Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Congressional research reportFeb 17, 2016
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Federal Research and Development Funding:
FY2016
,name redacted,, Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
,name redacted,
Specialist in Environmental Policy
,name redacted,
Specialist in Biomedical Policy
,name redacted,
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
,name redacted,
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
,name redacted,
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
,name redacted,
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
February 17, 2016
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R43944
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Summary
President Obama’s budget request for FY2016 included $145.694 billion for research and
development (R&D), an increase of $7.625 billion (5.5%) over the estimated FY2015 R&D
funding level of $138.069 billion. The request represented the President’s R&D priorities.
Funding for R&D is concentrated in a few departments and agencies. Under President Obama’s
FY2016 budget request, seven federal agencies would have received 95.6% of total federal R&D
funding, with the Department of Defense (DOD, 49.5%) and the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS, 21.3%) accounting for more than 70% of all federal R&D funding. The
largest increases in agency R&D funding in the President’s request would have gone to the
Department of Defense (DOD, up $4.670 billion, 6.9%), Department of Energy (DOE, up $861
million, 7.3%), and the Department of Commerce (DOC, up $601 million, 39.4%).
Legislation targeted the R&D budgets of the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
National Science Foundation, and DOE Office of Science seeking to double them from their
FY2006 levels. The America COMPETES Act aimed to double funding over 7 years, and the
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 over 11 years. The President’s FY2016
budget requested increases for these accounts, as it did in the President’s FY2015 and FY2014
requests. It departs from earlier Obama and Bush Administration budgets that explicitly stated the
doubling goal. Enacted funding for FY2015 for these accounts represents a compound annual
growth rate of 3.25% since FY2006, a rate that would result in doubling in 22 years.
The President’s FY2016 request continued support for three multi-agency R&D initiatives—the
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the Networking and Information Technology Research
and Development (NITRD) program, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).
The request also continued support for the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative
Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative, the Materials Genome Initiative, and the National
Robotics Initiative. The President proposed FY2016 discretionary funding for seven new
manufacturing institutes as part of his proposed National Network for Manufacturing Innovation
(NNMI), in addition to the nine that have already been planned, competed, or awarded. The
President also proposed $1.9 billion in mandatory funding for the establishment of 29 additional
institutes between FY2017 and FY2024. In addition, the FY2016 budget proposed a new
multiagency R&D initiative, the Precision Medicine Initiative which seeks to build on research
and discoveries that allow medical treatments to be tailored to an individual’s unique
characteristics (e.g., a patient’s genes) or the genetic profile of an individual’s tumor.
In December 2015, Congress passed, and the President signed, the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) providing discretionary appropriations for all federal agencies for
FY2016. For some federal agencies it is possible to discern R&D funding levels directly from this
act and its accompanying explanatory statement. In these cases, this report reflects the results of
P.L. 114-113. For other federal agencies, R&D is included in appropriations accounts with nonR&D activities and it is not possible to determine specific R&D funding levels until reported by
these agencies.
As in recent years, the annual appropriations process was 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: FY2016
Contents
Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 1
The President’s FY2016 Budget Request ........................................................................................ 3
Federal R&D Funding Perspectives ................................................................................................ 4
Federal R&D by Agency ........................................................................................................... 4
Federal R&D by Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment ............................................... 5
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 ........................................................................................ 12
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program.................... 12
U.S. Global Change Research Program .................................................................................. 13
BRAIN Initiative ..................................................................................................................... 13
Precision Medicine Initiative .................................................................................................. 14
Materials Genome Initiative .................................................................................................... 14
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership ..................................................................................... 15
National Robotics Initiative .............................................................................................. 15
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation ............................................................. 16
Reorganization of STEM Education Programs ....................................................................... 17
FY2016 Appropriations Status ...................................................................................................... 18
Department of Defense .................................................................................................................. 20
Department of Homeland Security ................................................................................................ 25
Directorate of Science and Technology................................................................................... 25
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office ........................................................................................ 26
Coordination of DHS R&D Activities .................................................................................... 27
Proposed Reorganization......................................................................................................... 28
Department of Health and Human Services .................................................................................. 30
National Institutes of Health ................................................................................................... 30
Department of Energy ................................................................................................................... 36
National Science Foundation ......................................................................................................... 41
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ........................................................................... 48
Department of Commerce ............................................................................................................. 52
National Institute of Standards and Technology ..................................................................... 52
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ................................................................ 57
Department of Agriculture ............................................................................................................. 59
Agricultural Research Service ................................................................................................. 60
National Institute of Food and Agriculture ............................................................................. 61
National Agricultural Statistics Service .................................................................................. 62
Economic Research Service .................................................................................................... 62
Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................. 63
U.S. Geological Survey ........................................................................................................... 64
Other DOI Components .......................................................................................................... 64
Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 66
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Department of Transportation........................................................................................................ 70
Federal Aviation Administration ............................................................................................. 71
Federal Highway Administration ............................................................................................ 71
Other DOT Components ......................................................................................................... 72
Department of Veterans Affairs ..................................................................................................... 73
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, FY2014-FY2016 ..................... 5
Table 2. Federal R&D Funding by Character of Work and Facilities and Equipment,
FY2014-FY2016 .......................................................................................................................... 6
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2014-FY2016 ................................................................................................ 7
Table 4. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling, FY2006-FY2016 ...................................... 9
Table 5. National Nanotechnology Initiative Funding, FY2014-FY2016 ..................................... 12
Table 6. Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program
Funding, FY2014-FY2016 ......................................................................................................... 13
Table 7. Alignment of Agency R&D Funding and Regular Appropriations Bills ......................... 19
Table 8. Department of Defense RDT&E ..................................................................................... 23
Table 9. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs .................................... 29
Table 10. National Institutes of Health Funding............................................................................ 35
Table 11. Department of Energy R&D and Related Activities ...................................................... 40
Table 12. NSF Funding by Major Account.................................................................................... 47
Table 13. NASA R&D ................................................................................................................... 51
Table 14. NIST Appropriations ..................................................................................................... 56
Table 15. NOAA R&D .................................................................................................................. 59
Table 16. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D ........................................................................... 62
Table 17. Department of the Interior R&D.................................................................................... 66
Table 18. Environmental Protection Agency Science &Technology (S&T) Account ................... 69
Table 19. Department of Transportation R&D and R&D Facilities .............................................. 72
Table 20. Department of Veterans Affairs R&D ............................................................................ 74
Table 21. Department of Veterans Affairs R&D by Designated Research Area ............................ 74
Appendixes
Appendix. Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................... 76
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 80
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Overview
The 114th 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 addressing 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. Agency R&D
budgets are developed internally as part of each agency’s overall budget development process and
may be included either in accounts that are entirely devoted to R&D or in 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 (OMB) 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 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 FY2016 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. Budget caps may limit overall R&D
funding and 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 because the funding for different programs/accounts/agencies is often
provided through different appropriations bills.
Structurally, this report begins with a discussion of the overall level of the President’s FY2016
R&D request, followed by analyses of the R&D funding request 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 more than 98% of total federal R&D funding. Selected terms associated with federal
R&D funding are defined in the text box on the next page. The Appendix provides a list of
acronyms and abbreviations.
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Definitions Associated with Federal Research and Development Funding
Two key sources of definitions associated with federal research and development funding are the White House Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) 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.
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: FY2016
The President’s FY2016 Budget Request
On February 2, 2015, President Obama released his proposed FY2016 budget. This report
provides government-wide, multi-agency, and individual agency analyses of the President’s
FY2016 request as it relates to R&D and related activities. The President’s budget proposes
$145.694 billion for R&D in FY2016, an increase of $7.625 billion (5.5%) over the estimated
FY2015 R&D funding level of $138.069 billion.1 Adjusted for anticipated inflation of
approximately 1.6%, the President’s FY2016 R&D request represents a real increase of 3.9%
from the FY2015 estimated level.2
Increasing federal funding for physical science and engineering research was a primary science
and technology policy effort pursued by Congress, President George W. Bush, and President
Obama in his first four years in office. 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 his 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. Though not explicitly
mentioning the doubling goal or timeframe, in his FY2016 budget, the President is requesting a
5.7% increase in aggregate funding for the targeted accounts over the FY2015 level, a pace that
would result in doubling in about 12 years. 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
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. Final FY2015 funding for the Department of Homeland Security had not been enacted at the time of the
President’s proposed FY2016 budget. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget used the President’s FY2015
budget request for DHS in estimates of FY2015 funding.
2
As calculated by CRS using the GDP (chained) price index for FY2015 and FY2016 in Table 10.1, Gross Domestic
Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2020, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year
2016, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/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 America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of
2010, which authorized appropriations through FY2013, was 6.3%, a rate that would take approximately 11 years to
double.
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
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 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 Achieving the 3% goal would likely require a substantial increase in
government and corporate R&D spending. In 2012, achieving the 3% goal would have required
approximately $18 billion in additional R&D funding above the actual U.S. R&D funding level of
$452.6 billion.
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 activities in accounts with non-R&D
activities. As a result, figures reported by OMB and the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP), including those shown in Table 1, may differ from the agency budget
analyses that appear later in this report.
Federal R&D Funding Perspectives
Federal R&D funding can be analyzed from a variety of perspectives that provide different
insights. The following sections examine the data by agency, by the character of the work
supported, by a combination of these two perspectives, and by whether R&D is defense-related or
not.
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 FY2014 (actual), FY2015 (estimate), and FY2016
(request).6
Under President Obama’s FY2016 budget request, seven federal agencies would receive more
than 95% of total federal R&D funding: the Department of Defense (DOD), 49.5%; Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) (primarily the National Institutes of Health (NIH)), 21.3%;
Department of Energy (DOE), 8.6%; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
8.4%; National Science Foundation (NSF), 4.3%; Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2.0%; and
Department of Commerce (DOC), 1.5%. 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.
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 114th
Congress, by (name redacted).
5
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, National Patterns of R&D
Resources (annual series).
6
EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2016, February 2015,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/ap_19_research.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
The largest agency R&D increases in the President’s FY2016 request (as measured in dollars),
compared with FY2015, are for DOD, $4.670 billion (6.9%); DOE, $861 million (7.3%); DOC,
$601 million (39.4%); HHS, $565 million (1.9%); USDA, $438 million (17.9%); and NSF, $310
million (5.2%). DHS would see a decrease of $463 million (44.9%).
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2014-FY2016
(budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change, FY2015-FY2016
Department/Agency
FY2014
Actual
FY2015
Estimate
FY2016
Request
Dollar
Percent
Department of Defense
$66,018
$67,451
$72,121
$4,670
6.9%
Department of Health and Human
Services
30,685
30,475
31,040
565
1.9%
Department of Energy
11,996
11,736
12,597
861
7.3%
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
11,906
12,145
12,238
93
0.8%
National Science Foundation
5,827
5,999
6,309
310
5.2%
Department of Agriculture
2,380
2,446
2,884
438
17.9%
Department of Commerce
1,556
1,526
2,127
601
39.4%
Department of Veterans Affairs
1,101
1,090
1,147
57
5.2%
Department of Transportation
853
900
1,115
215
23.9%
Department of the Interior
840
904
985
81
9.0%
Department of Homeland Security
1,032
1,032a
569
-463
-44.9%
Environmental Protection Agency
539
523
559
36
6.9%
Other
1,602
1,842
2,003
161
8.7%
Total
136,335
138,069
145,694
7,625
5.5%
Source: EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2016, February
2015, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/ap_19_research.pdf.
Note: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding. Amounts in this table may differ from
amounts reported in the agency chapters of this report due to a variety of factors, including R&D funding in
accounts that also include funding for non-R&D activities.
a. Because DHS appropriations had not been enacted at the time the President’s FY2016 budget request was
released, the Administration’s figure for FY2015 DHS R&D funding was based on the FY2014 appropriations
not the FY2015 appropriation that was subsequently enacted.
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 FY2016 request
includes $32.728 billion for basic research, up $831 million (2.6%) from FY2015; $34.146 billion
for applied research, up $1.235 million (3.8%); $75.976 billion for development, up $5.294
million (7.5%); and $2.844 billion for facilities and equipment, up $265 million (10.3%).
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Table 2. Federal R&D Funding by Character of Work and Facilities and Equipment,
FY2014-FY2016
(budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change, FY2015-FY2016
FY2014
Actual
FY2015
Estimate
FY2016
Request
Dollar
Percent
Basic research
$32,187
$31,897
$32,728
$ 831
2.6%
Applied research
32,546
32,911
34,146
1,235
3.8%
Development
68,985
70,682
75,976
5,294
7.5%
Facilities and Equipment
2,617
2,579
2,844
265
10.3%
136,335
138,069
145,694
7,625
5.5%
Total
Source: EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2016, February
2015, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/ap_19_research.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 for 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 from a societal perspective. The
usual argument for this view is that the social returns (i.e., the benefits to society at large) exceed
the private returns (i.e., the benefits accruing to the private investor, such as increased revenues or
higher stock value). Other factors that may inhibit corporate investment in basic research include
long time horizons for commercial applications (diminishing the potential returns due to 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 2012.7 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%.8
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%.9
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%.10
7
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.
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
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, including
supporting advances in spaceflight, developing new and affordable sources of energy, and
understanding and deterring terrorist groups. These priorities and the mission of each individual
agency contribute to the composition of that agency’s R&D spending (i.e., the allocation among
basic research, applied research, development, and facilities and equipment). In the President’s
FY2016 budget request, the Department of Health and Human Services, primarily NIH, would
account for nearly half (48.8%) of all federal funding for basic research. HHS would also be the
largest federal funder of applied research, accounting for about 43.5% of all federally funded
applied research in the President’s FY2016 budget request. DOD is the primary federal funder of
development, accounting for 85.6% of total federal development funding in the President’s
FY2016 budget request.11
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2014-FY2016
(budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change, FY2015-FY2016
FY2014
Actual
FY2015
Enacted
FY2016
Request
Dollar
Percent
Dept. of Health and Human Services
15,862
15,482
15,966
484
3.1%
National Science Foundation
4,752
4,834
5,062
228
4.7%
Dept. of Energy
4,095
4,120
4,245
125
3.0%
Dept. of Health and Human Services
14,621
14,791
14,864
73
0.5%
Dept. of Defense
4,664
4,775
4,819
44
0.9%
Dept. of Energy
4,550
4,363
4,683
320
7.3%
Dept. of Defense
58,986
60,366
65,036
4,670
7.7%
NASA
6,004
6,481
6,423
-58
-0.9%
Dept. of Energy
2,559
2,322
2,621
299
12.9%
Dept. of Energy
792
931
1,048
117
12.6%
National Science Foundation
397
437
445
8
1.8%
Dept. of Commerce
213
233
402
169
72.5%
Basic Research
Applied Research
Development
Facilities and Equipment
Source: EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2016, February
2015, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/ap_19_research.pdf.
Note: The top three funding agencies in each category, based on the FY2016 request, are listed.
11
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: FY2016
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 also includes
some activities at the Department of Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Defenserelated R&D has fluctuated between 50% and 70% of total federal R&D funding 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 2012.12 The President’s
FY2016 budget includes $76.9 billion in defense-related R&D funding (about 52.8% of the total
R&D request) and $68.8 billion for non-defense R&D (about 47.2% of the total R&D request).13
Multiagency R&D Initiatives
Although this report focuses primarily on the R&D activities of individual agencies, President
Obama’s FY2016 budget request supports several multiagency R&D initiatives.
Efforts to Double Certain R&D Accounts14
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
funding over 10 years (by FY2016 from their FY2006 levels) for targeted accounts at NSF, DOE,
and DOC. The targeted accounts include all NSF accounts, the 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.15 (See Table 4.)
12
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/.
13
John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, “The 2016 Budget: Investing in America’s Future,” presentation at the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, February 2015.
14
For more information, see CRS Report R41951, An Analysis of Efforts to Double Federal Funding for Physical
Sciences and Engineering Research, by (name redacted)
15
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.
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Table 4. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling, FY2006-FY2016
(budget authority, in millions of current dollars)
FY2006
Actual
FY2007
Actual
FY2008
Actual
FY2009
Actuala
FY2009
ARRA
FY2010
Actual
NSF
$5,589
$5,890
$6,125
$6,494
$3,002
$6,873
DOE/Office of Science
3,602
3,813
4,089
4,773
1,596
4,829
NIST/STRS
395
434
441
472
220
515
NIST/CRF
174
59
161
172
360
147
9,760
10,196
10,815
11,910
5,178
12,364
FY2011
Actual
FY2012
Actual
FY2013
Actual
FY2014
Actual
FY2015
Actual
FY2016
Request
NSF
$6,806b
$7,033
$6,884
$7,172
$7,344
$7,724
DOE/Office of Science
4,858
4,874
4,621
5,070
5,071
5,340
NIST/STRS
497
567
580
651
675
755
NIST/CRF
70
55
56
56
50
59
12,231
12,529
12,141
12,949
13,141
13,877
Total
Total
Sources: NIST budget requests, FY2008-FY2016, available at http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/budget/
index.cfm; DOE budget requests, FY2008-FY2016, available at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/crorgcf30.htm; NSF,
Budget Internet Information System, “NSF Requests and Appropriations History,” NSF.gov, February 25, 2015,
http://dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov/NSFRqstAppropHist/NSFRequestsandAppropriationsHistory.pdf; and the President’s
FY2016 budget, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Appendix.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding. Figures in this table have been
revised since the original date of publication in this report due to methodological changes.
a. The FY2009 agency funding levels do not include funding provided by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5).
b. Includes $54 million transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard for icebreaking services (per P.L. 112-10).
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
FY2013.16 The aggregate authorization levels for the targeted accounts in this act were consistent
with an 11-year doubling path. Congress has not authorized appropriations for the targeted
accounts beyond FY2013.17
Aggregate FY2013 funding subsequently appropriated for the targeted accounts was
approximately $12.141 billion, $2.964 billion less than authorized in the act. This funding level
set a pace to double over more than 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. Using
the FY2006 as the base year funding level, FY2014 appropriations set a 20-year doubling pace
while FY2015 appropriations set a 21-year pace.
16
For more information, see America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69): Selected Policy Issues, coordinated by (name re
dacted).
17
For additional information on reauthorization efforts, see CRS Report R43880, The America COMPETES Acts: An
Overview, by (name redacted)
.
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
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) in the targeted
accounts.18 In his FY2011 budget documents, President Obama extended the period over which
he intended to double funding for the targeted accounts 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. The President’s FY2015
budget contained no explicit statement of commitment to increasing funding for the targeted
accounts. For FY2016, President Obama is requesting $13.877 billion in aggregate funding for
the targeted accounts, an increase of $752 million (5.7%) above the estimated FY2015 aggregate
funding level of $13.125 billion. If enacted, this funding level would set a doubling pace of about
20 years over the FY2006 level.
Figure 1 shows total funding for the targeted accounts as a percentage of their FY2006 funding
level, and illustrates how actual (FY2006-FY2015), requested (FY2007-FY2016), 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; the effect of inflation on the purchasing
power of these funds is not taken into consideration.
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 for doubling (e.g., 7 years, 11 years)? Is the optimal
approach to double funding for specific agencies? If so, should the doubling for the selected
agencies be done in aggregate or individually? Are the chosen agencies 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 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
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.
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: FY2016
Figure 1. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling:
Appropriations, Authorizations, and Requests versus Selected Doubling Rates
Sources: Prepared by CRS based on data from the Office of Management and Budget and agency budget
justifications for FY2008 to FY2016, the NSF Budget Internet Information System, 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.
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
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 Federal
nanotechnology efforts are coordinated by the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET).
The President’s request for NNI R&D funding for FY2016 is $1.495 billion. This is $7.5 million
(0.5%) above the FY2015 funding level of $1.495 billion. (See Table 5.)
Table 5. National Nanotechnology Initiative Funding, FY2014-FY2016
(budget authority, in millions of current dollars)
FY2014
Actual
FY2015
Estimate
FY2016
Request
$1,574.3
$1,487.8
$1,495.3
Change, FY2015-FY2016
Dollar
Percent
$7.5
0.5%
Source: Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Committee, National Science and Technology Council,
The White House, Supplement to the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2016, The National Nanotechnology Initiative:
Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry, March 11, 2015.
Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Program24
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 is requesting $4.091 billion in FY2016 for the NITRD program. (See Table 6.)
This is $123.5 million (3.1%) above the FY2015 funding level. The largest agency increases in
NITRD funding under the Administration’s FY2016 request are for the DOE ($65.1 million,
10.3%) and NSF ($31.0 million, 2.6%). The President’s budget would reduce NITRD funding at
DOD by $10.0 million (1.4%), DHS by $6.1 million (7.7%), and the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality (part of HHS) by $5.3 million (18.8%).25
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.
24
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)
.
25
EOP, NSTC, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development, Supplement to the President’s FY2016 Budget for Fiscal Year 2016, The Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development Program, pp. 6-7, February 2015, https://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/
2016supplement/FY2016NITRDSupplement.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Table 6. Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
Program Funding, FY2014-FY2016
(budget authority, in millions of current dollars)
FY2014
Actual
FY2015
Estimate
FY2016
Request
$3,885.6
$3,967.1
$4,090.6
Change, FY2015-FY2016
Dollar
Percent
$123.5
3.1%
Source: EOP, NSTC, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Networking and Information Technology
Research and Development, Supplement to the President’s FY2016 Budget for Fiscal Year 2016, The Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development Program, pp. 6-7, February 2015, https://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/
2016supplement/FY2016NITRDSupplement.pdf.
U.S. Global Change Research Program26
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.”27 Thirteen departments and agencies participate in the USGCRP.
The President’s request for USGCRP funding for FY2016 and USGCRP funding data for FY2014
(actual) and FY2015 (estimate) were not available at the time of publication of this report.
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.28
Among the agencies participating in the BRAIN Initiative are the Defense Advanced Research
Projects 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,”29 and to help improve the prevention,
diagnosis, and treatment of brain diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.
26
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) .
27
U.S. Global Change Research Program website, http://www.globalchange.gov/about/mission-vision-strategic-plan.
28
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.
29
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: FY2016
According to OSTP, federal investments in the BRAIN initiative totaled approximately $100
million in FY2014 and $200 million in FY2015. The President’s FY2016 budget request includes
more than $300 million for the effort, including $135 million in funding for NIH, $95 million
from DARPA, and $72 million from NSF.30 In addition, the Intelligence Advanced Research
Projects Activity (IARPA) and the FDA are expected to make contributions to the BRAIN
Initiative in FY2016.31
Precision Medicine Initiative
In his January 2015 State of the Union address, President Obama announced the Precision
Medicine Initiative (PMI), a new undertaking among HHS agencies, proposing $215 million in
FY2016 funding. The PMI seeks to build on research and discoveries that allow medical
treatments to be tailored to an individual’s unique characteristics (e.g., a patient’s genes) or the
genetic profile of an individual’s tumor.
The President’s FY2016 request for the PMI includes $130 million for NIH, $70 million for the
National Cancer Institute (NCI), $10 million for FDA, and $5 million for the Office of the
National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). NIH funding would support the
development of a voluntary national research cohort of a million or more people to provide
insights into health and disease. NCI funding would support the identification of genetic drivers
in cancer and the application of that knowledge in the development of cancer treatments. FDA
funding would support the development of databases to support the regulatory structure needed to
advance innovation in precision medicine. ONC funding would support the development of
interoperability standards and requirements to address privacy and enable secure exchange of data
across systems. 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
30
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.
31
EOP, OSTP, “Obama Administration Proposes Over $300 Million in Funding for The BRAIN Initiative,” fact sheet,
February 2015, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
brain_initiative_fy16_fact_sheet_ostp.pdf.
32
The White House, “Fact Sheet: President Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative,” press release, January 30, 2015,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/30/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-precision-medicine-initiative.
33
Email correspondence between OSTP and CRS, March 14, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
14
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
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 White House asserts
that
Since the launch of MGI in 2011, the Federal government has invested over $250 million
in new R&D and innovation infrastructure to anchor the use of advanced materials in
existing and emerging industrial sectors in the United States.36
Neither the President’s FY2015 budget nor his FY2016 budget included a table of agency funding
for the MGI. The NSTC Subcommittee on the Materials Genome Initiative (SMGI) coordinates
the initiative’s activities. Among the agencies participating in MGI R&D are DOE, DOD, U.S.
Geological Survey, NSF, NIST, NASA, NIH, and NSF. MGI also coordinates its efforts with two
other multiagency initiatives, the NNI and NITRD. 37
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.”38 Two R&D-focused components of the AMP are the National Robotics
Initiative (NRI) and the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI).
National Robotics Initiative
The National Robotics Initiative seeks to “develop robots that work with or beside people to
extend or augment human capabilities.”39 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.40
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, “Examples of Materials Applications,” accessed May 2014,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/mgi/examples.
36
The White House, Materials Genome Initiative, accessed February 27, 2015, http://www.whitehouse.gov/mgi.
37
NSTC, Committee on Technology, SMGI, “Materials Genome Initiative Strategic Plan,” December 2014,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/mgi_strategic_plan_-_dec_2014.pdf.
38
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.
39
Ibid.
40
EOP, OSTP, website, August 3, 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/03/supporting-president-s-nationalrobotics-initiative.
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
In January 2015, several agencies—NSF, NIH, NASA, USDA, and DOD—announced a new
round of funding for NRI efforts.41 Neither the President’s FY2015 nor his FY2016 budget
included a table of agency funding for the NRI, but the Analytical Perspectives supplement to the
President’s FY2016 budget indicates support for initiative funding.42
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation43
President Obama first proposed the establishment of a National Network for Manufacturing
Innovation in his FY2013 budget, which requested $1 billion to support the establishment of up
to 15 institutes. The President also included proposals for establishing the NNMI in his FY2014,
FY2015 and FY2016 budgets.
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. 44
In the absence of explicit congressional authorization and appropriations for the NNMI, the
Obama Administration competed and/or awarded eight institutes for manufacturing innovation
using the broad agency authorities and appropriations of the DOD and DOE. The Administration
has committed to establishing a ninth institute, but the focus area has not been identified.
In December 2014, Congress passed the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act
of 2014 (RAMIA), as Title VII of Division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235). President Obama signed the bill into law on December
16, 2014. RAMIA directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Network for Manufacturing
Innovation (NMI) program within the Commerce Department’s NIST.
The President’s FY2016 budget proposes discretionary funding for seven additional centers—two
each to be supported by USDA, DOE, and NIST, and one to be supported by DOD. In addition,
the President’s FY2016 budget includes a request for $1.9 billion in mandatory funding for NIST
for the establishment of 29 additional centers between FY2017 and FY2024, which would bring
the total number of centers to 45.
41
National Science Foundation, “National Robotics Initiative (NRI): The realization of co-robots acting in direct
support of individuals and groups,” Program Solicitation NSF 15-505, January 2, 2015, http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/
nsf15505/nsf15505.htm.
42
EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2016, pp. 293-294.
43
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) , and CRS Report R43857, The
Network for Manufacturing Innovation, by (name redacted)
44
DOC, FY2014 Budget in Brief, February 2012, p. 123, http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY13BIB/
fy2013bib_final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
16
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Reorganization of STEM Education Programs45
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
House and Senate 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.
The OSTP asserts that the President’s FY2016 budget continues to reduce fragmentation.46
Further government-wide details were not available at the time of publication of this report.
45
For additional information on the reorganization of federal STEM education programs, see CRS Report R43880, The
America COMPETES Acts: An Overview, by (name redacted)
; 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)
.
46
EOP, OMB, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2016, “Cuts Consolidations, and Savings,” p. 87,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/ccs.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
17
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
FY2016 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 total 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 7 shows the corresponding regular appropriations
bill that provides primary funding for the agency, including its R&D activities.
In December 2015, Congress passed, and the President signed, the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) providing discretionary appropriations for all federal agencies for
FY2016. For some federal agencies it is possible to discern R&D funding levels directly from this
act and its accompanying explanatory statement. In these cases, this report reflects the results of
P.L. 114-113. However, for some agencies, funding for R&D is included in appropriations line
items that also include non-R&D activities; therefore, in such cases, it is not possible to identify
precisely how much of the funding provided in appropriations laws is allocated to R&D
specifically. In general, R&D funding levels are known only after departments and agencies
allocate their appropriations to specific activities and report those figures.
As of the start of FY2016, Congress had not completed action on any of the 12 regular
appropriations bills for FY2015. The House Committee on Appropriations had reported all 9 of
the regular appropriations bills that provide R&D funding and the House had passed 5 of them.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations had reported all 9 of the regular appropriations bills
that provide R&D funding and the Senate had not passed any of them.
On September 30, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Continuing Appropriations Act,
2016 (P.L. 114-53), a continuing resolution (CR) that provided funding for the agencies through
December 11, 2015, until the enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or activity
provided for in this act, or until the enactment into law of the applicable appropriations act for
FY2016 without any provision for such project or activity. The CR generally provided FY2016
budget authority for FY2015 projects and activities at the rate they were funded during that fiscal
year. Most projects and activities funded in the CR were subject to an across-the-board decrease
of 0.2108%.
In addition to the general provisions that establish the coverage, duration, and rate, CRs usually
include provisions that are specific to certain agencies, accounts, or programs. These include
provisions that designate exceptions to the formula and purpose for which any referenced funding
is extended (referred to as “anomalies”) and provisions that have the effect of creating new law or
changing existing law (often used to renew expiring provisions of law). The CR includes a
number of such provisions, each of which is briefly summarized in CRS Report R44214,
Overview of the FY2016 Continuing Resolution (H.R. 719), by (name redacted) .
Because of the way that agencies report budget data to Congress, it can be difficult to identify the
portion that is R&D. Consequently, R&D data presented in the agency analyses in this report may
differ from R&D data provided by OMB.
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://www.crs.gov/cli/Clis?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.
Congressional Research Service
18
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Table 7. 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
Department of Health and Human Services
- 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, FY2016 Status Table of Appropriations, available at http://crs.gov/Pages/
AppropriationsStatusTable.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
19
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Department of Defense47
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 8.) 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,
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program, and the National Defense Sealift Fund.
The Defense Health Program (DHP) supports the delivery of health care to DOD personnel and
their families. DHP funds (including the RDT&E funds) are requested through the Defensewide
Operations and Maintenance appropriations request. The program’s RDT&E funds support
congressionally directed research in such areas as breast, prostate, and ovarian cancer and other
medical conditions. Congress appropriates funds for this program in Title VI (Other Department
of Defense Programs) of the defense appropriations bill. The Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction Program supports activities to destroy the U.S. inventory of lethal chemical agents
and munitions to avoid future risks and costs associated with storage. Funds for this program are
requested through the Defensewide Procurement appropriations request. Congress appropriates
funds for this program also in Title VI. The National Defense Sealift Fund supports the
procurement, operation and maintenance, and research and development of the nation’s naval
reserve fleet and supports a U.S. flagged merchant fleet that can serve in time of need. The
RDT&E funding for this effort is requested in the Navy’s Procurement request and appropriated
in Title V, Revolving and Management Funds, of the appropriation bill.
The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF) also contains RDT&E monies.
However, the fund does not contain an RDT&E line item as do the programs mentioned above.
The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office, which administers the fund, tracks (but
does not report) the amount of funding allocated to RDT&E. The JIEDDF funding is not included
in the table below.
RDT&E funds also have been requested and appropriated as part of DOD’s separate funding to
support efforts in what the Bush Administration had termed the Global War on Terror (GWOT),
and what the Obama Administration refers to as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
Typically, the RDT&E funds appropriated for GWOT/OCO activities go to specified Program
Elements (PEs) in Title IV. However, they are requested and accounted for separately. The Bush
Administration requested these funds in separate GWOT emergency supplemental requests. The
Obama Administration, while continuing to identify these funds uniquely as OCO requests, has
included these funds as part of the regular budget, not in emergency supplementals. However, the
Obama Administration has asked for additional OCO funds in supplemental requests, if the initial
OCO funding is not enough to get through the fiscal year. The OCO budget has been declining as
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are reduced. As the United States steps up its battle with the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), OCO funding will continue.
47
This section was originally written by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division. The section has subsequently been updated by John F. Sargent, Jr., Specialist in
Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
20
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
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
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.
These transfers are eventually reflected in Title IV prior year funding figures.
For FY2016, the Obama Administration requested $69.785 billion for DOD’s baseline Title IV
RDT&E. This is $6.101 billion above what was enacted for FY2015. It should be noted that the
overall President’s budget request did not stay within the caps of the Budget Control Act of 2011
(P.L. 112-25) as modified by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240) and the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2012 (P.L. 113-67). Whether to continue abiding by these caps was a
matter of a larger budget debate between the Administration and Congress. This debate was
reflected somewhat in the amount of funding allocated to OCO-related RDT&E, since OCO
funding is considered emergency funding and not counted toward the caps.
In addition to the baseline Title IV RDT&E request, the Administration requested $980 million in
RDT&E through the Defense Health Program and $579 million in RDT&E through the Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction program for FY2016. The Administration requested $25
million in RDT&E funding through the National Defense Sealift Fund for FY2016.
The House approved $66.151 billion for DOD’s baseline RDT&E program, $3.634 billion below
the Administration’s request. Most of this decrease can be attributed to reductions made to the Air
Force’s request. For example, the Long Range Strike program request was reduced by $460
million to reflect a rescheduling of the program. The Next Generation Refueling K-46 Aircraft
program request was reduced by $275 million because the House determined that the request of
$602 million exceeded needed funding. The House also expressed concern that the Air Force was
using funds authorized for the Space Modernization Initiative to start new programs rather than to
advance more evolutionary improvements in existing programs. As a result the House reduced the
request for the Advanced Extremely High Frequency Military Satellite Communication program
by $140 million and the Space Based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS) program request by $51 million,
while transferring the balance of the request for this latter program ($241 million) to the Air
Force’s Title IX OCO appropriation. This transfer of $241 million to the Air Force OCO RDT&E
appropriation accounts for just a portion of the $1.349 billion increase the House approved in Air
Force OCO RDT&E. The increase in Air Force OCO RDT&E also included an increase of $915
million for classified Air Force programs. In total, the House increased the request for OCO
RDT&E by $1.594 billion.
The House also reduced the Navy’s request by $648 million, with the biggest decrease made to
the Marine Assault Vehicle program (-$68 million). The Army’s request was increased by $447
million with the largest increase going to the Combat Vehicle Improvement program (+$98
million) to upgrade the lethality of the Stryker combat vehicle. The House reduced the
Defensewide account by a net $123 million. This included a $100 million general reduction of
request for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a $250 million increase
to continue support for the Defense Rapid Innovation Fund, and an increase of $165 million for
the U.S.-Israeli Cooperative program, primarily directed at ballistic missile defense technologies.
In addition to the Title IV appropriation recommendations, the House also recommended the
requested amounts for the National Defense Sealift Fund and the Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction program, $2 million for RDT&E for the Office of the Inspector General, and $1.640
billion for Defense Health Program RDT&E. The latter includes an additional $63 million added
by amendment on the House floor.
Congressional Research Service
21
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $70.325 billion for Title IV RDT&E, $540
million more than that requested by the Administration. Some notable recommended changes to
the Administration’s requests were: an increase of $350 million for the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier
Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System; an increase of $144 million for the Air
Force’s Expendable Launch Vehicle; an increase of $400 million to continue the Defense Rapid
Innovation Program in the Defensewide account; an increase of $165 million for the U.S.-Israeli
Cooperative program in the Defensewide account; and an increase of $203 million for the
Defense Technology Analysis program in the Defensewide account. The latter was directed
toward assessing the cyber vulnerability of major weapons systems.
In addition to the Title IV appropriation recommendations, the Senate Committee also
recommended the requested RDT&E funds for the National Defense Sealift Fund and the
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction program. The committee recommended $2 million
in RDT&E for the Office of the Inspector General. The committee also recommended increasing
RDT&E funding in the Defense Health Program by $819 million. The committee recommended
funding for OCO RDT&E at the requested levels.
Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) provides FY2016
appropriations for DOD. President Obama signed the act on December 18, 2015. The act provides
$69.785 billion for Title IV RDT&E, $6 million (9.6%) more than for FY2015 and equal to the
request in aggregate. The aggregate Title IV DOD RDT&E funding level includes:
Army: $7.565 billion for FY2016, $892 million (13.4%) more than for FY2015
and $640 million (9.2%) more than the request;
Navy: $18.118 billion for FY2016, $2.163 billion (13.6%) more than for FY2015
and $232 million (1.3%) more than the request.
Air Force: $25.217 billion for FY2016, $1.587 billion (6.7%) more than for
FY2015 and $1.257 (4.7%) billion less than the request.
Defensewide: $18.696 billion for FY2016, $1.479 billion (8.6%) more than for
FY2015 and $266 million (2.0%) more than the request.
In addition, the act fully funds the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction RDT&E at $579
million, $17 million (2.8%) below the FY2015 level, and provides $2.122 billion for Defense
Health Program RDT&E, $1.142 billion (116.5%) more than the request and $391 million
(22.6%) above the FY2015 level. The act also provides $25 million for RDT&E in the National
Defense Sealift Fund, an amount equal to the request and $1 million (3.2%) more than in
FY2015, and $2 million in RDT&E for the Office of the Inspector General, $1 million (50.0%)
more than in FY2015 and $2.6 million (55.3%) less than the request. P.L. 114-113 also fully
funded the OCO request and added an additional $40 million to support the Israel Technical
Working Group.
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
Congressional Research Service
22
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
provides management support, including support for test and evaluation facilities. Budget activity
6.7 supports the development of 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 into the future. The knowledge generated at this stage of development can
also contribute to advances in commercial technologies.
The FY2016 Title IV baseline S&T funding request was $12.266 billion, $81 million more than
what was enacted in FY2015. The House voted to appropriate $12.573 billion for Title IV S&T.
This includes the $100 million general reduction to DARPA’s request. The Senate Appropriation
Committee recommended $12.822 billion for Title IV S&T. P.L. 114-113 provides $13.250 billion
for Title IV S&T for FY2016, $984 million (8.0%) more than the request and $1.065 billion
(8.7%) above the FY2015 level.
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 $2.089 billion for basic research
for FY2016. This is $189 million less than what was enacted for FY2015. The House approved
$2.100 billion for basic research (not counting the DARPA general reduction). The Senate
Appropriation Committee recommended $2.317 billion in basic research. Much of the Senate
Committee’s recommended increase would go toward in-house basic research and toward
increases in the Navy’s University Research Initiatives. P.L. 114-113 provides $2.309 billion for
basic research, $32 million (1.4%) more than in FY2015 and $221 million (10.6%) more than the
request.
Table 8. Department of Defense RDT&E
(in millions of dollars)
FY2015
Enacted
Budget
Account
Base
FY2016
Request
OCO
Base
FY2016
House
OCO
Base
FY2016
S. Cmte.
FY2016
Enacted
OCO
Base
OCO
Base
OCO
Army
6,673
2
6,925
2
7,372
2
7,097
2
7,565
2
Navy
15,955
36
17,886
36
17,238
218
18,237
36
18,118
36
Air Force
23,630
15
26,474
17
23,163
1,366
25,874
17
25,217
17
Defensewide
17,217
270a
137
18,207b
199
18,926
137
18,696
177
Dir., Test &
Evaluation
209
Total Title
IV—By
Accountc
63,684
18,330
171
322
69,785
171
191
66,151b
191
1,785
70,325
189
191
69,785
231
Budget
Activity
6.1 Basic
Research
2,278
Congressional Research Service
2,089
2,100d
2,317
2,309
23
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
FY2015
Enacted
FY2016
Request
FY2016
House
FY2016
S. Cmte.
FY2016
Enacted
Budget
Account
Base
6.2 Applied
Research
4,603
45
4,713
4,838d
6.3 Advanced
Tech. Dev.
5,304
23
5,464
5,735d
6.4 Advanced
Component
Dev. and
Prototypes
12,472
19
14,402
6.5 Systems
Dev. And
Demo
11,101
10
6.6
Management
Supporte
4,396
6.7 Op.
Systems Dev.f
23,530
225
26,161
190
23,931
1,447
25,231
190
25,253
190
Total Title
IV—by
Budget
Activityc
63,684
322
69,785
191
66,151bg
1,785
70,325
191
69,785i
231
OCO
Base
OCO
Base
OCO
Base
OCO
Base
OCO
4,928
5,004
40
5,577
5,937
13,621
57
14,936
12,771
11,704
241
12,839
12,795
4,185
4,321
4,496
4,424
2
2
14,083
42
Title V—
Revolving
and
Management
Funds
National
Defense Sealift
Fund
24
25
25
25
25
1,731
980
1,640h
1,799
2,122
Chemical
Agents and
Munitions
Destruction
596
579
579
579
579
Inspector
General
1
5
2
2
2
Title VI—
Other
Defense
Programs
Defense
Health
Program
Grand Totalc
66,036
322
71,374
191
68,397
1,785
72,730
191
72,513
231
Source: CRS, adapted from the Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2016 RDT&E Programs (R-1),
February 2015. H.Rept. 114-139. S.Rept. 114-63; Explanatory Statement, P.L. 114-113.
a. This figure includes $95 million for Ebola Response and Preparedness.
b. These figures include a $100 million general reduction to the recommended DARPA appropriation.
Congressional Research Service
24
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
These figures do not include the $100 million general reduction to the recommended DARPA
appropriation, since it is not possible to determine how this reduction will be allocated.
Includes funding for Director of Test and Evaluation.
Includes funding for Classified Programs.
This figure does not equal the sum of the column because the 6.1 through 6.3 funding does not reflect the
$100 million DARPA general reduction.
This includes $63 million added to the Defense Health program RDT&E account on the House floor, which
was offset by an equal reduction in the Defensewide Operations and Maintenance account.
This figure does not equal the sum of the column because the 6.1 to 6.7 components above do not reflect
the $100 million DARPA general reduction
Department of Homeland Security48
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 requested $1.154 billion in FY2016 for R&D and related programs in DHS. This
was a 19.2% decrease from $1.430 billion in FY2015. The total included $779 million for the
S&T Directorate, $357 million for DNDO, and $18 million for Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation (RDT&E) in the U.S. Coast Guard. The House committee recommended a total of
$1.162 billion, including $787 million for the S&T Directorate, $357 million for DNDO, and $18
million for Coast Guard RDT&E. The Senate committee recommended a total of $1.103 billion,
including $765 million for the S&T Directorate, $320 million for DNDO, and $18 million for
Coast Guard RDT&E. The final appropriation provided $1.152 billion, including $787 million for
the S&T Directorate, $347 million for DNDO, and $18 million for Coast Guard RDT&E. (See
Table 9.)
Directorate of Science and Technology
The S&T Directorate is the primary DHS R&D organization.49 Led by a Senate-confirmed 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 $779 million for the S&T Directorate in FY2016
was 29.4% less than the FY2015 appropriation of $1.104 billion. Most of the difference resulted
from a lower request for Laboratory Facilities, which received $300 million in FY2015 for
construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF). No further funds for NBAF
construction were requested in FY2016. Within the request for Research, Development, and
48
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
49
For more information, see CRS Report R43064, The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress, by (name
redacted)
.
Congressional Research Service
25
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Innovation (RD&I), support for Apex projects was to increase to $78 million in FY2016.50 Apex
projects are multidisciplinary projects agreed to between the S&T Directorate and the head of
another DHS component. The FY2016 request proposed supporting six Apex projects in addition
to the previous two. It also proposed a crosscutting “technology engines” activity within the Apex
program. The request for University Programs, which funds S&T’s university centers of
excellence (together with some smaller programs), was $31 million, down from $40 million in
FY2015.
The House committee’s recommendation of $787 million for S&T was $8 million more than the
request. In its report, the House committee recommended a $9 million increase (relative to the
request) for University Programs, which it said would be sufficient to support all the existing
centers of excellence. Other differences relative to the request were small. The committee
expressed support for the Apex concept and recommended Apex funding at the requested level.
The Senate committee’s recommendation of $765 million for S&T was $14 million less than the
request. In its report, the Senate committee recommended an $8 million increase (relative to the
request) for University Programs, offset by a $20 million decrease for RD&I. Other differences
relative to the request were small. The committee stated that the University Programs increase
would allow S&T to maintain at least 10 university centers of excellence (the current number).
The committee did not specify how the decrease for RD&I should be allocated. It did state that
“not less than prior year funding” should be allocated to the Apex program and directed S&T to
“continue its focus” on three of the six new Apex projects.
The final appropriation of $787 million was $8 million more than the request. It included an
increase of $9 million for University Programs, partially offset by decreases of less than $1
million for Laboratory Facilities and Management and Administration. The explanatory statement
was silent regarding the Apex program.
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
DNDO is the DHS organization responsible for nuclear detection research, development, testing,
evaluation, acquisition, and operational support. It is led by a presidentially appointed Director. In
addition to its responsibilities within DHS, it is charged with coordinating federal nuclear
forensics programs and the U.S. portion of the global nuclear detection architecture. The
Administration requested $357 million for DNDO in FY2016, an increase of 16.1% from the
FY2015 appropriation of $308 million. In the Systems Acquisition account, the Administration
proposed to merge the Radiation Portal Monitors program ($5 million in FY2015) and the Human
Portable Radiation Detection Systems program ($49 million in FY2015) into a single, expanded
Radiological and Nuclear Detection Equipment Acquisition program ($101 million requested for
FY2016). The increase in funding for the merged program was to support recapitalization of DHS
radiation detection equipment that is at or past its life expectancy.
The House committee’s recommendation of $357 million for DNDO was the same as the
Administration’s request, except for a reduction of less than $1 million in the Management and
Administration account. The committee concurred with the Administration’s proposed
consolidation and expansion of the Nuclear Detection Equipment Acquisition program.
50
The FY2015 act and explanatory statement did not specify the allocation of funding to Apex projects within the total
provided for RD&I. Apex funding was $15 million in FY2014 and in the FY2015 request.
Congressional Research Service
26
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
The Senate committee’s recommendation of $320 million for DNDO was $37 million less than
the request. The reduction included $1 million from the Management and Administration account
and $36 million from the new Nuclear Detection Equipment Acquisition program.
The final appropriation of $347 million for DNDO was $10 million less than the request. The
reduction included less than $1 million from Management and Administration and $10 million
from Nuclear Detection Equipment Acquisition.
Coordination of DHS R&D Activities
DHS-wide coordination of R&D activities has been an issue for several years. 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.51 The GAO report found that DHS lacked department-wide policies to define
R&D and guide reporting of R&D activities, and, as a result, DHS did 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 the FY2013 and FY2014 appropriations cycles, Congress responded to GAO’s findings by
directing DHS to develop new policies and procedures. 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.52 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.53
Concerns remain, however. In September 2014, GAO testified that DHS had updated its guidance
to include a definition of R&D, but that efforts to develop a process for coordinating R&D across
the department were ongoing but not yet complete.54 In April 2015, GAO’s annual report on
fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative federal programs stated that its concerns about DHS
R&D had been only “partially addressed.”55
In the FY2016 appropriations cycle, the House committee’s report stated that “The Department
needs a strategic planning process to focus research and development and future investments.”56
In December 2015, the final explanatory statement noted as follows:
The Department lacks a mechanism for capturing and understanding research and
development (R&D) activities conducted across DHS, as well as coordinating R&D to
51
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.
52
Congressional Record, March 11, 2013, p. S1547.
53
Congressional Record, January 15, 2014, p. H927.
54
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Department of Homeland Security: Actions Needed to Strengthen
Management of Research and Development, GAO-14-865T, September 9, 2014.
55
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2015 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation,
Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, GAO-15-404SP, April 2015.
56
H.Rept. 114-215, p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
27
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
reflect departmental priorities. As part of the Unity of Effort initiative and in order to
address the above concerns, DHS is establishing Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) to
assist the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) with requirements gathering,
validation, and alignment of budgetary resources. IPTs, comprised of personnel from
across DHS, will be tasked with identifying and prioritizing technological capability gaps
and coordinating departmental R&D to close those gaps. The overall IPT effort will be
led by the Under Secretary for S&T, but individual IPTs will be led by senior
representatives from the operational components, and will have representation from the
JRC [Joint Requirements Council] Portfolio Teams and S&T.
S&T will also play a critical role in helping DHS-wide acquisition programs by
conducting independent technical assessments of acquisitions, including participation in
developmental test and evaluation activities, to ensure DHS acquisitions effectively fill
identified capability gaps. S&T is directed to brief the Committees not later than January
15, 2016, on the results of the first IPTs and technology assessments. 57
Proposed Reorganization
In 2013, Congress directed DHS to review its programs relating to chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear threats and to evaluate “potential improvements in performance and
possible savings in costs that might be gained by consolidation of current organizations and
missions, including the option of merging functions of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
(DNDO) and the Office of Health Affairs (OHA).”58 The report of this review was completed in
June 2015. In July 2015, DHS officials testified that DHS planned to consolidate DNDO, OHA,
and smaller elements of several other DHS programs into a new office, led by a new Assistant
Secretary, with responsibility for DHS-wide coordination of chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear, and explosives (CBRNE) “strategy, policy, situational awareness, threat and risk
assessments, contingency planning, operational requirements, acquisition formulation and
oversight, and preparedness.”59 The House and Senate committee reports on FY2016
appropriations did not address the proposed consolidation. A provision in the final bill prohibited
DHS from using FY2016 funds to establish an Office of CBRNE Defense “until such time as
Congress has authorized such establishment.”60 The provision did, however, give DHS the
authority to transfer funds for the establishment of such an office, if authorized.
57
Congressional Record, December 17, 2015, p. H10162.
Explanatory statement on the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6),
Congressional Record, March 11, 2013, p. S1547.
59
Joint prepared testimony of Reginald Brothers, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Kathryn H. Brinsfield,
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and Chief Medical Officer, and Huban A. Gowadia, Director of the Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office, Department of Homeland Security, before the House Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittees on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications and Cybersecurity, Infrastructure
Protection, and Security Technologies, July 14, 2015, http://homeland.house.gov/hearing/joint-subcommittee-hearingweapons-mass-destruction-bolstering-dhs-combat-persistent-threats.
60
P.L. 114-113, Div. F, Sec. 521.
58
Congressional Research Service
28
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Table 9. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
Enacted
FY2016
Request
FY2016
H. Cmte.
FY2016
S. Cmte.
FY2016
Final
$1,104
$779
$787
$765
$787
Management and Administration
130a
132
132
130
132b
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
974c
647
655d
634d
655d
Research, Development, and Innovation
457
435
435
415
435
Laboratory Facilities
435
134
134
134
134
Acquisition and Operations Support
42
47
47
47
47
University Programs
40
31
40
39
40
308
357
357
320
347
Directorate of Science and Technology
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
Management and Administration
37
38
38
38
38
Research, Development, and Operations
198
196
196
196
196
Systems Architecture
17
17
17
17
17
Systems Development
21
22
22
22
22
Transformational R&D
70
68
68
68
68
Assessments
38
38
38
38
38
Operations Support
31
31
31
31
31
National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center
21
20
20
20
20
73
123
123
87
113
Rad./Nuc. Detection Equipment Acquisition
—
101
101
65
91
Radiation Portal Monitors Program
5
—
—
—
—
Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems
49
—
—
—
—
Systems Acquisition
Securing the Cities
U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E
DHS, Total R&D and Related Programs
19
22
22
22
22
18
18
18
18
18
1,430
1,154
1,162
1,103
1,152
Sources: FY2015 enacted from P.L. 114-4 and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, January 13, 2015.
FY2016 request from DHS FY2016 congressional budget justification. FY2016 House Committee from H.R. 3128
as reported and H.Rept. 114-215. FY2016 Senate Committee from S. 1619 as reported and S.Rept. 114-68.
FY2016 final from P.L. 114-113 and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, December 17, 2015.
Note: Totals may differ from sum of components due to rounding.
a. Does not reflect a rescission of $0.5 million from unobligated prior-year balances.
b. Does not reflect a rescission of $0.3 million from unobligated prior-year balances.
c. Does not reflect a rescission of $16.6 million from unobligated prior-year balances.
d. Does not reflect rescissions totaling $10.0 million from unobligated prior-year balances.
Congressional Research Service
29
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Department of Health and Human Services
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the federal government’s “principal
agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services,
especially for those who are least able to help themselves.”61
The President is requesting $31.0 billion in R&D funding for HHS, an increase of $565 million
(1.9%) from its FY2015 level of $30.5 billion. Several components of HHS provide funding for
R&D. This report focuses on HHS R&D funded through NIH, an HHS agency which provides
more than 95% of total HHS R&D funding.62
The President’s FY2016 request for R&D at other HHS agencies includes:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: $398 million, equal to the amount it
received in FY2015.
Food and Drug Administration: $410 million, equal to the amount it received in
FY2015.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: $385 million, an increase of $1
million (0.3%) from its FY2015 level.
Health Resources and Services Administration: $22 million, equal to the amount
it received in FY2015.
Administration for Children and Families: $17 million, an increase of $6 million
(54.5%) from its FY2015 level.63
In addition, the President’s budget would eliminate R&D funding for the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services, which received $64 million in FY2015, and provide $163 million for
departmental management related to R&D, an increase of $6 million (3.8%) above its FY2015
level.64
National Institutes of Health65
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. 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.”66 The agency’s organization consists of the Office of the NIH Director (OD) and 27
institutes and centers (ICs).
61
HHS, “About,” http://www.hhs.gov/about.
Email correspondence between OMB and CRS, February 9, 2015.
63
Ibid.
64
Ibid.
65
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: FY1994FY2016, by (name redacted) .
66
National Institutes of Health, “About the National Institutes of Health,” http://www.nih.gov/about/mission.htm.
62
Congressional Research Service
30
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
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.67 OD sets overall policy and
coordinates the programs and activities of all NIH components, particularly in areas of research
that involve multiple institutes. The 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 10, 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 Labor, HHS, and Education (Labor/HHS/ED)
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. Each year NIH has also received $150 million in mandatory funding that is provided in
the Public Health Service (PHS) Act for a special program on type 1 diabetes research. In
addition, NIH has received funding via a PHS Act transfer. The total funding available for NIH
activities, taking account of transfers, is known as the NIH program level.
For FY2016, the Obama Administration requested an NIH program level total of $31.311 billion,
an increase of $1 billion (3.3%) over the FY2015 level of $30.311 billion (see Table 10). The
FY2016 program level request for NIH included $150 million in mandatory funding for research
on type 1 diabetes.68 The FY2016 program level request also proposed $847 million in funding
transferred to NIH by the PHS Program Evaluation Set-Aside, also called the evaluation tap. NIH
and other HHS agencies and programs authorized under the PHS Act are subject to a budget
assessment found in Section 241 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. §238j). It 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 evaluation tap to no more than 1% of
eligible appropriations, in recent years the annual Labor/HHS/ED appropriations act has specified
a higher amount (2.5% in FY2015 and in FY2016) and directed specific amounts of funding from
the evaluation 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, until recently, a relatively minor recipient.69
67
Department of Health and Human Services, Fiscal Year 2016 Budget in Brief, Washington, DC, February 2, 2015, p.
45, http://www.hhs.gov/budget/fy2016/fy-2016-budget-in-brief.pdf.
68
Mandatory funds for type 1 diabetes research under PHS Act §330B were provided by the Protecting Access to
Medicare Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-93) in FY2015 and by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015
(P.L. 114-10) for FY2016 and FY2017.
69
For FY2015, although NIH contributed an estimated $700 million to the tap, it received $715 million under P.L. 113235, an increase over the $8.2 million NIH received in FY2014 and prior years from the transfer. P.L. 113-235
allocated 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. By convention, budget tables such as Table 10 do not subtract the amount of the evaluation tap from the donor
agencies’ appropriations. For further information on the PHS Evaluation Set-Aside, see CRS Report R43304, Public
Health Service Agencies: Overview and Funding (FY2010-FY2016), coordinated by (name redacted) and (name
redacted) .
Congressional Research Service
31
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Under the President’s FY2016 budget request, most ICs would have received a 2% to 4% increase
compared to FY2015 with few exceptions, such as a $70 million (6%) increase for the National
Institute on Aging and a $57 million (17%) increase for the National Library of Medicine (NLM).
The increase for NLM was targeted for the National Center for Biotechnology Information to
support PubMed Central in providing public access to papers emanating from NIH research. The
increase was also for ClinicalTrials.gov to accommodate the increased volume of clinical trial
reporting due to a proposed expansion of NIH trial reporting policy and implementation of
regulations related to the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA).70
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.71 Some bills may propose authorizations for designated research purposes, but funding
generally remains subject to discretionary appropriations and the NIH peer review process.
The House Appropriations Committee-reported version of the FY2016 Labor/HHS/ED
appropriations bill (H.R. 3020) would have provided NIH with a total of $31.184 billion,
including $1.01 billion provided by the evaluation tap.72 Adding to this total the amount for
Superfund-related activities ($77 million) and the mandatory type 1 diabetes program ($150
million) would bring the FY2016 NIH program level to $31.411 billion.
The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported version of the FY2016 Labor/HHS/ED
appropriations bill (S. 1695) would have provided NIH with a total of $32.084 billion, including
$940 million provided by the evaluation tap and an estimated $650 million in new funding from
the HHS Non-recurring Expenses Fund (NEF).73 Adding to this total the amount for Superfundrelated activities ($77 million) and the mandatory type 1 diabetes program ($150 million) would
bring the FY2016 NIH program level to $32.311 billion.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (H.R. 2029, P.L. 114-113) provides $32.084 billion
for NIH in Division H (the Labor/HHS/Education appropriations act): $31.304 billion for the ICs
plus $780 million in funding via the PHS Act transfer. With the addition of the $77 million for
70
NIH, FY2016 Justification of Estimates for Appropriation Committees, Vol. V, National Library of Medicine, p.
NLM-6, at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/about/2016CJ_NLM.pdf.
71
See NIH website, “Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC),”
http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx.
72
The House passed version of H.R. 3020 would have set the PHS evaluation tap assessment at not more than 2.4% or
$1.068 billion, whichever is less.
73
S. 1695 would have set the PHS evaluation tap assessment at not more than 2.5%, and the final bill set the tap for
FY2016 at not more than 2.5% (P.L. 114-113). The HHS Secretary is authorized to transfer to the NEF unobligated
balances of certain expired discretionary funds. Under current law, NEF funds are available until expended for use by
the HHS Secretary for capital acquisitions including facility and information technology infrastructure. Congressional
appropriators must be notified in advance of any planned use of NEF funds. NEF funds have been used by HHS for
expenses related to the Affordable Care Act, such as the federally facilitated exchanges. (See CRS Report R43066,
Federal Funding for Health Insurance Exchanges, by (name redacted) and (name redacted)
.) The Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported FY2016 Labor/HHS/ED appropriations bill included language that would have
repurposed the NEF for NIH biomedical research activities. S.Rept. 114-74 stated on p. 105 that the NEF “funding
shall be transferred to and merged with the accounts for the various” ICs and the OD “in proportion to their shares of
total NIH appropriations made by this act.” Note that the House Appropriations Committee-reported FY2016
Labor/HHS/ED appropriations bill would have terminated the NEF and rescinded unobligated balances. However, the
FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 114-113) did not enact either of these proposals.
Congressional Research Service
32
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Superfund-related research and the $150 million in diabetes funding, the NIH program level is
$32.311 billion in FY2016, an increase of $2 billion (7%) over FY2015.74
The overview below outlines research priorities in the FY2016 NIH budget and selected
responses from the House and Senate appropriation committee report language as well as the
explanatory statement that accompanies the final bill, H.R. 2029 (P.L. 114-113).75
BRAIN. About 54% of the proposed NIH budget focuses on basic biomedical and behavioral
research. The Brain Research through Application of Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN)
Initiative is a collaborative effort with the National Science Foundation and the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency. It develops and applies new tools for the study of complex
brain functions. The Administration requested a $70 million increase over FY2015 for the NIH
portion of BRAIN, bringing the total to about $135 million in FY2016. The House report on H.R.
3020 stated that it would provide an $85 million increase for BRAIN in FY2016.76 The Senate
report on S. 1695 stated that it supported a $70 million increase.77 P.L. 114-113 provides an $85
million increase for BRAIN.
Alzheimer’s Disease. To continue implementing the research components of the National Plan to
Address Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), NIH estimated it would spend $638 million on AD research
in FY2016, an increase of $51 million over FY2015. In a section on the National Institute on
Aging (NIA), the House report on H.R. 3020 specified funding for Alzheimer’s disease research
at $886 million, an increase of $300 million over FY2015. In contrast, the Senate report on S.
1695 stated, “In keeping with long-standing tradition, the Committee has not earmarked funding
for research on specific diseases. However, the Committee has included a $350,971,000 increase
for NIA and expects that a significant portion will be dedicated to high quality research on
Alzheimer’s disease, subject to the scientific opportunity presented in the peer review process.”78
The explanatory statement on H.R. 2029 (P.L. 114-113) states that an increase of $350 million is
provided for Alzheimer’s disease research.
Antimicrobial Resistance. NIH would target $461 million in FY2016 to support the
Administration’s National Strategy to Combat Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, an increase of $100
million over FY2015. The increase is supported by both House and Senate appropriation
committees as well as the explanatory statement on H.R. 2029 (P.L. 114-113).
Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI). The FY2016 budget request proposed a total of $215
million for a multi-agency precision medicine initiative: $10 million to FDA to support the
development of the necessary regulatory approaches, $5 million to the Office of the National
Coordinator for Health Information Technology for developing relevant data privacy and sharing
requirements, and $200 million to support biomedical research at NIH. Of the amount for NIH,
$130 million is for the development of a national research cohort composed of 1 million or more
volunteers. The cohort’s health, genetic, environmental and other data would be collected and
used in research studies to identify novel therapeutics and prevention strategies. The proposal
would use existing smaller research cohorts rather than recruiting 1 million new participants. The
National Cancer Institute would use the remaining $70 million of NIH funds to explore the
74
Superfund amount provided by Division G of P.L. 114-113, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016.
75
The amounts discussed in the text below regarding the Administration’s FY2016 request are based on the NIH
section in Fiscal Year 2016 Budget in Brief, pp. 44-49, http://www.hhs.gov/budget/fy2016/fy-2016-budget-in-brief.pdf.
76
H.Rept. 114-195, p. 57.
77
S.Rept. 114-74, p. 9.
78
S.Rept. 114-74, p. 95.
Congressional Research Service
33
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
genetics of tumor cells that are resistant to therapy, to determine the efficacy of combination
therapies that target specific tumor mutations, and for research on non-invasive methods to track
response to cancer treatment. Both House and Senate appropriation committees indicated support
for PMI and the explanatory statement states that it includes $200 million for PMI in FY2016.
Biomedical Research Workforce. NIH estimated it would spend $785 million—$23 million more
than in FY2015—to support 15,735 individuals, with a 2% stipend increase for predoctoral and
postdoctoral trainees, in its major research training program, the Ruth L. Kirschstein National
Research Service Awards. The explanatory statement accompanying H.R. 2029 (P.L. 114-113)
states it “expects NIH to support the number of Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service
Awards and other training grants in proportion to at least the general IC level funding increase.
The agreement expects NIH to provide a stipend level and inflationary increases to grantees that
is at least consistent with any fiscal year 2016 Federal employee pay raise.”
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). The explanatory statement
accompanying H.R. 2029 (P.L. 114-113) indicates that funding is provided directly to NLM for
NCBI “to meet the challenge of collecting, organizing, analyzing, and disseminating the
increasing amounts of data related to research in molecular biology and genomics and to support
the deposit of manuscripts in PubMed Central under the NIH Public Access Policy.”
Pediatric Research. NIH estimated it would spend over $3.6 billion on pediatric research in
FY2016, an increase of $75 million over FY2015. The $13 million authorized for pediatric
research by the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-94) would continue in
FY2016. The House and Senate appropriation committees allocated $12.6 million for pediatric
research via the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act as did the explanatory statement
accompanying H.R. 2029 (P.L. 114-113) which encouraged NIH to prioritize research on
childhood cancer and provide an update in the FY2017 NIH budget request.
National Children’s Study. Both committees commented on the cancellation of the National
Children’s Study (NCS) by NIH in December 2014.79 The House Appropriations Committee
“directs and provides funding for the continuation of the NCS in an alternative form” while the
Senate Appropriations Committee “urges NIH to recalibrate and realign the investment already
made in the NCS to initiate new and focus existing longitudinal studies to address the objectives
identified for the NCS.”80 The explanatory statement accompanying H.R. 2029 (P.L. 114-113)
provides funding to the NIH Office of the Director for the follow-on to the NCS and “expects
NIH to continue to move forward based on the directions provided by the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate.”
Research Project Grants. The main funding mechanism for supporting NIH extramural research
is research project grants (RPGs), which are competitive, peer-reviewed, and largely investigatorinitiated. The FY2016 budget requested total funding for RPGs of $17.2 billion, representing
about 55% of NIH’s proposed budget. The request would support an estimated 35,447 RPG
awards. Within that total, 10,000 would be competing RPGs, an increase of over 1,200 grants
compared with FY2015. (Competing awards are new grants plus competing renewals of existing
grants.) NIH estimated the average amount of a competing RPG in FY2016 would be about
$461,000, up from about $457,000 in FY2015.
79
National Institutes of Health, “Statement on the National Children’s Study,” press release, December 12, 2014,
http://nih.gov/about/director/12122014_statement_ACD.htm.
80
H.Rept. 114-195, p. 78; and., S.Rept. 114-74, p. 104.
Congressional Research Service
34
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Table 10. National Institutes of Health Funding
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2015
Enacted
FY2016
Request
FY2016
H. Cmte.
FY2016
S. Cmte.
FY2016
Final
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
$4,950
$5,098
$5,082
$5,204
$5,215
National Heart, Lung, & Blood Institute
(NHLBI)
2,998
3,072
3,035
3,136
3,116
Dental/Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
400
407
405
415
416
Diabetes/Digestive/Kidney (NIDDK)a
1,750
1,788
1,771
1,825
1,818
Neurological Disorders/Stroke (NINDS)
1,605
1,660
1,656
1,695
1,696
Allergy/Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
4,359
4,615
4,513
4,710
4,630
General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
1,656
1,587
1,429
1,571
1,732
Child Health/Human Development (NICHD)
1,287
1,318
1,306
1,345
1,340
National Eye Institute (NEI)
684
695
698
710
716
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
668
682
676
696
694
1,199
1,267
1,518
1,548
1,600
Arthritis/Musculoskeletal/Skin Diseases
(NIAMS)
522
533
528
544
542
Deafness/Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
405
416
412
425
423
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
1,463
1,489
1,512
1,520
1,548
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
1,029
1,047
1,051
1,069
1,077
Alcohol Abuse/Alcoholism (NIAAA)
447
460
456
469
468
National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
141
145
143
148
146
National Human Genome Research Institute
(NHGRI)
499
515
506
526
519
Biomedical Imaging/Bioengineering (NIBIB)
330
337
338
344
347
Minority Health/Health Disparities (NIMHD)
269
282
272
287
280
Complementary/Integrative Health (NCCIH)b
125
128
128
130
131
Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)
635
660
643
699
685
Fogarty International Center (FIC)
68
70
69
71
70
National Library of Medicine (NLM)
337
394
341
402
395
Office of Director (OD)
1,414
1,443
1,552
874
1,571
Buildings & Facilities (B&F)
129
129
133
129
129
29,369
30,237
30,174
30,494
31,304
715
847
1,010
940
780
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
Subtotal, Labor/HHS Appropriation
PHS Evaluation Tap fundingc
Non-recurring Expenses Fund (NEF)
Subtotal, NIH
650
30,084
31,084
31,184
32,084
32,084
Superfund (Interior appropriation to NIEHS)d
77
77
77
77
77
Pre-appropriated type 1 diabetes fundse
150
150
150
150
150
30,311
31,311
31,411
32,311
32,311
Total, NIH program level
Congressional Research Service
35
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Sources: H.Rept. 114-195, pp. 232-234; S.Rept. 114-74, pp. 231-233; and detailed tables of the explanatory
statement accompanying H.R. 2029 (P.L. 114-113).
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding. Amounts in table may differ from
actuals in many cases. By convention, budget tables such as Table 10 do not subtract the amount of transfers,
such as the evaluation tap, from the agencies’ appropriation. CRS estimated the NIH contribution to the
evaluation tap to be over $700 million for FY2015. FY2015 amounts do not include $238,000,000 for NIAID for
research on Ebola that was provided in P.L. 113-235 (Title VI of Division G).
a. Amounts for NIDDK do not include mandatory funding for type 1 diabetes research (see note h).
b. Reflects name change from National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine to National
Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; provision included in P.L. 113-235.
c. Additional funds for NIGMS from PHS Evaluation Set-Aside (§241 of PHS Act).
d. This is a separate account in the Interior/Environment appropriations for NIEHS research activities related
to Superfund; H.Rept. 114-170, p. 77, S.Rept. 114-70, p. 5.
e. Mandatory funds available to NIDDK for type 1 diabetes research under PHS Act §330B (provided by P.L.
113-93 in FY2015 and P.L. 114-10 in FY2016).
Department of Energy81
The Department of Energy (DOE) was established in 1977 by the Department of Energy
Organization Act (P.L. 95-91), which combined energy-related programs from a variety of other
agencies with defense-related nuclear programs that dated back to the Manhattan Project. Today,
DOE conducts basic scientific research in areas ranging from nuclear physics to the biological
and environmental sciences, basic and applied R&D relating to energy production and use, and
R&D on nuclear weapons, nuclear nonproliferation, and defense nuclear reactors. The department
has a system of 17 national laboratories around the country, mostly operated by contractors, that
together account for about 40% of all DOE expenditures.
The Administration requested $14.178 billion in FY2016 for DOE R&D and related activities,
including programs in three major categories: science, national security, and energy. This request
was 12.2% more than the FY2015 appropriation of $12.640 billion. The House bill (H.R. 2028 as
passed by the House) would have provided $12.813 billion. The Senate bill (H.R. 2028 as
reported in the Senate) would have provided $13.154 billion. The enacted omnibus bill (P.L. 114113) provided $13.680 billion. (See Table 11 for details.)
The request for the DOE Office of Science was $5.340 billion, an increase of 5.4% from the
FY2015 appropriation of $5.068 billion. There is no authorized funding level for the Office of
Science for FY2016. The most recent authorization act (the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010, P.L. 111-358) authorized appropriations through FY2013. The
FY2016 budget request did not mention the Obama Administration’s previous goal of doubling
the combined funding of the Office of Science and two other agencies. (For more information on
the doubling goal and how it has evolved, see “Efforts to Double Certain R&D Accounts.”) The
original target, announced by the Bush Administration in 2006, was to achieve the doubling in the
decade from FY2006 to FY2016. The FY2016 request for the Office of Science was 47% more
than its FY2006 baseline. The House bill would have provided $5.100 billion, 40% above the
baseline. The Senate bill would have provided $5.144 billion, 42% above the baseline. The final
bill provided $5.350 billion, 47% above the baseline.
81
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy,CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
36
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
The Office of Science includes six major research programs. The request for the largest program,
Basic Energy Sciences (BES), was $1.849 billion, an increase of 6.7%. Within BES, a proposed
increase of $62 million for continued construction of the Linac Coherent Light Source II (LCLSII) was slightly less than previously projected; however, the projected future cost of completing
the project in FY2017 through FY2019 increased. A proposed increase of $35 million for
Scientific User Facilities was to support increased operating hours at multiple BES research
facilities. Energy Frontier Research Centers were to increase by $10 million to support up to 10
new centers. The House bill would have provided $79 million less than the request, including $8
million less for LCLS-II construction, $57 million less for Scientific User Facilities, and $12
million less for Energy Frontier Research Centers. The Senate bill would have provided the
requested amount for LCLS-II construction, but $5 million less than the request for the remainder
of the program. As requested, the final bill provided $1.849 billion for BES. This total included
the requested amount for LCLS-II construction and $15 million more than the request for
Scientific User Facilities. The explanatory statement was silent regarding Energy Frontier
Research Centers.
The request for High Energy Physics was $788 million, an increase of 2.9%. Within this program,
a proposed increase of $15 million for continued construction of the Muon to Electron
Conversion Experiment (Mu2e) was slightly less than was previously projected; however, the
projected future cost of completing the project in FY2017 through FY2019 increased. In the
program’s three major experimental research areas, proposed increases for cosmic frontier
physics and energy frontier physics were approximately offset by a proposed decrease for physics
at the intensity frontier. The House bill would have provided $12 million less than the request,
including $9 million less for accelerator stewardship. The Senate bill would have provided
approximately the requested amount overall, with $10 million more for construction of the Long
Baseline Neutrino Facility offset by $10 million less for research. Both bills would have funded
Mu2e construction at the requested level. The final bill provided $795 million, an increase of $7
million above the request. This total included the requested amount for Mu2e construction and
$10 million more than the request for construction of the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility.
The request for Nuclear Physics was $625 million, an increase of 4.9%.The proposed increases
were to be spread across most areas of research and operations. The House bill would have
provided $8 million less than the request, including $6 million less for operations at the
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and $2 million less for construction of the Facility for Rare
Isotope Beams. The Senate bill would have provided $33 million less than the request, including
the requested amount for the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, $5 million less for the Facility for
Rare Isotope Beams, and unspecified other reductions. The final appropriation was $617 million,
or $8 million less than the request. The total included the requested amount for the Facility for
Rare Isotope Beams. The explanatory statement also “encouraged” DOE to fund “optimal
operations” at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider.
The request for Biological and Environmental Research (BER) was $612 million, an increase of
3.4%. This program consists of two roughly equal parts: Biological Systems Science and Climate
and Environmental Sciences. Within Climate and Environmental Sciences, the request included
an increase of $31 million for climate and Earth system modeling. The House bill would have
provided $74 million less than the request. The House committee report did not specify how its
recommended funding for Biological and Environmental Research should be allocated. It
expressed support for the Biological Systems Science program and for climate modeling in
academia in collaboration with NASA, but it was silent regarding the remainder of the Climate
and Environmental Sciences program. The Senate bill would have provided $2 million less than
the request, with the entire reduction allocated to Climate and Environmental Sciences. The final
bill provided $609 million, or $3 million less than the request. The explanatory statement stated
Congressional Research Service
37
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
that this total included the requested funds for Bioenergy Research Centers within Biological
Systems Science, and “urged” DOE to “give priority to optimizing the operation of BER user
facilities,” but explicitly declined to give any other direction regarding BER.
The request for Advanced Scientific Computing Research was $621 million, an increase of
14.8%. Essentially the entire increase was to be allocated to the Research and Evaluation
Prototypes program. This activity supports R&D partnerships with vendors to influence and
accelerate critical technologies for next-generation systems, system integration research, and
development and engineering efforts. The Advanced Scientific Computing Research program is
the focus of exascale computing activities in the Office of Science, accounting for $178 million of
the $209 million requested for this crosscutting initiative. The House bill would have provided
$83 million less than the request for Advanced Scientific Computing Research. Although the
House committee report expressed support for the exascale initiative, it stated that its
recommendation included only $99 million for this purpose within the Office of Science. The
Senate bill would have provided the requested amount for Advanced Scientific Computing
Research. The Senate committee report “strongly supported” the exascale initiative and stated
that its total recommendation for that purpose in the Office of Science was $158 million. The
final bill provided $621 million as requested, including $158 million for the exascale initiative.
The request for Fusion Energy Sciences was $420 million, a decrease of 10.2%. Construction
funding for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) was to be $150
million, the same as in FY2015. In 2008, the cost for the U.S. share of ITER, a multi-year
international construction project, was estimated to be between $1.45 billion and $2.2 billion.
Schedule delays, design and scope changes, and other factors have delayed formal approval of a
revised cost estimate. According to DOE, the current best estimate of the total U.S. cost for ITER
construction (which is 9.09% of the total international cost) is between $4 billion and $6.5 billion.
In June 2014, the Government Accountability Office found that the cost of ITER has increased,
its schedule has slipped, the international project schedule is “not reliable,” and DOE can “only
partially” influence the international project’s performance.82 All other major program areas in
Fusion Energy Sciences were to decrease under the Administration’s request. The Alcator CMOD facility was to cease operations at the end of FY2016. The House bill would have provided
$48 million more than the request. This increase would have gone entirely to the domestic portion
of the program, as House funding for ITER would have been the same as the request. The Senate
bill would have provided no funding for ITER, but the requested amount for the domestic
program. The Senate committee report directed the Secretary of Energy “to work with the
Department of State to withdraw from the ITER project.” The final bill provided $438 million,
including $35 million less than requested for ITER and $53 million more than requested for the
domestic program. The bill required that
not later than May 2, 2016, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report recommending either that the United
States remain a partner in the ITER project after October 2017 or terminate participation,
which shall include, as applicable, an estimate of either the full cost, by fiscal year, of all
future Federal funding requirements for construction, operation, and maintenance of
ITER or the cost of termination.
The request for DOE national security R&D was $4.488 billion, a 9.0% increase from $4.119
billion in FY2015. In the Weapons Activities account, Advanced Simulation and Computing was
to increase by $25 million, and Advanced Manufacturing Development was to increase by $23
82
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Fusion Energy: Actions Needed to Finalize Cost and Schedule Estimates for
U.S. Contributions to an International Experimental Reactor, GAO-14-499, June 5, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
38
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
million. Funding for the Naval Reactors program was to rise by 11.5%, including increases for
technology development, systems development, and facility operations and maintenance. Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D was to increase by $26 million, but this was to result largely from
a transfer of funding for materials characterization research and diagnostic equipment
development to this account from Weapons Activities. The House bill would have provided $109
million less than the request for R&D in Weapons Activities, including $18 million less for
Advanced Simulation and Computing, $16 million less for Advanced Manufacturing
Development, and a number of other changes. It would have provided $53 million less than the
request for Naval Reactors, including $30 million less for Development and $21 million less for
Operations and Infrastructure. The Senate bill would have provided $67 million less than the
request for R&D in Weapons Activities, including the requested amount for Advanced Simulation
and Computing, $19 million less for Advanced Manufacturing Development, and other changes.
It would have provided $75 million less than the request for Naval Reactors, including $14
million less for Development and $59 million less for two construction projects. The final bill
provided $4.451 billion, or $37 million less than the request. It provided the requested amount for
Naval Reactors and Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D. Within Weapons Activities, it
provided the requested amounts for Advanced Simulation and Computing and for Advanced
Manufacturing Development.
The FY2016 request for DOE energy R&D was $4.350 billion, up 26.0% from $3.453 billion in
FY2015. The request proposed to increase funding for R&D in the Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy (EERE) by 43.9%, with increases requested for all major EERE
programs. Within EERE, the largest proposed increases were for Advanced Manufacturing ($404
million, up from $200 million in FY2015), Vehicle Technologies ($444 million, up from $280
million), Solar Energy ($337 million, up from $233 million), and Building Technologies ($264
million, up from $172 million). The request for Advanced Manufacturing was to support the
establishment of two additional Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institutes (see “National
Network for Manufacturing Innovation”). The proposed increase for Nuclear Energy reflected a
rescission of unobligated prior-year balances in FY2015; without this rescission, the FY2016
request for Nuclear Energy would have been a $6 million decrease. The request for Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability R&D included an increase of $15 million for smart grid R&D
and $10 million to establish a new program of R&D on transformer resilience and advanced
components. Support for the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) was to
increase by 16.1%. The balance of ARPA-E project funding was to shift from an equal
distribution between Stationary Power Systems and Transportation Systems to approximately a
60:40 split. The House and Senate bills would both have rejected the Administration’s proposed
large increases in EERE programs, although the Senate bill would have provided more than the
FY2015 enacted amount for most major EERE programs (with the exception of Wind Energy).
Both bills would have provided more than the request for Fossil Energy R&D, more for Nuclear
Energy, and less for ARPA-E. The final bill provided a total of $3.879 billion. Within this total, it
provided more than either the House or Senate bill for EERE, but still less than the request, and
more than the House or Senate bill or the request for Fossil Energy R&D, Nuclear Energy and
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability R&D. For ARPA-E, the final bill provided $291
million, the same as the Senate bill.
Congressional Research Service
39
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Table 11. Department of Energy R&D and Related Activities
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
Enacted
FY2016
Request
FY2016
House
FY2016
Sen. Cte.
FY2016
Final
$5,068
$5,340
$5,100
$5,144
$5,350a
Basic Energy Sciences
1,733
1,849
1,770
1,844
1,849
High Energy Physics
766
788
776
788
795
Biological and Environmental Research
592
612
538
610
609
Nuclear Physics
596
625
616
592
617
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
541
621
538
621
621
Fusion Energy Sciences
468
420
468
270
438
Other
373
425
394
419
421
Science
National Security
4,119
4,488
4,326
4,346
4,451
Weapons Activitiesb
2,478
2,676
2,567
2,609
2,633
Naval Reactors
1,234
1,375
1,323
1,300
1,375
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D
393
419
419
419
419
Defense Environmental Cleanup Tech. Dev.
14
17
17
17
23
3,453
4,350
3,387
3,664
3,879
1,671
2,404
1,425
1,700
1,808d
Fossil Energy R&D
561
560
605
610
632
Nuclear Energy
833
908
936
950
986
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability R&D
108
153
141
113
162
Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy
280
325
280
291
291
12,640
14,178
12,813
13,154
13,680
Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energyc
DOE, Total
Source: FY2015 enacted from P.L. 113-235 and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, December 11,
2014. FY2016 request from DOE FY2016 congressional budget justification, http://energy.gov/cfo/downloads/fy2016-budget-justification. FY2016 House from H.R. 2028 as passed by the House and H.Rept. 114-91. FY2016
Senate Committee from H.R. 2028 as reported in the Senate and S.Rept. 114-54. FY2016 final from P.L. 114-113
and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, December 17, 2015.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding. Amounts include rescissions and
use of prior-year unobligated balances.
a. Does not reflect a rescission of $3.2 million from unobligated prior-year balances.
b. Including Stockpile Services R&D Support, Stockpile Services R&D Certification and Safety, Science,
Engineering except Enhanced Surety and Enhanced Surveillance; Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and
High Yield; Advanced Simulation and Computing; and a prorated share of Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities (called in Infrastructure and Operations in some bills) and Infrastructure and Safety. Additional
R&D activities may take place in the subprograms of Directed Stockpile Work that are devoted to specific
weapon systems. This table does not include these funds because detailed funding schedules for those
subprograms are classified.
c. Excluding Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.
d. Does not reflect rescissions totaling $3.8 million from unobligated prior-year balances.
Congressional Research Service
40
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
National Science Foundation83
The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports basic research and education in the non-medical
sciences and engineering. Congress established the Foundation as an independent federal agency
in 1950 and directed it to “promote the progress of science; to advance the national health,
prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.”84 The NSF is a
primary source of federal support for U.S. university research, especially in mathematics and
computer science. It is also responsible for significant shares of the federal science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics education program portfolio and federal STEM student aid and
support.85
NSF has six major appropriations accounts: Research and Related Activities (RRA, the main
research account), Education and Human Resources (EHR, the main education account), Major
Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC), Agency Operations and Award
Management (AOAM), the National Science Board (NSB), and the Office of Inspector General
(OIG). FY2016 funding for these accounts is tracked in Table 12.
Overall. Division B of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) provides NSF
with a total of $7.463 billion for FY2016, $119 million (2%) more than for FY2015 and $260
million (3%) less than the request.
The Obama Administration had requested $7.724 billion for the NSF in FY2016, a $379 million
(5%) increase over the FY2015 estimate of $7.344 billion. Under the request, RRA would have
increased by $253 million or 4%. EHR would have grown by nearly $100 million (11%).
In its budget documents NSF indicated that its FY2016 priorities include four programs that have
been foundation priorities since at least FY2013: Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and
Smart Systems (CEMMSS, $257 million requested, 11% increase); Cyberinfrastructure
Framework for 21st Century Science, Engineering, and Education (CIF21, $143 million
requested, 11% increase); Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES, $81
million requested, 42% reduction); and Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC, $124 million
requested, 1% increase). New priorities in FY2016 included Clean Energy Technology ($377
million, 2% increase), Innovation Corps (I-Corps, $30 million, 14% increase), NSF Research
Traineeships (NRT, $62 million, 1% increase), and Research at the Interface of Biological,
Mathematical, and Physical Sciences (BioMaPS, $33 million, 12% increase). NSF added
Cognitive Science and Neuroscience to its priority list in FY2015, but removed it in FY2016.86
As passed by the House, H.R. 2578 (Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2016) would have provided a total of $7.394 billion to NSF in FY2016. This
amount was $50 million (1%) more than the FY2015 estimated funding level and $329 million
(4%) less than the Administration request. The House bill would have kept most NSF accounts at
83
This section was originally written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS
Resources, Science, and Industry Division. The section has subsequently been updated by John F. Sargent, Jr.,
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
84
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-507).
85
For more information about the NSF, see CRS Report R43585, The National Science Foundation: Background and
Selected Policy Issues, by (name redacted)
; and CRS Report R44170, The National Science Foundation: FY2016
Budget Request and Funding History, by (name redacted)
.
86
In FY2016, NSF identifies cognitive science and neuroscience as elements of a cross-foundation investment called
Understanding the Brain (UtB). The FY2016 request for UtB is $144 million, $38 million (35%) more than the FY2015
estimate of $106 million.
Congressional Research Service
41
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
FY2015 levels. The $50 million increase in total NSF funding would have accrued to RRA. (A
small increase in funding for the OIG would have been offset by a similar reduction in MREFC.)
When it was reported from the House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 2578 was accompanied
by H.Rept. 114-130 (referred to as the “House report” in this section). The House report directed
NSF to comply with Section 106 of H.R. 1806 (America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of
2015) as reported, which requires NSF to publicly articulate (in the award abstract from NSF’s
public awards database) how each award
serves the national interest. The Obama
Veto?
Administration threatened to veto H.R. 2578
On June 1, 2015, the Obama Administration issued a
when it was considered by the House (for a
“Statement of Administration Policy" on H.R. 2578, as
variety of reasons, only some of which related
considered by the House. That statement indicated that
the Administration strongly opposed House passage of
to the NSF—see text box titled, “Veto?”).87
H.R. 2578 and that senior advisors would recommend a
veto. The statement described a number of concerning
As amended and reported by the Senate
provisions from the bill, most of which were not related
Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 2578
to NSF. However, the statement also cited perceived
would have provided close to the FY2015
insufficiencies in the NSF top line, as well as the
allocation of RRA funding by discipline.88
estimated funding levels to all major NSF
accounts in FY2016. RRA and MREFC would
have received slightly less than their FY2015 funding levels; OIG would have received slightly
more. When it was reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 2578 was
accompanied by S.Rept. 114-66 (referred to as the “Senate report” in this section).
Research. P.L. 114-113 provides $6.034 billion for RRA for FY2016, $100 million (2%) more
than in FY2015 and $153 million (2%) less than requested by the President. RRA directorate
funding levels are not specified in the act and an NSF spending plan had not been submitted to
the Appropriations committees at the time of this report’s publication. The explanatory statement
accompanying P.L. 114-113 directs that “in lieu of House language regarding funding percentages
for certain activities … funds for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences shall be up to the
fiscal year 2015 level [$272.2 million].”89
The act provides no less than $160.0 million for the Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (EPSCoR) program, $10 million less than requested and essentially the
same as for FY2015. In addition, the act provides $147 million for neuroscience and cognitive
science research under the NSF’s Understanding the Brain activity, a part of the multi-agency
Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative, equal to
the amount recommended in the House report.
The Obama Administration had requested a $253 million (4%) increase in year-over-year funding
for RRA in FY2016, for a total of $6.186 billion. H.R. 2578, as passed by the House, would have
provided $5.984 billion to this account in FY2016. As amended and reported by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 2578 would have provided $5.934 billion.
FY2015 House report language (H.Rept. 113-448) directed NSF to apply any additional
appropriations (over FY2015 RRA requested levels) to four major RRA subaccounts: BIO, CISE,
87
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of Administration Policy: H.R.
2578—Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016,” June 1, 2015, at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/saphr2578r_20150601.pdf.
88
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of Administration Policy: H.R.
2578—Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016,” June 1, 2015, at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/saphr2578r_20150601.pdf.
89
Explanatory statement, P.L. 114-113.
Congressional Research Service
42
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
ENG, and MPS. NSF received $126 million more than requested for RRA in FY2015. As
directed, NSF applied the additional funding to the specified major RRA subaccounts, which each
received 3% to 4% increases over FY2015 requested levels. Funding for GEO, SBE, IIA/OISE,
and USARC was at FY2015 requested levels.
The FY2016 request sought increases ranging from 2% to 8% for all major RRA subaccounts.
However, the request seeks slightly more (on average, as a percentage over the prior year) for
accounts that did not receive extra funding over requested levels in FY2015 (i.e., GEO, SBE,
IIA/OISE, and USARC).90 Nevertheless, more than half of the total requested increase for RRA in
FY2016 (54% of $253 million) would have gone to BIO, CISE, ENG, and MPS.
H.R. 2578, as passed by the House, would have provided a total of $5.984 billion to RRA in
FY2016—about $50 million more than the FY2015 estimate. The House report further directed
NSF to provide no less than 70% of total FY2016 RRA funding to BIO, CISE, ENG, and MPS.
Under these provisions, BIO, CISE, ENG, and MPS would have split $4.189 billion in FY2016.
This amount represents an 8% increase ($307 million) over the combined total that these four
major subaccounts received in FY2015 ($3.882 billion).
The remaining major RRA subaccounts (GEO, SBE, OISE, IA, and USARC) would have split
$1.795 billion. This amount was $257 million or -13% less than the combined total these
accounts received in FY2015 ($2.052 billion). Other House report provisions further directed
NSF to provide at least FY2015 levels to OISE, IA, and USARC. Therefore, of the $1.795 billion
total provided for GEO, SBE, OISE, IA, and USARC in the House report, at least $475 million
would have gone to OISE, IA, and USARC, while GEO and SBE would have split $1.320 billion.
GEO and SBE received $1.577 billion (combined) in FY2015, which is $257 million (16%) more
than they would have received in FY2016 under the House report. If NSF distributed these funds
proportionally, whic
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.