# Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR43580

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** February 2, 2015
- **Citation:** R43580

## 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

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR43580. Public record. Not legal advice.