers
supported.
In the 113th Congress, the House-reported bill would have provided $1.107 billion for the S&T
Directorate in FY2015.49 In previous years, the House committee report had criticized the
Research, Development, and Innovation (RD&I) budget item for being too all-encompassing and
not specifying funding levels for specific thrust areas. For FY2015, the House report
47
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
48
For more information, see CRS Report R43064, The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress, by (name
redacted)
.
49
Not including a rescission of $14 million from prior-year balances in the R&D, Acquisition, and Operations account.
Congressional Research Service
23
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
recommended $28 million more than the request for RD&I and stated that “to provide the new
Under Secretary for S&T flexibility to shift resources ... the Committee provides the funds for
RD&I without breakouts for specific thrust areas.” The report stated that the committee was
pleased with the results of Apex projects (one of the RD&I thrust areas) and urged the S&T
Directorate to expand the Apex concept into other areas of its work. In Laboratory Facilities, the
report recommended the requested $300 million for NBAF construction. The recommended
funding for University Programs was $10 million more than requested. The report stated that this
level of support would allow the continuation of all existing university centers of excellence as
well as a new center that is expected to be awarded in FY2015. The report directed DHS to define
and report on key metrics used to make center awards.
Also in the 113th Congress, the Senate-reported bill would have provided $1.071 million for the
S&T Directorate in FY2015.50 As in the House, the Senate committee in previous years had
criticized the consolidation of RD&I into a single budget item. For FY2015, the Senate report
stated that “in order to provide additional flexibility ... the Committee does not break out the
RD&I budget in thrust areas.” Within RD&I, the report expressed support for the Apex concept
and encouraged the S&T Directorate to invest more of its resources in that effort. In Laboratory
Facilities, the recommended amount for NBAF construction was $300 million, as requested. In
University Programs, the report recommended $9 million more than the Administration’s request
and explained that the increase was for university centers of excellence, including support for the
existing centers and the new center to be awarded in FY2015.
In the 114th Congress, H.R. 240 would provide $1.104 billion for the S&T Directorate in
FY2015.51 The explanatory statement does not specify the distribution of RD&I funds among
thrust areas. It directs DHS to brief the appropriations committees on that distribution and on the
allocation of funds to Apex projects. In Laboratory Facilities, it allocates $300 million for NBAF
construction. For University Programs, it allocates an amount between the House and Senate
committee recommendations from the 113th Congress.
The NBAF is a planned replacement for the current Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Site
preparation has been completed, and construction of a central utility plant is under way. DHS
expects to award a contract for construction of the main laboratory in FY2015. In preparation for
this, the department issued a request for information from industry in December 2014.52
According to DHS, the FY2015 budget request, together with previously appropriated federal and
state funds and additional anticipated funds from the state of Kansas, would fully fund the NBAF
construction contract. Despite receiving $404 million for NBAF construction in FY2014, DHS
does not intend to begin construction until full funding for the project is appropriated. The
estimated total project cost for NBAF is $1.250 billion, up from $1.230 billion in the FY2014
budget. DHS expects NBAF construction and commissioning to be completed in the third quarter
(Q3) of FY2021, one year later than the estimate of Q3 FY2020 provided in the FY2014 budget.
The previous estimate for NBAF, given in the FY2012 budget, was a total project cost of $725
million with a completion date of Q1 FY2016.
DNDO is the primary DHS organization for combating the threat of nuclear attack. It is
responsible for nuclear detection research, development, testing, evaluation, acquisition, and
operational support. The Administration has requested $304 million for DNDO in FY2015, an
50
Not including a rescission of $14 million from prior-year balances in the R&D, Acquisition, and Operations account.
Not including a rescission of $17 million from prior-year balances in the R&D, Acquisition, and Operations account
and a rescission of $0.5 million from prior-year balances in the Management and Administration account.
52
Solicitation HSHQDC-15-I-NBAFK, December 12, 2014, available at https://www.fbo.gov.
51
Congressional Research Service
24
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
increase of 6.7% from the FY2014 appropriation of $285 million. In the Systems Acquisition
account, funding for the Securing the Cities program would decrease by $10 million, while
funding for Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems would increase by $37 million to
support the procurement of handheld radioisotope identification devices (RIIDs) for U.S.
Customs and Border Protection.
In the 113th Congress, the House-reported bill would have provided $312 million for DNDO in
FY2015. The report recommended $7 million more than the request for Securing the Cities and
stated that this would “support ongoing efforts in current ... cities and the risk-based expansion to
new cities.” The report recommended the requested increase for Human Portable Radiation
Detection Systems (HPRDS).
Also in the 113th Congress, the Senate-reported bill would have provided $306 million for DNDO
in FY2015. Like the House report, the Senate report recommended $7 million more than the
Administration’s request for the Securing the Cities program. The Senate report recommended $2
million less than the request for HPRDS, and it directed DNDO to provide a multiyear
procurement forecast and deployment schedule for these funds.
In the 114th Congress, H.R. 240 would provide $308 million for DNDO in FY2015. The
explanatory statement includes the same amount for Securing the Cities as the House and Senate
committee reports recommended in the 113th Congress. Its allocation for HPRDS is the same as
the Senate committee report’s recommendation from the 113th Congress.
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.53 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.54 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. 55 In
January 2014, the joint explanatory statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L.
113-76), directed DHS to implement and report on new policies for R&D prioritization, and to
review and, in accordance with GAO’s recommendations, to implement policies and guidance for
defining and overseeing R&D department-wide.56 In July 2014, GAO reported that DHS had
updated its guidance to include a definition of R&D and was conducting R&D portfolio reviews
across the department but had not yet developed policy guidance for DHS-wide R&D oversight,
coordination, and tracking.57
53
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Department of Homeland Security: Oversight and Coordination of
Research and Development Should Be Strengthened, GAO-12-837, September 12, 2012.
54
Congressional Record, March 11, 2013, p. S1547.
55
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap,
and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, GAO-13-279SP, April 2013.
56
Congressional Record, January 15, 2014, p. H927.
57
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Department of Homeland Security: Continued Actions Needed to
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
25
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Table 10. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2014
Enacted
FY2015
Request
FY2015
H. Cmte.
FY2015
S. Cmte.
FY2015
House
$1,220
$1,072
$1,107
$1,071
$1,104
Management and Administration
129
130
127
130
130a
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
1,091
942
980b
942b
974c
Research, Development, and Innovation
462
434
462
426
457
Laboratory Facilities
548
435
435
435
435
Acquisition and Operations Support
42
42
42
42
42
University Programs
40
31
41
40
40
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
285
304
312
306
308
Management and Administration
37
37
36
37
37
Research, Development, and Operations
205
199
201
196
198
Systems Architecture
21
18
18
17
17
Systems Development
21
22
22
21
21
Transformational R&D
71
70
70
69
70
Assessments
39
38
38
38
38
Operations Support
30
32
32
31
31
National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center
23
20
22
20
21
43
68
75
73
73
Radiation Portal Monitors Program
7
5
5
5
5
Securing the Cities
22
12
19
19
19
Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems
14
51
51
49
49
19
18
11
18
18
1,524
1,394
1,430
1,396
1,430
Directorate of Science and Technology
Systems Acquisition
U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E
DHS, Total
Sources: FY2014 enacted and FY2015 request from DHS FY2015 congressional budget justification,
http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-budget. FY2015 House committee from H.R. 4903 as reported (113th Congress) and
H.Rept. 113-481. FY2015 Senate committee from S. 2534 as reported (113th Congress) and S.Rept. 113-198.
FY2015 House from H.R. 240 as passed by the House (114th Congress) and explanatory statement, Congressional
Record, January 13, 2015, at pp. H287-H288.
Note: Totals may differ from sum of components due to rounding.
a. Does not reflect a rescission of $0.5 million from prior-year balances.
b. Does not reflect a rescission of $14 million from prior-year balances.
c. Does not reflect a rescission of $17 million from prior-year balances.
(...continued)
Strengthen Oversight and Coordination of Research and Development, GAO-14-813T, July 31, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
26
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
National Institutes of Health58
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary agency of the federal government charged
with performing and supporting biomedical and behavioral research. It also has major roles in
training biomedical researchers and disseminating health information. An agency in the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the NIH mission is “to seek fundamental
knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge
to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.”59 The agency’s
organization consists of the Office of the NIH Director and 27 institutes and centers.
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. This 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.60 The
NIH 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 11, Congress provides separate
appropriations 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 and Education appropriations bill,
with an additional amount for Superfund-related activities from the Interior/Environment
appropriations bill. Those two bills provide NIH’s discretionary budget authority. In addition,
NIH receives mandatory funding of $150 million annually that is provided in the Public Health
Service (PHS) Act for a special program on type 1 diabetes research and funding from a PHS Act
transfer. The total funding available for NIH activities, taking account of add-ons and transfers, is
known as the NIH program level.
The President’s FY2015 budget requested an NIH program level total of $30.362 billion, an
increase of $211 million (0.7%) over the FY2014 level of $30.151 billion (see Table 11). Under
the President’s proposed Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative (OGSI), NIH would also
have received an additional $970 million, increasing the requested NIH budget to a total program
level of $31.332 billion in FY2015. These OGSI funds were targeted for the BRAIN Initiative,
improving the sharing and analysis of complex biomedical data sets, expanding research on
Alzheimer’s disease and vaccine development, accelerating efforts to identify and develop new
therapeutic drug targets, and supporting other innovative projects.61
58
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):
Background and Congressional Issues, by (name redacted), and CRS Report R43341, NIH Funding: FY1994FY2015, by (name redacted) .
59
National Institutes of Health, “About the National Institutes of Health,” http://www.nih.gov/about/mission.htm.
60
Department of Health and Human Services, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget in Brief, Washington, DC, March 4, 2014, p.
39, http://www.hhs.gov/budget/fy2015/fy-2015-budget-in-brief.pdf.
61
Department of Health and Human Services, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget in Brief, Washington, DC, March 4, 2014, p.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
27
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
P.L. 113-235 (Division G) provides $30.084 billion for NIH in FY2015.62 This total consists of
$29.369 billion in discretionary budget authority for the NIH institutes and centers plus $715
million from a PHS Act transfer. NIH and other HHS agencies and programs 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 improvements. Although the PHS Act limits the tap to no more than 1% of eligible
appropriations, in recent years the annual Labor/HHS and Education appropriations act has
specified a higher amount (2.5% in FY2015) and also typically 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, has traditionally been the largest “donor” of
program evaluation funds and a relatively minor recipient.63 Under P.L. 113-235, NIH contributes
$689 million to the tap and in FY2015 it receives $715 million, an increase over the $8.2 million
the agency has received in the past from the transfer.64 P.L. 113-235 allocates the entire $715
million to the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), offsetting the more than
$700 million reduction in discretionary budget authority for NIGMS in the law compared with its
FY2014 funding level. The NIH program level in FY2015 is $30.311 billion, which includes $77
million from the Interior/Environment appropriation for Superfund-related research and $150
million in mandatory funding for research on type 1 diabetes.65
Except for the mandatory diabetes funding, Congress does not usually specify amounts for
particular diseases or research areas. Congress generally appropriates specific amounts to each IC
and leaves it to NIH and its scientific advisory panels to allocate funding to different research
areas.66 Some bills may propose authorizations for designated research purposes, but funding
generally remains subject to discretionary appropriations and the NIH peer review process.
However, the explanatory statement on P.L. 113-235 states that the law provides an increase of
over $25 million to the National Institute on Aging, and, without specifying an amount,
(...continued)
39, http://www.hhs.gov/budget/fy2015/fy-2015-budget-in-brief.pdf. Note that P.L. 113-235 did not provide any OGSI
funds. For more information about the OGSI, see earlier discussion at “Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative
Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative.”)
62
This amount does not include $238,000,000 for the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
for research on Ebola that was provided in Title VI of Division G.
63
Section 205 of the FY2012 Labor/HHS and Education appropriations act capped the set-aside at 2.5%, which drew
over $700 million from the NIH budget. The same percentage was assessed in FY2013 under the continuing
appropriations act. The FY2014 President’s budget proposed increasing the PHS set-aside to 3.0%. The Senate
committee rejected the increase, largely because of its effect on NIH, estimating that it would have taken an extra $147
million from NIH. (See S.Rept. 113-71 on S. 1284, p. 41 and p. 83.) The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L.
113-76), set the assessment at 2.5%. The President’s FY2015 Budget again proposed increasing the tap from 2.5% to
3.0%; P.L. 113-235 set the assessment at 2.5%. By convention, budget tables such as Table 11 do not subtract the
amount of the evaluation tap from the agencies’ appropriations. For further information on the PHS Evaluation SetAside, see CRS Report R43304, Public Health Service Agencies: Overview and Funding, coordinated by (name redac
ted)
.
64
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Use of Public Health Service Set-Aside Authority for Fiscal Year
2015, Report to Congress.” This report includes a table at the end of the report that lists the amount of set-aside funds
donated and received by each agency and office in FY2015.
65
Mandatory funds for type 1 diabetes research under PHS Act §330B were provided by P.L. 112-240 in FY2014 and
P.L. 113-93 in FY2015.
66
See NIH website, “Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC),”
http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
28
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
encourages NIH to direct a significant portion of the increase for research on Alzheimer’s disease.
In addition, the bill specifies that $12.6 million is added to the Common Fund for the purpose of
carrying out pediatric research as authorized in the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act (P.L.
113-94). The Common Fund is located within OD and is intended to support 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.
Under the President’s FY2015 budget request, most of the NIH institutes and centers would have
received essentially flat funding compared to FY2014 with very few exceptions, such as a $50
million (9%) increase for the Common Fund, and a $25 million (4%) increase for the National
Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS). The overview below outlines areas of
emphasis in the FY2015 NIH budget request and response, when provided, in the congressional
agreement on P.L. 113-235.
Investing in Basic Research. About 54% of the proposed NIH budget was targeted for basic
research on the causes of disease onset and progression. The multi-agency Brain Research
through Application of Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative develops and applies
new tools for the study of complex brain functions. This collaboration with the National Science
Foundation and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) planned on spending
a total of $200 million in FY2015 under the request. The NIH portion of about $100 million was
an increase of $60 million over FY2014. Insights into brain circuitry and activity gained via the
BRAIN initiative are expected to help reveal the underlying problems in numerous brain
disorders and may provide therapeutic or prevention approaches for conditions such as
Alzheimer’s disease, autism, epilepsy, schizophrenia, depression, chronic pain, addiction, posttraumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain injury.
Big Data. Continued support in FY2015 of the Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K) initiative seeks to
improve the handling, sharing, analysis, and protection of large complex biomedical datasets of
information, such as high-resolution medical images and DNA sequencing data from many
individuals. The congressional agreement on P.L. 113-235 directs NIH to include privacy
protection requirements in every grant that involves human research.
Precision Medicine. In the FY2012 appropriations act, Congress approved an NIH reorganization
that consolidated various programs into NCATS. The center focuses on improved methods to test
possible new therapies and encourage their commercialization and dissemination into clinical
practice. Part of this focus is what NIH calls precision medicine, tailoring therapy to the
individual characteristics of the patient but also avoiding needless treatment and costs for those
who will not benefit. Within NCATS, the Cures Acceleration Network (CAN) would have
received $30 million under the President’s FY2015 request, a $20 million increase over FY2014,
to speed the development of “high need cures” by removing barriers between research discovery
and clinical testing. Under the request, NIH would continue to carry out a new collaboration—the
Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)—with biopharmaceutical firms and non-profit
organizations aimed at promising biological targets in three disease areas: Alzheimer’s; type 2
diabetes; and the autoimmune disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus.
Research Training and Research Workforce. NIH estimates it will require $767 million to
support 15,715 individuals in its major research training program, the Ruth L. Kirschstein
National Research Service Awards, with a 2% stipend increase in FY2015 for predoctoral and
postdoctoral trainees. The request is $14 million (2%) above the FY2014 level. The congressional
agreement on P.L. 113-235 directs NIH to provide no less than in FY2014 for stipend levels and
training awards. NIH plans to continue with a special focus on promoting diversity and
understanding barriers to career advancement of people traditionally underrepresented in the
Congressional Research Service
29
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
research workforce. It is building a consortium of under-resourced institutions and creating a
mentoring network to assist students interested in pursuing a biomedical research career.
The following are selected other program changes and areas of emphasis in the request and
response, when provided, in the congressional agreement on P.L. 113-235.
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 $566 million on
AD research in FY2015. NIH has recently set up the AD Genetics Warehouse to identify both
genetic risk and protective factors. The Neuroimaging Initiative is analyzing brain scans, genetic
profiles, and biomarkers in an effort to detect early-stage AD. Over 35 NIH-supported clinical
trials are being conducted to test more than 40 compounds as possible prevention or treatment
agents against AD and other forms of cognitive decline. As stated previously, P.L. 113-235
provides an increase of over $25 million to the National Institute on Aging, and without
specifying an amount, encourages NIH to direct a significant portion of the increase for research
on Alzheimer’s disease.
HIV/AIDS. NIH estimates it will spend about $3 billion on HIV/AIDS research in FY2015.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education. For FY2015, the
Administration proposed a modified version of its government-wide reorganization of STEM
education, which, among other things, would reform undergraduate education and consolidate the
administration of fellowships “to better meet national STEM goals.” For HHS, the proposal
would have eliminated two programs for a total savings of $2 million in FY2015.67 The
explanatory statement on P.L. 113-235 indicates that the proposal would have affected the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Science Education Awards, the
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Science Education Drug Abuse Partnership Award, the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Short Term Education Experience
for Research, and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Diversity
Research Education Grants in Neuroscience. Congress directed NIH to continue funding these
programs in FY2015 and provided funding for the programs.
Office of the Director/Common Fund. The FY2015 request for OD included an increase in
funding for the Common Fund. The request for the Common Fund was $583 million, $50 million
(9%) higher than the FY2014 level, including $30 million for projects modelled after the research
flexibilities utilized by DARPA. P.L. 113-235 includes the same amount provided for the
Common Fund in FY2014, $533 million, plus, as stated previously, $12.6 million for pediatric
research, for a total of $546 million in FY2015.
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 FY2015 budget requested total funding for RPGs of $16.197 billion, representing
about 53% of NIH’s proposed budget. The amount is an increase of $120 million (0.7%) over the
FY2014 level. The request would have supported an estimated 34,197 RPG awards, 16 less than
in FY2014. Within that total, 9,326 would be competing RPGs, 329 (4%) more than in FY2014.
(Competing awards are new grants plus competing renewals of existing grants.) The average
amount of a competing RPG in FY2014 was estimated to be about $456,000, up from about
67
The White House, “The Budget for FY2015, Discretionary Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings,” p. 157,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/ccs.pdf. For additional information on the
proposed STEM reorganization, see “Reorganization of STEM Education Programs,” above.
Congressional Research Service
30
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
$421,000 in FY2012. Funding provided under the President’s OGSI proposal would have been
used to support 650 additional new grants in FY2015.
Table 11. National Institutes of Health Funding
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2014
Enacted
FY2015
Request
FY2015
Enacted
(P.L. 113-235)
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
$4,923
$4,931
$4,950
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
2,989
2,988
2,998
Dental/Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
399
397
400
Diabetes/Digestive/Kidney (NIDDK)a
1,744
1,743
1,750
Neurological Disorders/Stroke (NINDS)
1,588
1,608
1,605
Allergy/Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
4,359
4,423
4,359
General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
2,364
2,369
1,656
Child Health/Human Development (NICHD)
1,283
1,283
1,287
National Eye Institute (NEI)
682
675
684
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
665
665
668
1,171
1,171
1,199
Arthritis/Musculoskeletal/Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
520
520
522
Deafness/Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
404
404
405
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
1,446
1,440
1,463
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
1,025
1,023
1,029
Alcohol Abuse/Alcoholism (NIAAA)
446
446
447
National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
141
140
141
Nat’l Human Genome Research Inst (NHGRI)
498
498
499
Biomedical Imaging/Bioengineering (NIBIB)
329
329
330
Minority Health/Health Disparities (NIMHD)
266
268
269
Complementary/Integrative Health (NCCIH)b
124
125
125
Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)
633
657
635
Fogarty International Center (FIC)
68
68
68
National Library of Medicine (NLM)
328
373
337
1,400
1,452
1,414
129
129
129
29,926
30,126
29,369
8
8
715
29,934
30,134
30,084
Superfund (Interior appropriation to NIEHS)d
77
77
77
Pre-appropriated type 1 diabetes funds
139
150
150
30,151
30,362
30,311
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
Office of Director (OD)
Buildings and Facilities (B&F)
Subtotal, Labor/HHS Appropriation
PHS Evaluation Tap fundingc
Subtotal, NIH
Total, NIH program level
Congressional Research Service
31
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Source: P.L. 113-235, Division G, Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2015, Explanatory Statement, NIH funding table; and Division F, Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015, for Superfund amount.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding. Amounts in table may differ from
actuals in many cases. By convention, budget tables such as Table 11 do not subtract the amount of transfers,
such as the FY2015 $689 million evaluation tap, from the agencies’ appropriation. FY2015 amounts do not
include $238,000,000 for the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for research on Ebola
that was provided in P.L. 113-235 (Title VI of Division G).
a. Amounts for the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) do not include
mandatory funding for type 1 diabetes research (see note e).
b. Reflects name change from National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine to National
Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; provision included in P.L. 113-235.
c. Additional funds for NLM in FY2014 and FY2015 request and for NIGMS in FY2015 final bill (P.L. 113-235)
from PHS Evaluation Set-Aside (§241 of PHS Act).
d. This is a separate account in the Interior/Environment appropriations for National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) research activities related to Superfund.
Department of Energy68
The Department of Energy (DOE) was established in 1977 by the Department of Energy
Organization Act (P.L. 95-91), which combined energy-related programs from a variety of other
agencies with defense-related nuclear programs that dated back to the Manhattan Project. Today,
DOE conducts basic scientific research in areas ranging from nuclear physics to the biological
and environmental sciences, basic and applied R&D relating to energy production and use, and
R&D on nuclear weapons, nuclear nonproliferation, and defense nuclear reactors. The department
has a system of 17 national laboratories around the country, mostly operated by contractors, that
together account for about 40% of all DOE expenditures.
The Administration has requested $13.129 billion in FY2015 for Department of Energy R&D and
related activities, including programs in three major categories: science, national security, and
energy. This request is 5.6% more than the FY2014 appropriation of $12.436 billion. The Housepassed bill (H.R. 4923) would provide $12.539 billion. The Senate subcommittee bill would
provide $12.553 billion.69 (See Table 12 for details.)
The request for the DOE Office of Science is $5.111 billion, an increase of 0.9% from the
FY2014 appropriation of $5.066 billion. There is no authorized funding level for the Office of
Science in FY2015; the most recent authorization act (the America COMPETES Reauthorization
Act of 2010, P.L. 111-358) authorized appropriations through FY2013. The FY2015 budget does
not mention the Obama Administration’s previous goal of doubling the combined funding of the
Office of Science and two other agencies. (For more information on the doubling goal and how it
has evolved, see “Efforts to Double Certain R&D Accounts.”) The original target, announced by
the Bush Administration in 2006, was to achieve the doubling in the decade from FY2006 to
FY2016. The FY2015 request for the Office of Science is 41% more than its FY2006 baseline.
The House bill and the Senate subcommittee bill would each be 40% above the baseline.
68
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Scienceand Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
69
The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Senate Committee on Appropriations approved this bill
on June 17, 2014. A full committee markup scheduled for June 19, 2014, was cancelled. References in this section to
the Senate subcommittee bill and report refer to the subcommittee-approved bill and draft report posted on the
committee website on July 24, 2014. See http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/fy-2015-ew-subcommitteereported-bill-and-draft-report.
Congressional Research Service
32
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
The Office of Science includes six major research programs. The request for the largest program,
Basic Energy Sciences (BES), is $1.807 billion, an increase of 5.5%. Major proposed changes in
the BES program include the initiation of a new activity in computational materials science ($24
million); an increase of $18 million for Nanoscale Science Research Centers; an increase of $63
million, as previously planned, for continued construction of the Linac Coherent Light Source II
(LCLS-II); and a shift from construction funding to research funding for the National
Synchrotron Light Source II (NSLS-II) as the new facility begins operations. The request also
includes $24 million for continuation of the Fuels from Sunlight Hub beyond its current five-year
award term. The House bill would provide a total of $1.702 billion for BES. The House report
recommends $8 million for computational materials science, $11 million less than the request for
LCLS-II construction, $10 million less than the request for NSLS-II operations, and no funds for
the Fuels from Sunlight Hub. The Senate subcommittee bill would provide the requested amount
for BES, including $18 million for computational materials science. The Senate subcommittee
report recommends funding for the Fuels from Sunlight Hub only if DOE completes a review of
the hub and determines to extend it; otherwise, DOE is to spend that $24 million on other
photochemistry and biochemistry research.
The request for High Energy Physics is $744 million, a decrease of 6.6%. Major proposed
changes include a reduction of $24 million for experiments at the intensity frontier, especially
NOvA, which will complete fabrication in FY2014; a decrease of $10 million, as previously
planned, for continued construction of the Muon to Electron Conversion Experiment (Mu2e); and
the elimination of construction funding ($16 million in FY2014) for the Long Baseline Neutrino
Experiment (LBNE). The House bill would provide $775 million. The House report recommends
$15 million more than the request for intensity frontier experiments, the requested amount for
Mu2e, and $22 million for LBNE. The Senate subcommittee bill would provide $774 million,
including the requested amount for Mu2e and $22 million for LBNE.
The request for Biological and Environmental Research is $628 million, an increase of 3.0%.
This program consists of two roughly equal parts: Biological Systems Science and Climate and
Environmental Sciences. Within the second of these, the request includes $29 million for a new
activity in Climate Model Development and Validation. The House bill would provide $540
million. The House report states that “the Committee continues to support the Biological Systems
Science subprogram” but does not mention Climate and Environmental Sciences. The House
report recommends no funding for Climate Model Development and Validation. The Senate
subcommittee bill would provide approximately the requested amount, divided between the two
subprograms according to the request, and including the requested funds for Climate Model
Development and Validation.
The request for Advanced Scientific Computing Research is $541 million, an increase of 13.2%.
The proposed increase includes an additional $10 million for mathematical, computational, and
computer sciences research; an additional $25 million for operations and upgrades at the
Leadership Computing Facilities; and an additional $20 million for computing technology
research, system design, and prototype evaluation. The House bill would provide the requested
amount. The Senate subcommittee bill would provide $557 million; the report recommends
directing the additional $16 million to increase operating time at the National Energy Research
Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
The request for Fusion Energy Sciences is $416 million, a decrease of 17.6%. The request
includes $18 million for operations and research at the Alcator C-Mod tokamak, as a transition
plan is developed for the facility. In the FY2013 and FY2014 budget cycles, DOE plans to close
this facility encountered congressional opposition. Construction funding for the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) would decrease from $200 million to $150 million,
Congressional Research Service
33
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
while total funding for research and operations at domestic facilities would decrease from $305
million to $266 million. 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 delayed formal approval of a revised cost
estimate. According to DOE, the current best estimate of the total U.S. cost for ITER construction
(which is 9.09% of the total international cost) is between $4 billion and $6.5 billion. In June
2014, the Government Accountability Office found that the cost of ITER has increased, its
schedule has slipped, the international project schedule is “not reliable,” and DOE can “only
partially” influence the international project’s performance.70 The House bill would provide $540
million for Fusion Energy Sciences, including $225 million for ITER and $266 million for the
domestic program; $22 million of the latter amount would be directed to Alcator C-Mod. The
Senate subcommittee bill would provide $341 million, of which $75 million would be for ITER.
The Senate subcommittee report states that “the Committee does not believe ITER is affordable
and funding for ITER would crowd out other science investments where the United States has
maintained leadership.” It directs DOE to work with the Department of State to withdraw from
the ITER project. The recommended $75 million for ITER would allow for the completion of
existing contracts and support the U.S. ITER office during the termination process.
The request for DOE national security R&D is $4.220 billion, a 9.2% increase from $3.864
billion in FY2014. Most of the requested increase is in the Naval Reactors program. Naval
Reactors construction funding would increase from $24 million to $210 million as construction
begins on the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization project. Congress declined to fund this
project in FY2014, and DOE is developing a new schedule and funding profile. In the Weapons
Activities account, the Administration request would increase funding for nuclear weapons
science and advanced simulation and computing and would slightly reduce funding (by 0.2%) for
research on inertial confinement fusion. In the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account, the
requested 23.0% decrease in R&D funding is largely the consequence of a DOE reprogramming
of funds from other activities in FY2014. Relative to the amount originally enacted by Congress
for FY2014, the request for nonproliferation R&D is a decrease of 9.5%. Both proliferation
detection R&D and nuclear detonation detection R&D would decrease, with reductions and
delays in multiple topic areas. The House bill would provide a total of $4.102 billion. The House
report recommends half the requested amount for the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization
project, smaller increases than requested for weapons science and advanced simulation and
computing, and nearly the FY2014 amount for nonproliferation R&D. The Senate subcommittee
bill would provide a total of $4.022 billion. The Senate subcommittee report recommends less
than requested for weapons science but more for advanced simulation and computing. It
recommends no funding for the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization project.
The request for DOE energy R&D is $3.797 billion, up 8.3% from $3.506 billion in FY2014. The
request would increase funding for R&D in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE) by 20.5%, with increases requested for most EERE programs. Within EERE,
Advanced Manufacturing would receive $305 million, an increase of $125 million. The Advanced
Manufacturing request includes an increase of $109 million for R&D facilities, which would
support the establishment of an additional Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation institute
(consistent with the previously discussed “National Network for Manufacturing Innovation”).
Also in EERE, R&D on vehicle technologies would increase by $69 million. The Energy
Efficient Buildings Hub, which the Senate Committee on Appropriations directed DOE to
70
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Fusion Energy: Actions Needed to Finalize Cost and Schedule Estimates for
U.S. Contributions to an International Experimental Reactor, GAO-14-499, June 5, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
34
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
terminate in its FY2014 report, has been renamed the Pennsylvania State University Consortium
for Building Energy Innovation and would receive flat funding under the request. In Fossil
Energy R&D, the proposed elimination of R&D on oil technologies ($15 million in FY2014) and
the proposed reduction of $115 million for coal R&D (including carbon capture and storage)
would be partly offset by $25 million for a new demonstration activity in natural gas carbon
capture and storage and an increase of $14 million for natural gas technologies. In the Advanced
Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E), R&D on transportation systems would increase by
$47 million.
In the energy category, the House bill would provide $3.366 billion. Within this total, it would
provide $528 million less than the request for EERE. The report recommends more than the
request for hydrogen, wind energy, geothermal energy, and advanced manufacturing, and less
than the request in all other topic areas, with particularly large reductions in solar energy and
bioenergy. For fossil fuels, the House bill would increase coal R&D by $20 million rather than
reducing it, provide $13 million for oil R&D rather than eliminating it, increase natural gas R&D
by $2 million rather than $14 million, and reject the proposed demonstration of natural gas carbon
capture and storage.
In the energy category, the Senate subcommittee bill would provide $3.445 billion. Its
recommendation for EERE, $1.795 billion, includes more than the request for hydrogen and
hydropower, the requested amount for bioenergy, and less than the request for other topics,
especially advanced manufacturing, vehicle technologies, solar energy, and building technologies.
The recommended total for fossil energy R&D is the same as the request. The recommendation
for nuclear energy is $86 million less than the request. Within this total, the report recommends
$97 million less for small modular reactor licensing technical support, $46 million less for reactor
concepts R&D and demonstration, and $41 million more for fuel cycle R&D.
Table 12. Department of Energy R&D and Related Activities
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2014
Enacted
FY2015
Request
FY2015
House
FY2015
S. Subcte.
$5,066
$5,111
$5,071
$5,086
Basic Energy Sciences
1,712
1,807
1,702
1,807
High Energy Physics
797
744
775
774
Biological and Environmental Research
610
628
540
628
Nuclear Physics
569
594
600
602
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
478
541
541
557
Fusion Energy Sciences
505
416
540
341
Other
396
382
373
378
Science
National Security
3,864
4,220
4,102
4,022
Weapons Activitiesa
2,278
2,467
2,421
2,408
Naval Reactors
1,095
1,377
1,215
1,208
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D
469
361
453
393
Defense Environmental Cleanup Tech. Dev.
22
16
13
13
3,506
3,797
3,366
3,445
1,670
2,012
1,538
1,795
Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energyb
Congressional Research Service
35
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
FY2014
Enacted
FY2015
Request
FY2015
House
FY2015
S. Subcte.
Fossil Energy R&D
562
476
593
476
Nuclear Energy
888
863
826
777
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability R&D
106
121
110
117
Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy
280
325
300
280
12,436
13,129
12,539
12,553
DOE, Total
Source: FY2014 enacted and FY2015 request from DOE’s FY2015 congressional budget justification,
http://energy.gov/cfo/downloads/fy-2015-budget-justification. FY2015 House from H.R. 4923 as passed by the
House and H.Rept. 113-486. FY2015 Senate subcommittee from the subcommittee-approved bill and draft
subcommittee report posted on the Senate Committee on Appropriations website on July 24, 2014.
Notes: FY2014 enacted amounts reflect DOE’s allocation of a $7 million reduction for contractor foreign travel
expenses, as directed by P.L. 113-76, Section 317. Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to
rounding.
a. Including Stockpile Services R&D Support, Stockpile Services R&D Certification and Safety, Science,
Engineering except Enhanced Surety and Enhanced Surveillance; Ignition and High Yield; Advanced
Simulation and Computing; and a prorated share of Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities. Additional
R&D activities may take place in the subprograms of Directed Stockpile Work that are devoted to specific
weapon systems, but these funds are not included in the table because detailed funding schedules for those
subprograms are classified.
b. Excluding Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.
National Science Foundation71
The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports basic research and education in the non-medical
sciences and engineering. Congress established the Foundation as an independent federal agency
in 1950 and directed it to “promote the progress of science; to advance the national health,
prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.”72 The NSF is a
primary source of federal support for U.S. university research, especially in certain fields such as
mathematics and computer science. It is also responsible for significant shares of the federal
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education program portfolio and
federal STEM student aid and support.
P.L. 113-235 provides $7.344 billion to the NSF in FY2015. This amount is $172 million (2%)
more than the FY2014 estimated level of $7.172 billion. (See Table 13.)
The Administration initially sought $7.255 billion in funding for the NSF in FY2015.73 This
amount was $83 million (about 1%) more than the FY2014 estimate. The requested increase was
split more or less evenly between Agency Operations and Award Management (AOAM, $40
million) and Education and Human Resources (EHR, $43 million). The Research and Related
Activities (RRA) account, which constitutes a majority of NSF’s budget and provides most of the
foundation’s research funding, would not have received an increase over FY2014 estimated levels
($5.809 million) under the Administration’s FY2015 request.
71
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
72
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-507). For more information about the NSF, see CRS Report
R43585, The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues, by (name redacted)
.
73
NSF relied on its organic act for budget authority in FY2015.
Congressional Research Service
36
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
The House, on the other hand, sought to increase funding for NSF (total) and RRA. It also sought
increased funding for EHR and AOAM, albeit at lower-than-requested levels. The House-passed
bill (H.R. 4660) would have provided $7.394 billion to NSF in FY2015. This amount included a
$165 million (3%) increase over the FY2014 estimate for RRA, $30 million (3%) more for EHR,
and $27 million (9%) more for AOAM.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended the requested level for NSF in FY2015.
However, like the House, the Senate Committee on Appropriations also recommended an increase
over both the requested level, and the FY2014 estimate, for RRA. To accomplish this, while
holding the total NSF allocation at the FY2015 requested level, Senate appropriators divided the
requested increase for AOAM ($40 million) between AOAM ($9 million) and RRA ($31 million).
In its budget documents NSF indicated that its FY2015 priorities included four programs that
were also foundation priorities in FY2013 and FY2014: Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing,
and Smart Systems (CEMMSS, $213 million); Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century
Science, Engineering, and Education (CIF21, $125 million); Science, Engineering, and Education
for Sustainability (SEES, $139 million); and Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC, $100
million). The NSF added Cognitive Science and Neuroscience ($29 million request) to this list for
FY2015.74 Of these five programs, the Administration sought an increase over FY2014 estimated
levels only for Cognitive Science and Neuroscience. The House report recommended $35 million
for Cognitive Science and Neuroscience in FY2015, $21 million (153%) more than the FY2014
estimate of $14 million.75 The explanatory statement, which accompanied P.L. 113-235, endorses
the House recommendation for neuroscience.76 The Senate report recommended the full request
($139 million) for SEES.77
Congress typically appropriates to NSF at the major account level. NSF’s major accounts are
RRA, EHR, and AOAM (mentioned in previous paragraphs), as well as Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC); the National Science Board (NSB); and the
Office of Inspector General (OIG).78
P.L. 113-235 provides $5.934 billion to RRA in FY2015. This amount is $125 million (2%) over
the FY2014 estimated funding level of $5.809 billion. The House-passed bill would have
provided $5.974 billion to RRA in FY2015. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended $5.839 billion.
The Administration’s request for RRA made few major changes from FY2014. Six of eight RRA
subaccounts would have shifted (up or down) by less than 2%. Two accounts, Social, Behavioral
and Economic Sciences (SBE) and the U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC), would have
increased by more substantial amounts: 6.0% and 8.1%, respectively. SBE would have received
the largest increase in dollar terms ($15 million). Most of the additional funding ($11 million)
was for the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), which among other
74
The FY2012 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act conference report encouraged
NSF to establish neuroscience as a crosscutting theme. See, H.Rept. 112-284.
75
H.Rept. 113-448; referred to hereafter in this section as the “House report.”
76
See, “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Chairman of the House Committee on
Appropriations Regarding the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment on H.R. 83,” Congressional Record, vol.
160, no. 151-Book II (December 11, 2014), pp.H9349-H9350; referred to hereafter in this section as the “explanatory
statement.”
77
S.Rept. 113-181; referred to herein as the “Senate report.”
78
Funds from major NSF accounts may be merged at the program level and in many cases NSF’s education, facilities,
and research activities are deeply integrated as a matter of practice.
Congressional Research Service
37
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
things, publishes the widely cited, bi-annual sourcebook for science and engineering statistics,
Science and Engineering Indicators.79
An amendment (H.Amdt. 734) adopted during House floor debate over H.R. 4660 sought to hold
SBE funding at the FY2014 estimated level.80 (A second adopted amendment—H.Amdt. 762—
would have prohibited NSF from using FY2015 funding to examine climate effects on tea quality
and socioeconomic responses under award number 1313775.)81 P.L. 113-235 does not incorporate
these amendments. However, the explanatory statement effectively adopts language from the
House report requiring NSF to apply any funding increases it receives for RRA (above requested
levels) to Math and Physical Sciences (MPS), Computer and Information Science and
Engineering (CISE), Engineering (ENG), and Biological Sciences (BIO). This appears to prevent
NSF from providing increases—over amounts already in the request—to SBE, USARC,
Geosciences (GEO), and International and Integrative Activities (IIA). The House report noted
both the “intrinsic value in SBE sciences,” while recognizing “longstanding Congressional
concerns” about SBE-funded activities.82
Widely tracked RRA programs include the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR) and Advanced Manufacturing programs. P.L. 113-235 provides $159.7
million to EPSCoR in FY2015, which is the same as the request, House recommendation, and
Senate Committee on Appropriations’ recommendation. EPSCoR received $158.2 million in
FY2014 (estimated). For Advanced Manufacturing, the House report recommended the FY2014
current plan funding level ($164.7 million) in FY2015.83 The Senate report further recommended
that NSF target $15.0 million of the funding it receives for Advanced Manufacturing to
biomanufacturing.
Among other provisions, the House report recommended prohibiting NSF from implementing any
final divestment of astronomical infrastructure tied to the 2012 Astronomical Science Portfolio
Review (hereinafter, “Portfolio Review”) without first reporting to the House Appropriations
Committee and ensuring that changes are undertaken in accordance with relevant reprogramming
requirements.84 The Senate report stated that the committee expects NSF to sustain support for the
scientific facilities funded by the Astronomical Sciences division; including the National Radio
Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), for which the committee recommended no less than the
FY2014 estimated funding level of $43 million. (The Portfolio Review recommended divestment
of certain NRAO facilities.)
79
For example, see National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2014, NSB 14-01, 2014,
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/.
80
See Representative Lamar Smith, et al., “Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2015,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 160, no. 82, (May 29, 2014), pp. H4957H4959.
81
The practical effect of this amendment is unclear. As a standard grant issued in FY2013, all funding for this award
would typically have been obligated and expended in that fiscal year. More information about this award is available at
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1313775&HistoricalAwards=false.
82
H.Rept. 113-448, p. 81. For more information on the debate over funding for the social sciences at the NSF, see CRS
Report R43585, The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues, by (name redacted)
83
FY2014 current plan funding for Advanced Manufacturing as per email correspondence between CRS and NSF,
dated May 16, 2014.
84
More information about the 2012 Astronomical Sciences Portfolio Review is available at http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/
ast_portfolio_review.jsp. In December 2013, NSF issued a “Dear Colleague Letter” (NSF 14-022) providing
information about the status of the foundation’s response to the Portfolio Review. NSF 14-022 is available at
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14022/nsf14022.jsp.
Congressional Research Service
38
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
For FY2015 the Administration proposed what it called a “fresh” reorganization and
consolidation of the federal STEM education effort. (See “Reorganization of STEM Education
Programs.”) Consistent with this plan, the NSF FY2015 budget justification stated that NSF
would continue to collaborate with the Department of Education and Smithsonian Institution as
“lead agencies” in the implementation of the National Science and Technology Council’s strategic
plan for STEM education, while partnering with federal science mission agencies.85 The FY2015
NSF budget request also consolidated three NSF undergraduate education programs into the
Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) program.86 In FY2014, NSF proposed
reorganizing this same set of programs into the Catalyzing and Advancing Undergraduate STEM
Education (CAUSE) program. H.Rept. 113-171, which accompanied H.R. 2787 (Commerce,
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014) when it was reported by the
House Committee on Appropriations, prohibited NSF from establishing the CAUSE program.
H.Rept. 113-448 appeared to adopt the IUSE consolidation in FY2015.
P.L. 113-235 provides $866 million to EHR in FY2015, $20 million (2%) more than the FY2014
estimate of $847 million. The FY2015 request for EHR continued the directorate’s increased
focus on R&D. Between FY2008 and FY2013, the portion of the EHR account that supported
research and development in STEM education and learning increased from 11% to 35%. Since
then, that percentage has held steady at about 35% (FY2014 estimate and FY2015 request). The
character of EHR’s R&D funding has also shifted, moving from about 90% basic research to
about 40%.
The House would have provided $876 million to EHR in FY2015. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended the requested level ($890 million). Within EHR the House report
recommended $66 million for Advanced Technological Education (ATE) and directed NSF to use
FY2015 appropriations to begin development of a website to disseminate various STEM
education-related materials. The Senate report recommended the following specific allocations:
$64 million for ATE, $61 million for the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program (Noyce),
$45 million for Cybercorps: Scholarships for Service, $55 million for Advancing Informal STEM
Learning, and $57 million for STEM-C Partnerships. P.L. 113-235 provides $61 million for
Noyce; the explanatory statement provides $66 million for ATE.
Other widely tracked EHR programs include the Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) and the
Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship or IGERT (now called the NSF
Research Traineeship or NRT). The FY2015 request for the GRF was $333 million, about 11%
over the FY2014 estimate. NSF sought to increase the GRF stipend from $32,000 to $34,000 in
FY2015. The NSF budget request included $58 million for the NRT in FY2015, an increase of
6% over the FY2014 estimate. NSF proposed a new track within NRT, to provide funding for
research in graduate student training and professional development.
Both the House and Senate reports recommended the same amount (e.g., the request level or
slightly more) for three of NSF’s existing minority-serving institution programs, including
Historically Black Colleges and Universities—Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP, $32 million),
Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP, $46 million), and Tribal Colleges and
Universities Program (TCUP, $13.5 million). Further, both reports sought to direct NSF to
85
EOP, NSTC, Committee on STEM Education, Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Education: 5-Year Strategic Plan, May 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
stem_stratplan_2013.pdf.
86
These programs are the STEM Talent Expansion Program (STEP), Widening Implementation and Demonstration of
Evidence-based Reforms (WIDER), and Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM (TUES).
Congressional Research Service
39
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
provide for Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs). The House report recommended that NSF
demonstrate that it provided $30 million in HSI-targeted opportunities across NSF programs in
FY2015, while the Senate report recommended a specific allocation of $5 million for an HSIspecific program within EHR. The explanatory statement provides the above-listed amounts for
HBCU-UP, LSAMP, and TCUP, and adopts the House report recommendation for HSIs.
Other accounts that fund R&D at the NSF include the MREFC account, which supports large
construction projects and scientific instruments. P.L. 113-235 provides $201 million to MREFC in
FY2015.This amount is about equal to the FY2014 estimate, House and Senate Committee on
Appropriations’ recommendations, and the Administration’s request.
NSF indicated that FY2015 MREFC funding would provide the second-to-last year of support for
the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), as well as ongoing support for the Large
Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) and Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope (DKIST).87
Historically, the MREFC account has typically supported between four and six projects at a time.
The FY2015 request for three projects was lower than the historical trend, which could indicate
that some potentially scientifically valuable projects are being delayed or overlooked. On the
other hand, as can be seen in the FY2015 BIO and GEO requests, when these large projects come
online their operations costs must be shouldered by research accounts. In a constrained budget
environment, this dynamic can precipitate difficult choices between funding for research and
funding research facilities and equipment.
P.L. 113-235 provided $325 million, $4 million, and $14 million for AOAM, NSB, and OIG
(respectively). Funding for NSB and OIG is the same in FY2015 as it was in FY2014. Funding
for AOAM is greater in FY2015 than it was in FY2014 ($298 million, estimated), but lower than
the request ($338 million). The increase for AOAM is part of a multi-year plan to relocate NSF
headquarters.
The FY2015 NSF budget request included funding for three multi-agency initiatives: National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI, $410 million), Networking and Information Technology
Research and Development (NITRD, $1.158 billion), and U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP, $318 million). The request for NNI was about the same as the FY2014 estimate; the
NITRD request was similarly equivalent; and the request for USGCRP was about $4 million (1%)
more than the FY2014 estimate.
The Administration also sought $552 million in FY2015 funding for the NSF as part of the
Opportunity Growth and Security Initiative. Without specifying program funding levels, the NSF
FY2015 congressional budget justification noted that (among other things) OGSI funding would
support an estimated 1,000 additional standard awards and would provide additional traineeship
opportunities to approximately 3,000 graduate students over the next five years through the NRT
program. (For more information on the OGSI, see earlier discussion at “Opportunity, Growth, and
Security Initiative.”)
87
The Advanced Technology Solar Telescope was renamed the Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope in December 2013.
Congressional Research Service
40
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Table 13. NSF Funding by Major Account
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
Senate
Cmte.
(S. 2437)
FY2015
Enacted
(P.L. 113-235)
FY2014
Estimate
FY2015
Request
FY2015
House
(H.R. 4660)
5,808.9
5,807.5
5,973.6
5,838.7
5,933.6
Biological Sciences (BIO)
721.3
708.5
n/s
n/s
n/sb
Computer and Information Science
and Engineering (CISE)
894.0
893.4
n/s
n/s
n/sb
Engineering (ENG)
851.1
858.2
n/s
n/s
n/sb
Geosciences (GEO)
1,303.0
1,304.4
n/s
n/s
n/s
Mathematical and Physical Sciences
(MPS)
1,299.8
1,295.6
n/s
n/s
n/sb
Social, Behavioral, and Economic
Sciences (SBE)
256.9
272.2
n/sa
n/s
n/s
International and Integrative
Activities (IIA)
481.6
473.9
n/s
n/s
n/s
U.S. Arctic Research Commission
(USARC)
1.3
1.4
n/s
n/s
n/s
Education and Human Resources
(EHR)
846.5
889.8
876.0
889.8
866.0
Major Research Equipment and
Facilities Construction (MREFC)
200.0
200.8
200.8
200.8
200.8
Agency Operations and Award
Management (AOAM)
298.0
338.2
325.0
307.0
325.0
National Science Board (NSB)
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
Office of the Inspector General
(OIG)
14.2
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
7,171.9
7,255.0
7,394.2
7,255.0
7,344.2
Account
Research and Related Activities
(RRA)
NSF, Total
Source: Data in the columns titled, “FY2014 Estimate” and “FY2015 Request” are from the FY2015 NSF Budget
Request to Congress. Data in the column titled “House (Full)” are from H.R. 4660, as passed by the House. Data in
the column titled, “Senate (Committee)” are from S. 2437, as reported by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations.
Notes: The term “n/s” means “not specified.” Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to
rounding.
a. The explanatory statement effectively adopts House report language that requires NSF to distribute any
additional RRA funding (over requested levels) to MPS, CISE, ENG, and BIO.
b. Although not included in P.L. 113-235, H.Amdt. 734 to H.R. 4660 sought to hold funding for SBE at the
FY2014 level ($256.9 million). See Representative Lamar Smith, et al., “Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 160, no. 82, (May 29, 2014), pp. H4957-H4959.
Congressional Research Service
41
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
National Aeronautics and Space Administration88
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was created in 1958 by the National
Aeronautics and Space Act (P.L. 85-568) to conduct civilian space and aeronautics activities.
NASA has research programs in planetary science, Earth science, heliophysics, astrophysics, and
aeronautics, as well as development programs for future human spacecraft and for multipurpose
space technology such as advanced propulsion systems. In addition, NASA operates the
International Space Station as a facility for R&D and other purposes.
The Administration requested $16.258 billion for NASA R&D in FY2015. This amount was 1.1%
less than the $16.455 billion NASA received for R&D in FY2014. In addition to the base request,
the proposed Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative included $874 million for NASA R&D.
(For more information on the OGSI, see earlier discussion at “Opportunity, Growth, and Security
Initiative.”) The bill passed by the House (H.R. 4660) would have provided $16.702 billion. The
bill reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations (S. 2437) would have provided $16.725
billion. The final appropriation in P.L. 113-235 was approximately $16.828 billion for FY2015.89
For a breakdown of these amounts, see Table 14. There is no authorized level for NASA funding
in FY2015. The most recent authorization act (the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, P.L. 111267) authorized appropriations through FY2013. Bills in the 113th Congress that would have
authorized FY2015 appropriations for NASA included H.R. 2687, H.R. 2616, and S. 1317.90
The FY2015 request for Science was $4.972 billion, a decrease of 3.5%. The House and Senate
bills would have provided $5.193 billion and $5.200 billion, respectively. The final appropriation
for FY2015 was $5.245 billion. In Planetary Science, the request included $15 million for
continued study of a potential future mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa. Congress provided $69.7
million in FY2013 and $80 million in FY2014 for formulati
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.