# Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016 > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR43944 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** February 17, 2016 - **Citation:** R43944 ## 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 F [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR43944. Public record. Not legal advice.