Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
Congressional research reportJun 6, 2017
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Federal Research and Development Funding:
FY2017
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
(name redacted)
Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Biomedical Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
(name redacted)
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Updated June 6, 2017
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R44516
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
Summary
President Obama’s budget request for FY2017 included $152.333 billion for research and
development (R&D), an increase of $6.195 billion (4.2%) over the estimated FY2016 enacted
R&D funding level of $146.138 billion.
Funding for R&D is concentrated in a few departments and agencies. Under President Obama’s
FY2017 budget request, seven federal agencies would have received 95.6% of total federal R&D
funding, with the Department of Defense (47.8%) and the Department of Health and Human
Services (21.5%) accounting for nearly 70% of all federal R&D funding.
In dollars, the largest increases in agency R&D funding in President Obama’s request would have
gone to the Department of Energy (up $2.755 billion, 19.1%), the Department of Defense (up
$1.953 billion, 2.8%), and the Department of Health and Human Services (up $772 million,
2.4%).
President Obama’s FY2017 request sought to continue support for a number of multiagency R&D
initiatives: the National Nanotechnology Initiative, Networking and Information Technology
Research and Development program, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Brain Research
through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative, Precision Medicine
Initiative, Cancer Moonshot, Materials Genome Initiative, National Robotics Initiative, and
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.
As of September 28, 2016, Congress had not completed action on any of the 12 regular
appropriations bills for FY2017. The House Committee on Appropriations had reported all nine
of the regular appropriations bills that provide R&D funding, and the House had passed three of
them. The Senate Committee on Appropriations had reported all nine of the regular
appropriations bills that provide R&D funding, and the Senate had passed three of them.
On September 29, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Continuing Appropriations and
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, and Zika
Response and Preparedness Act (P.L. 114-223). This act, among other things, provided full-year
funding for military construction and the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, as well as continuing
appropriations for most federal agencies through December 9, 2016, at about 99.5% of FY2016
funding. On December 10, President Obama signed into law the Further Continuing and Security
Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 114-254). Division A, Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2017, generally provides continuing appropriations for most federal agencies
at 99.8% of FY2016 funding through April 28, 2017, subject to other provisions in the act,
pending final action on the remaining 11 regular appropriations acts for FY2017. Division B,
Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, included additional funding for DOD RDT&E,
designated by Congress as Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism funding.
In May 2017, Congress enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31). The act
provides FY2017 funding for most federal agencies, except those already provided for in P.L.
114-223. Where possible, R&D funding provided under this act is identified in the following
sections of this report. For some agencies, however, funding for R&D is included in
appropriations line items that also include non-R&D activities; therefore, it is not possible to
identify precisely how much of the funding provided in appropriations laws is allocated to R&D
specifically. No further updates of this report are anticipated.
Completion of the annual appropriations process after the start of the fiscal year and the use of
continuing resolutions 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: FY2017
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
President Obama’s FY2017 Budget Request .................................................................................. 2
Federal R&D Funding Perspectives ................................................................................................ 3
Federal R&D by Agency ........................................................................................................... 3
Federal R&D by Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment ............................................... 4
Federal Role in U.S. R&D by Character of Work ..................................................................... 5
Federal R&D by Agency and Character of Work Combined .................................................... 6
Defense-Related and Nondefense-Related R&D ...................................................................... 7
Multiagency R&D Initiatives .......................................................................................................... 7
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program ...................... 7
U.S. Global Change Research Program .................................................................................... 8
National Nanotechnology Initiative .......................................................................................... 8
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership ....................................................................................... 9
National Robotics Initiative ................................................................................................ 9
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation ............................................................... 9
Cancer Moonshot .................................................................................................................... 10
BRAIN Initiative ..................................................................................................................... 10
Precision Medicine Initiative ...................................................................................................11
Materials Genome Initiative .....................................................................................................11
Doubling Federal Funding for Clean Energy R&D ................................................................ 12
FY2017 Appropriations Status ...................................................................................................... 12
Department of Defense .................................................................................................................. 14
Department of Health and Human Services .................................................................................. 19
National Institutes of Health ................................................................................................... 19
Department of Energy ................................................................................................................... 25
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ........................................................................... 29
National Science Foundation ......................................................................................................... 33
Department of Agriculture ............................................................................................................. 38
Agricultural Research Service ................................................................................................. 39
National Institute of Food and Agriculture ............................................................................. 40
National Agricultural Statistics Service .................................................................................. 40
Economic Research Service .................................................................................................... 41
Department of Commerce ............................................................................................................. 42
National Institute of Standards and Technology ..................................................................... 42
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ................................................................ 44
Department of Veterans Affairs ..................................................................................................... 48
Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................. 50
U.S. Geological Survey ........................................................................................................... 51
Other DOI Components .......................................................................................................... 52
Department of Transportation........................................................................................................ 53
Federal Aviation Administration ............................................................................................. 54
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ................................................................... 54
Federal Highway Administration ............................................................................................ 55
Other DOT Components ......................................................................................................... 55
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
Department of Homeland Security ................................................................................................ 56
Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) ....................................................................... 57
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) ......................................................................... 57
Coordination of DHS R&D Activities .................................................................................... 58
Proposed Reorganization......................................................................................................... 59
Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 61
Tables
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2015-FY2017 ..................... 4
Table 2. Federal R&D Funding by Character of Work and Facilities and Equipment,
FY2015-FY2017 .......................................................................................................................... 5
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2015-FY2017 ................................................................................................ 6
Table 4. Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program
Funding, FY2015-FY2017 ........................................................................................................... 7
Table 5. National Nanotechnology Initiative Funding, FY2015-FY2017 ....................................... 8
Table 6. Alignment of Agency R&D Funding and Regular Appropriations Bills ......................... 14
Table 7. Department of Defense RDT&E ..................................................................................... 17
Table 8. National Institutes of Health Funding.............................................................................. 24
Table 9. Department of Energy R&D and Related Activities ........................................................ 28
Table 10. National Aeronautics and Space Administration R&D.................................................. 32
Table 11. National Science Foundation Funding ........................................................................... 37
Table 12. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D ........................................................................... 41
Table 13. National Institute of Standards and Technology Funding .............................................. 44
Table 14. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration R&D ............................................. 47
Table 15. Department of Veterans Affairs R&D ............................................................................ 49
Table 16. Department of Veterans Affairs Amounts by Designated Research Areas .................... 49
Table 17. Department of the Interior R&D.................................................................................... 53
Table 18. Department of Transportation R&D and R&D Facilities .............................................. 56
Table 19. Department of Homeland Security R&D Accounts ....................................................... 60
Table 20. Environmental Protection Agency Science and Technology (S&T) Account ............... 63
Appendixes
Appendix. Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................... 65
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 69
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
Introduction
The 115th Congress continues to take an interest in U.S. research and development (R&D) and in
evaluating 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 drove 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 President Obama’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 and for other purposes) in light of the current federal deficit and debt. As Congress acted to
complete the FY2017 appropriations process, it faced two overarching issues: the extent to which
federal R&D investments could grow in the face of increased pressure on discretionary spending
and the prioritization and allocation of the available funding. Budget caps may have limited
overall R&D funding and may have required movement of resources across disciplines,
programs, or agencies to address priorities. Moving funding between programs/accounts/agencies
can be complex and difficult because the funding for different programs/accounts/agencies is
often provided through different appropriations bills.
This report begins with a discussion of the overall level of President Obama’s FY2017 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
nearly 99% 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
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
1
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
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 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” (June 2015).
This document provides guidance to agencies in the preparation of President Obama’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 major equipment for research and development. Includes acquisition or design and
production of movable equipment, such as spectrometers, research satellites, detectors, and other instruments.
National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation provides the following definitions of R&D-related
terms in its Science and Engineering Indicators: 2016 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.
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.
President Obama’s FY2017 Budget Request
On February 9, 2016, President Obama released his proposed FY2017 budget. This report
provides government-wide, multiagency, and individual agency analyses of President Obama’s
FY2017 request as it relates to R&D and related activities, as well as House and Senate action on
President Obama’s budget request through appropriations bills that provide funding for R&D and
related activities. For FY2017, President Obama’s budget request included both discretionary and
mandatory funding. As presented in the “Research and Development” chapter of the Analytical
Perspectives volume of the Budget of the U.S. Government FY2017, the discretionary and
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
2
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
mandatory funding are combined into a single figure for each agency. In addition, a change in the
Department of Energy’s reporting of administrative expenses led to an increase in reporting of
R&D investments “on the order of $2 to $3 billion a year.”1 Factors such as these can complicate
the analysis of year-to-year changes in R&D funding, both in aggregate and for selected agencies.
For FY2017, President Obama proposed $152.333 billion for R&D, an increase of $6.195 billion
(4.2%) over the estimated FY2016 enacted R&D funding level of $146.138 billion.2 Adjusted for
anticipated inflation of approximately 1.8%, President Obama’s FY2016 R&D request
represented a constant dollar increase of 2.4% from the estimated FY2016 enacted level.3
President Obama’s R&D request included continued funding of existing single-agency and
multiagency programs and activities, as well as new initiatives. Single-agency initiatives are
discussed in their respective sections of this report. Multiagency initiatives are discussed in the
section “Multiagency R&D Initiatives.”
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 R&D funding through the authorization and appropriations
processes primarily from the perspective of individual agencies and programs. Table 1 provides
data on R&D by agency for FY2015 (actual), FY2016 (estimate), and FY2017 (request).4
Under President Obama’s FY2017 budget request, seven federal agencies would have received
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
1 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United
States Government, Fiscal Year 2017, February 9, 2016, p. 306, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/
Analytical_Perspectives.
2 Funding levels included in this document are in current dollars unless otherwise noted. Inflation diminishes the
purchasing power of federal R&D funds, so an increase that falls short of the inflation rate may reduce real purchasing
power.
3 As calculated by CRS using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (chained) price index for FY2016 and FY2017 in
Table 10.1, “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2021,” Budget of the United
States Government, Fiscal Year 2016, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/
hist10z1.xls.
4 EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2017, February 9, 2016, p.
305, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
3
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
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.
The largest agency R&D increases in President Obama’s FY2017 request (as measured in
dollars), compared with FY2016, were for DOE, up $2.755 billion (19.1%); DOD, up $1.953
billion (2.8%); HHS, up $772 million (2.4%); NSF, up $412 million (6.7%); and USDA, up $249
million (9.3%). NASA would see a decrease in R&D funding of $367 million (3.0%) and DOC
funding would drop by $25 million (1.3%).
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2015-FY2017
(budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change, FY2016-FY2017
Department/Agency
FY2015
Actual
FY2016
Enacted
FY2017
Request
Department of Defense
65,547
70,872
72,825
1,953
2.8%
Dept. of Health and Human Services
30,453
31,942
32,714
772
2.4%
Department of Energy
14,354
14,405
17,160
2,755
19.1%
NASA
12,145
12,410
12,043
-367
-3.0%
National Science Foundation
5,944
6,117
6,529
412
6.7%
Department of Agriculture
2,452
2,674
2,923
249
9.3%
Department of Commerce
1,524
1,913
1,888
-25
-1.3%
Department of Veterans Affairs
1,178
1,220
1,252
32
2.6%
Department of the Interior
863
981
1,082
101
10.3%
Department of Transportation
885
924
1,065
141
15.3%
Department of Homeland Security
919
579
585
6
1.0%
Environmental Protection Agency
523
516
530
14
2.7%
Other
1,491
1,585
1,737
152
9.6%
Total
138,278
146,138
152,333
6,195
4.2%
Dollar
Percent
Source: EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2017, February 9,
2016, p.305, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives.
Notes: 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.
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 FY2017 request
included $34.485 billion for basic research, up $975 million (2.9%) from FY2016; $38.361
billion for applied research, up $2.922 million (8.2%); $76.704 billion for development, up
$2.238 million (3.0%); and $2.783 billion for facilities and equipment, up $60 million (2.2%).
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
4
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
Table 2. Federal R&D Funding by Character of Work and Facilities and Equipment,
FY2015-FY2017
(budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change, FY2016-FY2017
FY2015
Actual
FY2016
Estimate
FY2017
Request
Basic research
31,854
33,510
34,485
975
2.9%
Applied research
34,178
35,439
38,361
2,922
8.2%
Development
69,719
74,466
76,704
2,238
3.0%
Facilities and Equipment
2,527
2,723
2,783
60
2.2%
138,278
146,138
152,333
6,195
4.2%
Total
Dollar
Percent
Source: EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2017, February 9,
2016, pp. 305-306, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives.
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 justification 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 47.0% of U.S.
basic research in 2013.5 Industry funded 26.4% of U.S. basic research in 2012, with state
governments, universities, and other non-profit organizations funding the remaining 26.7%.6
In contrast to basic research, industry is the primary funder of applied research in the United
States, accounting for an estimated 51.1% in 2013, while the federal government accounted for an
estimated 36.8%.7
Industry also provides the vast majority of funding for development. Industry accounted for
80.6% of development in 2013, while the federal government provided 17.8%.8
5 National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, U.S. R&D Increased in 2013,
Well Ahead of the Pace of Gross Domestic Product, Infobriefs, NSF 15-330, September 8, 2015, http://www.nsf.gov/
statistics/nsf14304/. More recent data are not yet available.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
5
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
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 President
Obama’s FY2017 budget request, the Department of Health and Human Services, primarily NIH,
accounted for nearly half (47.3%) of all federal funding for basic research. HHS would have also
been the largest federal funder of applied research, accounting for about 42.1% of all federally
funded applied research in President Obama’s FY2017 budget request. DOD would have been the
primary federal funder of development, accounting for 85.6% of total federal development
funding in President Obama’s FY2017 budget request.9
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2015-FY2017
(budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change, FY2016-FY2017
FY2015
Actual
FY2016
Enacted
FY2017
Request
Dept. of Health and Human Services
15,055
15,972
16,323
351
2.2%
National Science Foundation
4,878
4,941
5,257
316
6.4%
Dept. of Energy
4,477
4,609
4,932
323
7.0%
Dept. of Health and Human Services
15,199
15,760
16,138
378
2.4%
Dept. of Energy
5,624
5,346
7,108
1,762
33.0%
Dept. of Defense
4,653
5,056
4,884
-172
-3.4%
Dept. of Defense
58,553
63,463
65,631
2,168
3.4%
NASA
6,481
5,954
5,357
-597
-10.0%
Dept. of Energy
3,263
3,338
3,982
644
19.3%
Dept. of Energy
990
1,112
1,138
26
2.3%
National Science Foundation
375
424
459
35
8.3%
Dept. of Commerce
231
400
331
-69
-17.3%
Dollar
Percent
Basic Research
Applied Research
Development
Facilities and Equipment
Source: EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2017, February 9,
2016, pp. 305-306, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives.
Note: The top three funding agencies in each category, based on the FY2017 request, are listed.
9 EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2017, February 9, 2016,
pp. 305-306, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
6
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
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 52.5% in FY2015.10 President Obama’s
FY2017 budget included $80.0 billion in defense-related R&D funding (about 52.5% of the total
R&D request) and $72.4 billion for non-defense R&D (about 47.5% of the total R&D request).11
Multiagency R&D Initiatives
President Obama’s FY2017 budget request supported several multiagency R&D initiatives. These
initiatives are presented below in order of the size of the FY2017 budget requests.
Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Program12
Established by the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194), the Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program is the primary mechanism
by which the federal government coordinates its unclassified networking and information
technology R&D investments in areas such as supercomputing, high-speed networking,
cybersecurity, software engineering, and information management.
President Obama requested $4.542 billion in NITRD funding for FY2017, $48.8 million (1.1%)
more than the FY2016 estimate level of $4.494 billion (see Table 4). The largest agency increases
in NITRD funding under the Administration’s FY2017 request are for the DOE (up $38.3 million,
5.3%) and NIST (up $13.6 million, 9.2%). President Obama’s budget would have reduced
NITRD funding at DOD by $19.6 million (1.5%), though Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA) funding would have increased by $14.8 million (3.5%).13
Table 4. Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
Program Funding, FY2015-FY2017
(budget authority, in millions of current dollars)
FY2015
Actual
FY2016
Estimate
FY2017
Request
$4,378.6
$4,493.6
$4,542.4
Change, FY2016-FY2017
Dollar
Percent
$48.8
1.1%
Source: CRS analysis of data provided to CRS by OSTP on February 18, 2016.
10 CRS analysis of National Science Foundation, Federal R&D Funding, by Budget Function: Fiscal Years 2014–16,
Infobriefs, NSF 16-303, Table 24, November 23, 2015, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsf16303/.
11 John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, “The 2017 Budget: Investing in America’s Future,” presentation, Washington, DC, February 2016.
12 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)
.
13 CRS analysis of data provided to CRS by OSTP on February 18, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
7
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
U.S. Global Change Research Program14
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.”15 Thirteen departments and agencies participate in the USGCRP. President
Obama’s request for USGCRP funding for FY2017 was $2.8 billion.16
National Nanotechnology Initiative17
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.18 Federal
nanotechnology efforts are coordinated by the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET).
President Obama requested $1.443 billion in funding for the NNI in FY2017, an increase of $8.7
million (0.6%) over the FY2016 level of $1.435 billion. The largest agency increase in NNI
funding under FY2017 request was for the DOE (up $31.3 million, 9.5%), while the largest
decreases in agency NNI funding were for the Department of Homeland Security (down $19.5
million, 92.9%) and NASA (down $4.9 million, 44.5%). NNI funding in FY2017 under the
request was down $469.4 million (24.5%) from the NNI’s peak funding level in FY2010.
Table 5. National Nanotechnology Initiative Funding, FY2015-FY2017
(budget authority, in millions of current dollars)
FY2015
Actual
FY2016
Estimate
FY2017
Request
$1,496.3
$1,434.7
$1,443.4
Change, FY2016-FY2017
Dollar
Percent
$8.7
0.6%
Source: Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Committee, National Science and Technology Council,
The White House, Supplement to President Obama’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2017, The National Nanotechnology
Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry, March 2016.
14 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) .
15 U.S. Global Change Research Program website, http://www.globalchange.gov/about/mission-vision-strategic-plan.
16 EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2017, February 9, 2016,
pp. 305-306, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives.
17 For additional information on the NNI, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative:
Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by (name redacted)
18 In the context of the NNI and nanotechnology, the nanoscale refers to lengths of 1 to 100 nanometers. A nanometer
is one-billionth of a meter, or about the width of 10 hydrogen atoms arranged side by side in a line.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
8
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
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.”19 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.”20 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.21
According to OSTP, the NITRD efforts in robotics and intelligent systems reflect most of the
activity in the NRI. FY2016 funding for the NRI is $225 million. President Obama requested
$221 million for FY2017, including $44 million for NSF, $103 million for DOD, $12 million for
DOE, $8 million for NIST, $54 million for NASA, and $1 million for the Department of Justice. 22
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation23
President Obama first proposed the establishment of a National Network for Manufacturing
Innovation (NNMI) in his FY2013 budget, which requested $1 billion in mandatory funding to
support the establishment of up to 15 institutes. As originally conceived, the Administration
described the NNMI as
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.24
In the absence of explicit congressional authorization and appropriations for the NNMI, the
Obama Administration awarded several institutes for manufacturing innovation using the broad
agency authorities and appropriations of the DOD and DOE. In December 2014, Congress passed
19John 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.
20 Ibid.
21 EOP, OSTP, website, August 3, 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/03/supporting-president-s-nationalrobotics-initiative.
22 Email correspondence between OSTP and CRS, March 2, 2016.
23 For additional information on the NNMI, see CRS Report R44371, The National Network for Manufacturing
Innovation, by (name redacted)
24 DOC, FY2014 Budget in Brief, February 2012, p. 123, http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY13BIB/
fy2013bib_final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
9
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 (RAMI), 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. The RAMI Act provides a
statutory foundation for the effort, directing the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Network
for Manufacturing Innovation (NMI) program within the Commerce Department’s NIST.
For FY2017, President Obama requested more than $250 million in discretionary spending to
create or sustain manufacturing innovation institutes. The budget would have supported the
establishment of five manufacturing institutes in FY2017, joining the seven institutes that have
been awarded to date, two that are currently being competed, and four others that are to be funded
in FY2016. In addition, President Obama’s request included $1.9 billion in mandatory funding to
establish 27 additional institutes over 10 years that would complete the Administration’s vision
for a 45-institute network.
Cancer Moonshot
In his 2016 State of the Union address, President Obama announced a cancer “moonshot”
initiative to “cure cancer once and for all.”25 In his FY2017 budget, President Obama requested
an increase in federal spending of $755 million to accelerate progress in the prevention,
diagnosis, and treatment of cancer. Of this amount, $680 million would go to NIH and $75
million to FDA. A key target of these additional funds was research “to help realize the promise
of cancer immunotherapy.”26 Other agencies, including the Department of Defense and
Department of Veterans Affairs, were expected to participate in the effort as well, but dedicated
initiative funding was not requested for those agencies for FY2017.27
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 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
25 President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address (as delivered), January 13, 2016, https://www.whitehouse.gov/
the-press-office/2016/01/12/remarks-president-barack-obama-%E2%80%93-prepared-delivery-state-union-address.
26 EOP, OMB, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2017, February 9, 2016, p. 28,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/budget.pdf.
27 The White House, “Fact Sheet: Investing in the National Cancer Moonshot,” press release, February 1, 2016,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/01/fact-sheet-investing-national-cancer-moonshot; email
correspondence between OSTP and CRS, March 2, 2016.
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.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
10
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
behavior,”29 and to help improve the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of brain diseases such
as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.
President Obama requested more than $439 million in FY2017 for the BRAIN Initiative,
approximately $139 million (46%) more than the effort’s estimated FY2016 funding level of
$300 million. Proposed FY2017 funding included an estimated $195 million in funding for NIH,
$118 million for DARPA, $74 million for NSF, $9 million for the DOE Office of Science, and
$43 million for the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA).30 IARPA is an
organization with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Precision Medicine Initiative
In his January 2015 State of the Union address, President Obama announced the Precision
Medicine Initiative (PMI), an undertaking among HHS agencies. The PMI seeks to build on
research and discoveries that allow medical treatments to be tailored to “specific characteristics of
individuals, such as a person’s genetic makeup, or the genetic profile of an individual’s tumor.”31
Total funding for PMI in FY2016 is $200 million. President Obama’s FY2017 request for the
PMI was $309 million, including $300 million for NIH, $4 million for the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), and $5 million for the Office of the National Coordinator for Health
Information Technology (ONC).32 ONC is located in the Office of the Secretary of Health and
Human Services. The Department of Veterans Affairs also notes in its FY2017 request that it was
prioritizing its research portfolio toward precision medicine, including a substantial $50 million
investment in genomic sequencing.33
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.34
The purpose of the Materials Genome Initiative is to “speed our understanding of the
fundamentals of materials science, providing a wealth of practical information that American
entrepreneurs and innovators will be able to use to develop new products and processes” in much
the same way that the Human Genome Project accelerated a range of biological sciences by
identifying and deciphering the human genetic code.35 According to the White House, such
29 The White House, “Fact Sheet: BRAIN Initiative,” press release, April 2, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-
press-office/2013/04/02/fact-sheet-brain-initiative.
30 Email correspondence between OSTP and CRS, March 2, 2016.
31 The White House, “Fact Sheet: President Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative,” January 30, 2015,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/30/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-precision-medicine-initiative.
32 Email correspondence between OSTP and CRS, March 2, 2016.
33 Department of Veterans Affairs, Budget In Brief, 2017,p. BiB-23, http://www.va.gov/budget/docs/summary/Fy2017BudgetInBrief.pdf.
34 Email correspondence between OSTP and CRS, March 14, 2012.
35 John P. Holdren, Director, OSTP, EOP, testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
11
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
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.36
Like President Obama’s FY2015 and FY2016 budgets, the FY2017 budget did not include 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, and NIH. MGI also coordinates its
efforts with two other multiagency initiatives, the NNI and NITRD.37
Doubling Federal Funding for Clean Energy R&D
In November 2011, President Obama and other world leaders announced Mission Innovation, a
global effort to accelerate public and private clean energy innovation. Under the initiative, 20
countries—representing 80% of the world’s clean energy R&D investment—committed to
doubling their government’s clean energy R&D over five years. President Obama’s FY2017
budget proposed a five-year doubling of federal clean energy R&D that would increase funding
from $6.4 billion in FY2016 to $12.8 billion in FY2021. The initiative included the efforts of 12
federal agencies, including the Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, NASA, and
Department of Agriculture. The Administration asserted that the FY2017 budget would have
increased the federal investment in clean energy to $7.7 billion.38
FY2017 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 nearly 99% of total federal R&D funding. Agencies are
presented in order of the size of their R&D budgets, with the largest presented first. Annual
appropriations for these agencies are provided through 9 of the 12 regular appropriations bills.
For each agency covered in this report, Table 6 shows the corresponding regular appropriations
bill that provides primary funding for the agency, including its R&D activities.
As of September 28, 2016, Congress had not completed action on any of the 12 regular
appropriations bills for FY2017. The House Committee on Appropriations had reported all nine
of the regular appropriations bills that provide R&D funding, and the House had passed three of
them. The Senate Committee on Appropriations had reported all nine of the regular
appropriations bills that provide R&D funding, and the Senate had passed three of them.
(...continued)
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.
36 The White House, Materials Genome Initiative, “Examples of Materials Applications,” accessed May 2014,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/mgi/examples.
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 EOP, OMB, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2017, February 9, 2016, pp. 19-20,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/budget.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
12
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
On December 10, President Obama signed into law the Further Continuing and Security
Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 114-254). Division A, Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2017, generally provides continuing appropriations for most federal agencies
at 99.8% of FY2016 funding through April 28, 2017, subject to other provisions in the act,
pending final action on the remaining 11 regular appropriations acts for FY2017. Division B,
Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, includes additional funding for DOD RDT&E,
designated by Congress as Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism funding.
On September 29, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Continuing Appropriations and
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, and Zika
Response and Preparedness Act (P.L. 114-223). This act, among other things, had provided
continuing appropriations for most federal agencies through December 10, 2016, at about 99.5%
of FY2016 funding.
On December 10, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Further Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2017 (CR; Division A, P.L. 114-254), providing continued funding for agencies through
April 28, 2017, generally at the FY2016 level, less an across-the-board reduction of 0.1901%.
The act generally funded continuing projects and activities, under the same authority and
conditions, and to the same extent and manner, as for FY2016.
In May 2017, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31). The act provides FY2017 funding for most federal
agencies, except those already provided for in P.L. 114-223. Where possible, R&D funding
provided under this act is identified in the following sections of this report. For some agencies,
however, funding for R&D is included in appropriations line items that also include non-R&D
activities; therefore, 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.
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 web page, Status Table of
Appropriations, available at http://www.crs.gov/AppropriationsStatusTable/Index.
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. Funding for R&D is often included in appropriations
line items that also include non-R&D activities; therefore, 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.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
13
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
Table 6. 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 Report R40858, Locate an Agency or Program Within Appropriations Bills, by (name redacted)
.
Department of Defense39
Congress supports R&D 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
appropriations bill. (See Table 7.) 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 on breast, prostate, and ovarian cancer; traumatic brain injuries;
orthotics and prosthetics; and other medical conditions. Congress appropriates funds for this
program in Title VI (Other Department of Defense Programs) of the defense appropriations bill.
39 This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
14
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
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-Threat Defeat Fund (JIDF, formerly the Joint Improvised Explosive Device
Defeat Fund) 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-Threat Defeat Organization
(JIDO), which administers the fund, tracks (but does not report) the amount of funding allocated
to RDT&E. JIDF 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 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 declined as
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were reduced.
In addition, GWOT/OCO-related requests/appropriations often include money for a number of
transfer funds. These have included in the past the Iraqi Freedom Fund (IFF), the Iraqi Security
Forces Fund, the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Capability Fund. 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 FY2017, the Obama Administration requested $71.392 billion for DOD’s baseline Title IV
RDT&E. This is $1.423 billion (2.2%) above the enacted FY2016 level.
In addition to the baseline Title IV RDT&E request, the Administration requested $823 million in
RDT&E through the Defense Health Program and $389 million in RDT&E through the Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction program for FY2017. President Obama requested no RDT&E
funding in FY2017 for the National Defense Sealift Fund.
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
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
15
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
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 may
also contribute to advances in commercial technologies.
President Obama’s FY2017 request for Title IV baseline S&T funding was $12.501 billion, $495
million below the FY2016 enacted baseline level ($535 million below the FY2016 level including
OCO funding).
Within the S&T program, basic research (6.1) receives special attention, particularly by the
nation’s universities. DOD is not a large supporter of basic research when compared to NIH or
NSF. However, over half of DOD’s basic research budget is spent at universities, and it represents
the major source of funds in some areas of science and technology (such as electrical engineering
and materials science). The Administration is requesting $2.102 billion for DOD basic research
for FY2017. This is $207 million (9.1%) less than what was enacted for FY2016.
On December 10, President Obama signed into law the Further Continuing and Security
Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 114-254). Division A, Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2017, generally provides continuing appropriations for most DOD activities
at 99.8% of FY2016 funding through April 28, 2017, subject to other provisions in the act,
pending final action on the remaining 11 regular appropriations acts for FY2017. Division B,
Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, includes additional funding for DOD RDT&E,
designated by Congress as GWOT/OCO funding. This funding includes $78.7 million for Army
RDT&E and $3.0 million for Defense-wide RDT&E, as well as $87.8 million for the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund, a portion of which may be used to support RDT&E.
On June 16, 2016, the House passed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017 (H.R.
5293). The bill provides baseline funding and GWOT/OCO funding. The House bill designates
part of the OCO funding as being intended to meet GWOT/OCO requirements and a portion to
meet baseline requirements. The House-passed bill would provide $70.293 billion in funding for
baseline RDT&E, $325 million (0.5%) more than the FY2016 baseline funding level and $1.099
billion (1.5%) less than the FY2017 request.
The House–passed bill would provide $497 million in GWOT/OCO funding for FY2017, of
which $163 million is intended to address baseline requirements. The balance of GWOT/OCO
funding, $334 million, is $103 million (44.4%) more than the FY2016 GWOT/OCO funding
level and $40 million (10.8%) below the request.
The House-passed bill would provide $1.467 billion for RDT&E for the Defense Health Program
for FY2017, $654 million (30.8%) below the FY2016 level and $644 million (78.3%) above the
FY2017 request; $389 million for RDT&E for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction for
FY2017, $190 million (32.9%) below the FY2016 level and equal to the request; and $3 million
for RDT&E work of the Inspector General for FY2017, $1 million above the FY2016 level and
equal to the request.
With respect to S&T funding (budget activities 6.1-6.3), the House-passed bill would provide
essentially the same funding for FY2017 as the enacted FY2016 level and $529 million (4.2%)
more than the request.
On May 26, 2016, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2017 (S. 3000). Like the House bill, S. 3000 provides both baseline funding
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
16
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
and GWOT/OCO funding. The Senate-reported bill would provide $70.801 billion in funding for
baseline RDT&E, $833 million more than the FY2016 baseline funding level, $591 million less
than the request, and $508 million more than the House-passed bill.
The Senate-reported bill would provide $374 million in GWOT/OCO funding for FY2017, $143
million more than the FY2016 level and equal to the request.
The Senate-reported bill includes: $1.730 billion for RDT&E for the Defense Health Program for
FY2017, $391 million below the FY2016 level, $907 million above the request, and $263 million
above the House-passed level; $389 million for RDT&E for Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction for FY2017, $190 million below the FY2016 level, and equal to the request and
House-passed levels; and $3 million for RDT&E work of the Inspector General for FY2017, $1
million above the FY2016 level and equal to the request and House-passed levels.
With respect to S&T funding (budget activities 6.1-6.3), the Senate-reported bill would provide
$13.364 billion, $328 million above the FY2016 level, $863 million above the request, and $335
million above the House-passed level.
In early May 2017, Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31), which provides funding for the Department of Defense
for FY2017, among other things. The act provides both baseline funding and GWOT/OCO
funding. The act provides $72.302 billion in baseline Title IV RDT&E funding for FY2017, an
increase of $2.334 billion (3.3%) above the FY2016 enacted level.
For FY2017, the act also $2.102 billion in RDT&E funding for the Defense Health Program,
down $19 million (0.9%) from the FY2016 funding level, and $389 million in RDT&E funding
for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, a decrease of $190 million (32.8%) from the
FY2016 funding level.
In addition, the act provides $1.397 billion of OCO/ GWOT RDT&E funding for FY2017, up
$1.166 billion (504.8%) from the FY2016 funding level.
FY2017 funding for the S&T portion of Title IV RDT&E (baseline and OCO/GWOT) is $14.029
billion, an increase of $953 million (7.3%) from the FY2016 funding level.
Table 7. Department of Defense RDT&E
(obligational authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2016
Enacted
FY2017
House
H.R. 5293
FY2017
Request
FY2017
Senate-Reported
S. 3000
FY2017
Enacted
Baseline
OCO
Baseline
OCO
Baseline
OCO
Baseline
OCO
Baseline
OCOa
Army
7,564
2
7,515
101
7,865
168
7,767
101
8,333
264
Navy
18,147
36
17,276
78
16,831
106
16,878
78
17,215
327
Air Force
25,212
17
28,112
33
27,107
43
27,491
33
27,789
365
Defensewide
18,859
177
18,309
162
18,311
180
18,478
162
18,779
439
187
0
179
0
179
0
187
0
187
3
69,968
231
71,392
374
70,293
497
70,801
374
72,302
1,397
Budget Account
Director, Operational Test
and Evaluation
Total Title IV—By
Accountc
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
17
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
FY2016
Enacted
FY2017
House
H.R. 5293
FY2017
Request
FY2017
Senate-Reported
S. 3000
FY2017
Enacted
Baseline
OCO
Baseline
OCO
Baseline
OCO
Baseline
OCO
Baseline
OCOa
6.1 Basic Research
2,309
0
2,102
0
2,124
0
2,265
n/a
2,276
0
6.2 Applied Research
4,996
0
4,815
0
4,962
13
5,115
n/a
5,296
0
6.3 Advanced Dev.
5,731
40
5,584
0
5,943
13
5,984
n/a
6,439
18
6.4 Advanced Component
Dev. and Prototypes
14,290
2
14,981
51
14,734
161
14,817
n/a
15,128
248
6.5 Systems Dev. And Demo
12,789
12,995
84
12,546
0
12,422
n/a
12,591
190
6.6 Management Supportd
4,417
4,312
4,397
0
4471
n/a
4,506
69
6.7 Op. Systems Dev.e
25,435
190
26,603
238
25,636
309
25,727
n/a
26,115
872
Total Title IV—by Budget
Activityc
69,968
231
71,392
374
70,293b
497
70,801
374
72,302b
1,397
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Defense Health Program
2,121
0
823
0
1,467
0
1,730
0
2,102
0
Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction
579
0
389
0
389
0
389
0
389
0
2
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
72,697
231
72,606
374
72,152
497
72,923
374
74,795
1,397
Budget Account
Budget Activity
Title V—Revolving and
Management Funds
National Defense Sealift Fund
Title VI—Other Defense
Programs
Inspector General
Grand Totalc
Source: CRS analysis of Explanatory Statement for P.L. 115-31; Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2016
RDT&E Programs (R-1), February 2016; H.R. 5293; H.Rept. 114-577; S. 3000; and S.Rept. 114-263.
Notes: Figures for the columns headed “FY 2017 Senate” and “FY2017 Enacted” will be added, if available, as
each action is completed, respectively. The column heading OCO refers to OCO/GWOT funding.
a. OCO funding includes both regular OCO/GWOT funding and additional OCO/GWOT funding specified in
the Explanatory Statement. “Budget activity” figures calculated by CRS using the Explanatory Statement for
P.L. 115-31 and classification taxonomy provided in Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2016 RDT&E
Programs (R-1), February 2016.
b. Includes $50 million undistributed reduction in DARPA funding.
c. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
d. Includes funding for Director of Test and Evaluation.
e. Includes funding for Classified Programs.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
18
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
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.”40 This section focuses on HHS R&D
funded through the National Institutes of Health, an HHS agency which accounts for more than
95% of total HHS R&D funding.41 Other HHS agencies that provide funding for R&D include the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA), and the Administration for Children and Families (ACF).42
National Institutes of Health43
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 illness and disability.”44 The
agency’s organization consists of the Office of the NIH Director and 27 institutes and centers.
NIH supports and conducts a wide range of basic and clinical research, research training, and
health information dissemination across all fields of biomedical and behavioral sciences. About
81% 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 30,000 nonfederal scientists and technical personnel who work at more than 2,500 universities, hospitals,
medical schools, and other research institutions.45 The NIH Office of the Director (OD) sets
overall policy for NIH and coordinates the programs and activities of all NIH components,
particularly in areas of research that involve multiple institutes. The institutes and centers (ICs)
focus on particular diseases, areas of human health and development, or aspects of research
support. Each IC plans and manages its own research programs in coordination with OD. As
shown in Table 8, separate appropriations are provided to 24 of the 27 ICs, to OD, and to an
intramural Buildings and Facilities account. The other three centers, which perform centralized
support services, are funded through assessments on the IC appropriations.
Funding for NIH comes primarily from the annual Labor, HHS, and Education (LHHS)
appropriations bill, with an additional amount for Superfund-related activities from the
Interior/Environment appropriations bill. Those two bills provide NIH’s discretionary budget
authority. In addition, NIH receives mandatory funding of $150 million annually that is provided
in the Public Health Service (PHS) Act for a special program on type 1 diabetes research and
40 HHS, “About,” http://www.hhs.gov/about.
41 CRS analysis of data provided by the Office of Management and Budget to CRS by email, February 22, 2016.
42 Ibid.
43 This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Biom
edical 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) .
44 National Institutes of Health, “About NIH, What We Do, Mission and Goals,” at http://www.nih.gov/about-nih/whatwe-do/mission-goals.
45 Department of Health and Human Services, Fiscal Year 2017 Budget in Brief, Washington, DC, February 9, 2016, p.
47, http://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/fy2017-budget-in-brief.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
19
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
funding from a PHS Act transfer. The total funding available for NIH activities, taking account of
add-ons and transfers, is known as the NIH program level.
President Obama’s FY2017 budget requested an NIH program level total of $33.136 billion, an
increase of $825 million (2.6%) over FY2016 (see Table 8). The FY2017 program level request
for NIH included $77 million for Superfund-related research, and $150 million in mandatory
funding for research on type 1 diabetes.46 The FY2017 request also included $1.825 billion in
additional mandatory funds, of which $825 million is for the following targeted increases: $680
million for the National Cancer Moonshot, $100 million for the Precision Medicine Initiative
(PMI) Cohort, and $45 million for the Brain Research through Application of Innovative
Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative.47 Aside from these targeted increases, the remainder of
the NIH FY2017 budget request “is at the same overall program level as FY2016, but $1 billion
of that is from mandatory funds.”48 Generally, mandatory spending is not controlled by the annual
appropriations process; new mandatory spending would usually occur as a result of authorizing
legislation.
The FY2017 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). This provision authorizes the Secretary to use a
portion of eligible appropriations to study the effectiveness of federal health programs and to
identify improvements. Although the PHS Act limits the tap to no more than 1% of eligible
appropriations, in recent years the annual LHHS appropriations act has specified a higher amount
(2.5% in FY2016) and has also typically directed specific amounts of funding from the tap for
transfer to a number of HHS programs. The set-aside has the effect of redistributing appropriated
funds for specific purposes among PHS and other HHS agencies. NIH, with the largest budget
among the PHS agencies, has historically been the largest “donor” of program evaluation funds;
until recently, it had been a relatively minor recipient.49
Under President Obama’s FY2017 budget request, the ICs would not have received an increase
compared to FY2016 except, as discussed above, the $680 million (13%) increase for the
46 The Superfund amount is provided in the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Acts. Mandatory funds for type 1 diabetes research (under PHS Act §330B) were provided by P.L. 11410 for FY2016 and FY2017.
47 Department of Health and Human Services, Fiscal Year 2017 Budget in Brief, Washington, DC, February 9, 2016, p.
47, http://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/fy2017-budget-in-brief.pdf; and the NIH FY2017 Budget Roll-Out, p. 3, at
http://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/about-nih/nih-director/budget-requests/fy17-budget-rollout-slides-20160209.pdf.
48 NIH FY2017 Budget Roll-Out, p. 3, at http://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/about-nih/nih-director/budget-requests/
fy17-budget-rollout-slides-20160209.pdf.
49 The FY2012 and FY2013 appropriations acts capped the set-aside at 2.5%. The President’s FY2014 budget proposed
increasing the PHS set-aside to 3.0%. The Senate committee rejected the increase, largely because of its effect on NIH,
estimating that it would have taken an extra $147 million from NIH. (See S.Rept. 113-71 on S. 1284, p. 41 and p. 83.)
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76) set the assessment at 2.5%. The President’s FY2015 Budget
again proposed increasing the tap to 3.0%; P.L. 113-235 set the assessment at 2.5%. For FY2015, although NIH
contributed an estimated $700 million to the tap, it received $715 million under P.L. 113-235, an increase over the $8.2
million the agency received in the past 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 8 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
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
20
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
National Cancer Institute targeted for the National Cancer Moonshot and a $145 million (9.2%)
increase for OD targeted for the PMI Cohort and the BRAIN Initiative.
The House Appropriations Committee-reported version of the FY2017 LHHS appropriations bill
(H.R. 5926) would have provided NIH with a total of $33.334 billion, including $792 million
provided by the evaluation tap. Adding to this total the amounts for Superfund-related activities
($77 million) and the mandatory type 1 diabetes program ($150 million) would have brought the
FY2017 NIH program level to $33.561 billion. The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported
version of the FY2017 LHHS appropriations bill (S. 3040) would have provided NIH with a total
of $34.084 billion, including $857 million provided by the evaluation tap and an estimated $300
million in new funding from the HHS Non-recurring Expenses Fund (NEF).50 Adding to this total
the amounts for Superfund-related activities ($77 million) and the mandatory type 1 diabetes
program ($150 million) would have brought the FY2017 NIH program level to $34.311 billion.
The explanatory statement accompanying the FY2017 LHHS appropriation (Division H of H.R.
244; P.L. 115-31) states that it provides $34.084 billion for NIH activities, which is a $2 billion
(6.2%) increase over FY2016. This amount is calculated by including the $824 million from the
evaluation tap as well as $352 million for the NIH Innovation account that was previously
appropriated to the agency for FY2017 (see text box and Table 8). Adding the amounts for
Superfund-related activities ($77 million in Division G of H.R. 244; P.L. 115-31) and the
mandatory type 1 diabetes program ($150 million) brings the FY2017 NIH program level to
$34.311 billion.
Except for the mandatory type 1 diabetes funding, Congress has not usually specified amounts for
particular diseases or research areas. Congress generally has appropriated specific amounts to
each IC and has left it to NIH and its scientific advisory panels to allocate funding to different
research areas in order to allow maximum flexibility to pursue scientific opportunities that are
important to public health.51 Some bills may propose authorizations for designated research
purposes, but funding generally has remained subject to the NIH peer review process as well as
the overall discretionary appropriation to the agency. This pattern has changed in recent years,
most notably with Alzheimer’s disease research. The overview below outlines research priorities
highlighted by the Administration in the FY2017 NIH budget request and selected responses from
congressional report language.52
50 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 FY2017
Labor/HHS/ED appropriations bill includes language that would repurpose a portion of the NEF for NIH biomedical
research activities. The House Appropriations Committee-reported FY2017 Labor/HHS/ED appropriations bill would
terminate the NEF and rescind unobligated balances.
51 See NIH website, “Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC),”
http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx.
52 The amounts discussed in the text below regarding the FY2017 President’s request are based on the NIH section in
Fiscal Year 2017 Budget in Brief, pp. 46-51. Amounts and quotes regarding the FY2017 recommendation of the House
Committee on Appropriations are taken from H.Rept. 114-699. Amounts and quotes regarding the FY2017
recommendation of the Senate Committee on Appropriations are taken from S.Rept. 114-274. Amounts and quotes
regarding funding for FY2017 in Division H of H.R. 244 are taken from the accompanying explanatory statement in the
March 5, 2017, Congressional Record (Part III), p. H3952-H3953 and H3982-H3984.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
21
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
Basic Research. About 52% of the proposed NIH budget was targeted for basic biomedical and
behavioral research. One example of basic research is the BRAIN Initiative, a collaborative effort
with the National Science Foundation, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and Food
and Drug Administration. The BRAIN Initiative develops and applies new tools for the study of
complex brain functions. Insights into brain circuitry and activity gained via the BRAIN Initiative
are expected to help reveal the underlying problems in brain disorders and may provide
therapeutic or prevention approaches for neurological and psychiatric conditions. The request
would have provided the NIH portion of the BRAIN Initiative with $195 million in FY2017, an
increase of $45 million over FY2016. The House Appropriations Committee recommended the
same amount for NIH as the request; the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a total
of $250 million for the NIH portion of the BRAIN Initiative. The explanatory statement
accompanying H.R. 244 (P.L. 115-31) states it increases funding for the BRAIN Initiative by
$110 million; $10 million was previously appropriated to the NIH Innovation account (see text
box).
Translating Discovery into Health. NIH
estimated it would spend $910 million on
Alzheimer’s disease research in FY2017, the
same amount as in FY2016. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended “an
increase of $350 million” within the National
Institute on Aging “to support a total of at
least $1.26 billion on Alzheimer’s disease
research.” The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommendation included “an
increase of $400 million for Alzheimer’s
disease research, bringing the total available
in FY2017 to approximately $1.391 billion.”
The explanatory statement says it provides a
total of $1.391 billion for Alzheimer’s disease
research in FY2017.
NIH would target $413 million in FY2017,
the same level as FY2016, to respond to the
growing public health threat posed by
antimicrobial resistance bacteria. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended an
increase of $50 million in funding for
antibiotic resistance research and this same
increase was included in the explanatory
statement.
The 21st Century Cures Act and the
NIH Innovation Account
Section 194 of the Further Continuing and Security
Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 (CR, P.L. 114-254)
appropriates $352 million in the NIH Innovation
account for necessary expenses to carry out the four
NIH Innovation Projects as described in Section
1001(b)(4) of the 21st Century Cures Act (P.L. 114255). This $352 million is available until expended and
is in addition to amounts for FY2017 provided
elsewhere by the CR. The Cures Act created the NIH
Innovation account and specified that funds in the
account must be appropriated in order to be available
for expenditure; the appropriation in Section 194 of the
CR was necessary to fulfill this requirement. The four
projects authorized by the Cures Act are the Precision
Medicine Initiative ($40 million for FY2017), the BRAIN
Initiative ($10 million for FY2017), cancer research
($300 million for FY2017), and regenerative medicine
using adult stem cells ($2 million for FY2017). The NIH
Director may transfer these amounts from the NIH
Innovation account to other NIH accounts but only for
the purposes specified in the Cures Act. If the NIH
Director determines that the funds for any of the four
Innovation Projects are not necessary, the amounts may
be transferred back to the NIH Innovation account.
This transfer authority is in addition to other transfer
authorities provided by law.
NIH plans to spend a total of $6.3 billion on cancer research in FY2017; of this amount, $5.894
billion is the budget for the National Cancer Institute. The FY2017 request proposed $755 million
for the Cancer Moonshot; $680 million in mandatory funding was to be allocated for the National
Cancer Institute at NIH and $75 million was to be transferred from NIH to the Food and Drug
Administration. The Senate Appropriations Committees did not provide a recommended amount
for the Cancer Moonshot. The House Appropriations Committee stated that it “strongly supports
the goals of the Cancer Moonshot initiative” and that it “continues the $195 million used in
FY2016 for this initiative.” The House committee also stated that it “looks forward to ... spending
details once the taskforce completes its work at the end of the calendar year.” The explanatory
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
22
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
statement mentions the amount previously appropriated for cancer research in the NIH Innovation
account (see text box) but does not direct any additional funds for such research.
Precision Medicine Initiative. The FY2017 budget request proposed a total of $309 million for
PMI, a multiagency effort: $4 million to the Food and Drug Administration to support the
development of the necessary regulatory approaches, $5 million to the Office of the National
Coordinator for Health Information Technology for developing relevant data privacy and sharing
requirements, and $300 million (a $100 million increase) to support research at NIH. The $100
million increase, to come from mandatory funds, would support a scale-up of the national
research cohort, composed of 1 million or more volunteers, whose health, genetic, environmental,
and other data would be collected and used in research studies to identify novel therapeutics and
prevention strategies. Funding would continue for the National Cancer Institute’s efforts on
elucidating the genetics of cancer. Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
recommend a $100 million increase in FY2017 for PMI at NIH, but this would be provided in
discretionary not mandatory funds. The explanatory statement mentions the amount previously
appropriated for PMI in the NIH Innovation account (see text box).
Biomedical Research Workforce. NIH estimated it would spend $849 million to support 16,421
individuals in its major research training program, the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research
Service Awards, with a 2% stipend increase in FY2017 for predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees.
The House Appropriations Committee “expects NIH to support an increased number of Ruth L.
Kirschstein National Research Service Awards and other training grants in proportion to at least
the general IC level funding increase. NIH is also expected to provide a stipend level increase to
training grantees that is consistent with any FY2017 Federal employee pay raise.” The
explanatory statement directs that the number of NIH training grants in FY2017 should be “in
proportion to at least the general IC level funding increase” of 3%. In addition, the “agreement
expects NIH to provide a stipend level and inflationary increase to grantees that is at least
consistent with any fiscal year 2017 Federal employee pay raise.”
Research Project Grants. The main funding mechanism for supporting extramural research is
research project grants (RPGs), which are competitive, peer-reviewed, and largely investigatorinitiated. The FY2017 budget requested total funding for RPGs of $18.2 billion, representing
about 55% of NIH’s proposed budget. The request would have supported an estimated 36,440
RPG awards. Within that total, 9,946 would have been new RPGs and competing RPGs (renewals
of existing grants), a decrease of 807 grants compared with FY2016. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommendation was “estimated to support over 11,200 new and competing grants in
FY2017.” The House Appropriations Committee expected its recommendation to support “at least
11,175 new RPGs. It also stated that the Committee strongly urges NIH to restore extramural
support to at least 90% of all NIH funding.” As stated earlier, currently about 81% of NIH’s
budget goes out to the extramural research community as grants, contracts, and other awards. The
explanatory statement addresses the number of RPGs in FY2017 as follows: “The agreement
expects the 6.2 percent increase of funds over the fiscal year 2016 level to support an increase in
the number of new and competing Research Project Grants.”
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
23
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
Table 8. National Institutes of Health Funding
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2016
FY2017
Request
FY2017
House
FY2017
Senate
FY2017
Enacted
Cancer Institute (NCI)
$5,214
$5,894
$5,338
$5,430
$5,389
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
3,114
3,114
3,190
3,243
3,207
Dental/Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
413
413
426
431
426
Diabetes/Digestive/Kidney (NIDDK)a
1,816
1,816
1,862
1,892
1,871
Neurological Disorders/Stroke (NINDS)
1,695
1,695
1,751
1,803
1,784
Allergy/Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
4,716
4,716
4,739
4,961
4,907
General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)b
1,732
1,665
1,792
1,777
1,826
Child Health/Human Development (NICHD)
1,338
1,338
1,373
1,396
1,380
National Eye Institute (NEI)
708
708
736
741
733
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
694
694
710
722
714
1,598
1,598
1,982
2,067
2,049
Arthritis/Musculoskeletal/Skin Diseases
(NIAMS)
542
542
555
564
558
Deafness/Communication Disorders
(NIDCD)
423
423
434
442
437
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
1,519
1,519
1,600
1,620
1,602
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
1,051
1,051
1,108
1,103
1,091
Alcohol Abuse/Alcoholism (NIAAA)
467
467
480
489
483
Nursing Research (NINR)
146
146
150
152
150
Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)
513
513
531
535
529
Biomedical Imaging/Bioengineering (NIBIB)
344
344
357
361
357
Minority Health/Health Disparities (NIMHD)
281
281
286
292
289
Complementary/Integrative Health
(NCCIH)c
130
130
135
136
135
Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)
685
685
713
714
706
Fogarty International Center (FIC)
70
70
72
73
72
National Library of Medicine (NLM)
396
396
403
412
408
Office of Director (OD)
1,571
1,716
1,689
1,444
1,665
Buildings & Facilities (B&F)
129
129
129
129
129
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
NIH Innovation Fund (P.L. 114-254)
352
PHS Evaluation Tap fundingb
780
847
792
857
824
Non-Recurring Expense Fund
0
0
0
300
0
32,084
32,910
33,334
34,084
34,084
Superfund (Interior approp. to NIEHS)d
77
77
77
77
77
Mandatory type 1 diabetes fundse
150
150
150
150
150
32,311
33,136
33,561
34,311
34,311
Subtotal, NIH
Total, NIH program level
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
24
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Fiscal Year 2017 Budget in Brief, Washington, DC, February
9, 2016, pp. 46-47, http://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/fy2017-budget-in-brief.pdf, H.Rept. 114-699, S.Rept. 114258, Division H of H.R. 244 and the accompanying explanatory statement in the March 5, 2017, Congressional
Record (Part III), p. H3982-H3984.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding. Amounts in table may differ from
actuals in many cases. By convention, budget tables such as Table 8 do not subtract the amount of transfers,
such as the evaluation tap, from the agencies’ appropriation. Figures for the columns headed “FY2017 House,”
“FY 2017 Senate” and “FY2017 Enacted” will be added, if available, as each action is completed.
a. Amounts for the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) do not include
mandatory funding for type 1 diabetes research (see note e).
b. Amounts for National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) do not include funds from PHS
Evaluation Set-Aside (§241 of PHS Act).
c. Reflects name change from National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine to National
Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; provision included in P.L. 113-235.
d. This is a separate account in the Interior/Environment appropriations for National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) research activities related to Superfund.
e. Mandatory funds available to NIDDK for type 1 diabetes research under PHS Act §330B (provided by P.L.
114-10 for FY2016 and FY2017).
Department of Energy53
The Department of Energy (DOE) was established in 1977 by the Department of Energy
Organization Act (P.L. 95-91), which combined energy-related programs from a variety of
agencies with defense-related nuclear programs that dated back to the Manhattan Project. Today,
DOE conducts basic scientific research in fields ranging from nuclear physics to the biological
and environmental sciences; basic and applied R&D relating to energy production and use; and
R&D on nuclear weapons, nuclear nonproliferation, and defense nuclear reactors. The department
has a system of 17 national laboratories around the country, mostly operated by contractors, that
together account for about 40% of all DOE expenditures.
The Administration requested $14.705 billion for FY2017 for DOE R&D and related activities,
including programs in three broad categories: science, national security, and energy. This request
was 14.4% more than the enacted FY2016 amount of $12.858 billion. Unusually, $750 million of
the request was for mandatory funding. Considering only discretionary funding, the request was
$13.955 billion, an increase of 8.5%. The House bill (H.R. 5055 as reported by the House
Committee on Appropriations, with H.Rept. 114-532) would have provided $12.857 billion.54 The
Senate bill (H.R. 2028 as passed by the Senate, with S.Rept. 114-236) would have provided
$13.007 billion.55 Neither bill would have included any mandatory funding. The final
appropriation was $13.140 billion, all of it discretionary. (See Table 9 for details.)
The request for the DOE Office of Science was $5.672 billion, an increase of 6.1% from the
FY2016 appropriation of $5.347 billion. The request included $100 million in mandatory funding
for a program of grants to universities. Without this mandatory funding, the request for
discretionary appropriations was $5.572 billion, an increase of 4.2%. The House and Senate bills
would each have provided $5.400 billion. The final appropriation was $5.392 billion. There is no
53 This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
54 The discussion in this section does not reflect floor amendments to H.R. 5055, as the House rejected the amended bill
on final passage.
55 S.Rept. 114-236 accompanied S. 2804, whose text, as amended, was adopted in H.R. 2028 as an amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
25
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
authorized funding level for the Office of Science for FY2017. The most recent authorization act
(the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, P.L. 111-358) authorized appropriations
through FY2013.
The Office of Science includes six major research programs. The request for the largest program,
Basic Energy Sciences (BES), was $1.937 billion, an increase of 4.8%. Within BES, a requested
increase of $33 million for Energy Frontier Research Centers was to support five new awards for
centers in the field of subsurface geochemistry and geophysics. A new activity in computational
chemical sciences was to receive $14 million. Funding for the continued construction of the Linac
Coherent Light Source II (LCLS-II) was to decrease by $10 million, in line with the previously
projected construction schedule. The House bill would have provided $1.860 billion, and the
House committee report “strongly caution[ed] the Department against assuming an everincreasing budget when planning the balance among facility runtime, construction, and research
funding.” The Senate bill would have provided $1.913 billion. The final appropriation was $1.872
billion.
The request for High Energy Physics was $818 million, an increase of 2.9%. Construction
funding for the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility/Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment
(LBNF/DUNE) was to increase by $19 million. Following a review in July 2015, DOE approved
a revised conceptual design for LBNF/DUNE in November 2015. The projected total project cost
range is now $1.260 billion to $1.860 billion, up from the range of $805 million to $1.110 billion
reported in FY2016 budget documents. The projected start of operations has slipped from
FY2027 to FY2030. The House bill would have provided $823 million, including $5 million
more than the request for LBNF. The Senate bill would have provided $833 million, including
$10 million more than the request for LBNF. Both the House and Senate committee reports
expressed “strong support” for the strategic planning recommendations of the Particle Physics
Project Prioritization Panel.56 The final appropriation was $825 million.
The request for Biological and Environmental Research (BER) was $662 million, an increase of
8.7%. This program consists of two roughly equal parts: Biological Systems Science and Climate
and Environmental Sciences. In the Biological Systems Science program, funding for Genomic
Science was to increase by $43 million. Funding for Radiological Sciences was to be eliminated.
In Climate and Environmental Sciences, funding for Climate and Earth System Modeling was to
increase by $5 million. The House bill would have provided $595 million. The Senate bill would
have provided $637 million. The final appropriation was $612 million. The House and Senate
committee reports and the final explanatory statement all directed DOE to give priority to
optimizing the operation of BER user facilities.
The request for Nuclear Physics was $636 million, an increase of 3.1%. The proposed increase
was spread across most areas of research and operations. No additional funding was requested for
construction of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) upgrade because
that project was expected to move from the construction phase in FY2016 to the commissioning
phase in FY2017. The House bill would have provided $620 million. The Senate bill would have
provided $636 million. The final appropriation was $622 million.
The request for Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) was $663 million, an increase
of 6.8%. A new Exascale Computing program (part of the DOE-wide Exascale Computing
Initiative) was to receive $154 million. According to DOE, this program would consolidate
56 Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel, Building for Discovery: Strategic Plan for U.S. Particle Physics in the
Global Context, May 2014, http://science.energy.gov/~/media/hep/hepap/pdf/May-2014/
FINAL_P5_Report_Interactive_060214.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
26
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
ongoing activities currently funded through other ASCR programs, and the requested funding
would represent a net decrease of $4 million for those activities. Proposed decreases in other
ASCR programs mostly reflected activities transferred to the new program. The House bill would
have provided $621 million, including $151 million for Exascale Computing. The Senate bill
would have provided $656 million, including the requested $154 million for Exascale Computing.
The final appropriation was $647 million, including $164 million for the exascale initiative.
The request for Fusion Energy Sciences was $398 million, a decrease of 9.1%. Funding for most
elements of the program was to decrease, but funding for U.S. contributions to the construction of
the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) was to increase to $125 million
from $115 million in FY2016. The House bill would have provided $450 million, including the
requested amount for ITER. The Senate bill would have provided $280 million, including no
funds for ITER. The Senate committee report explained this decision by stating that ITER
funding “continues to crowd out other Federal science investments, including domestic fusion
research.” The final appropriation was $380 million, including $50 million for ITER and
reprogramming authority to allocate up to an additional $50 million to ITER.
The cost of U.S. participation in ITER—and especially its impact on the availability of funding
for the rest of the fusion program—has long been controversial. Project delays, design and scope
changes, and other factors have delayed formal approval of a revised cost and schedule estimate.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) required that
not later than May 2, 2016, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report recommending either that the United
States remain a partner in the ITER project after October 2017 or terminate participation,
which shall include, as applicable, an estimate of either the full cost, by fiscal year, of all
future Federal funding requirements for construction, operation, and maintenance of
ITER or the cost of termination.
Submitted in late May 2016, the DOE report recommended continued U.S. partnership in ITER
through FY2018 and a reevaluation of U.S. participation prior to submittal of the FY2019
budget.57 The House committee report directed DOE to submit a follow-up report by December 1,
2016. The final explanatory statement directed DOE to hold additional workshops and report to
Congress on the fusion energy science community’s continued long-term planning efforts.
The request for DOE national security R&D was $3.702 billion, a 1.8% increase from $3.636
billion in FY2016. In the Weapons Activities account, a proposed decrease of $53 million for
Component Manufacturing Development was more than offset by proposed increases in other
areas, the largest being an increase of $40 million for Advanced Simulation and Computing. In
the Naval Reactors program, a proposed overall increase of $45 million included an increase of
$27 million for development of replacement reactor systems for Ohio class submarines. Funding
for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D was to decrease by $25 million. The House bill
would have provided $3.753 billion for national security R&D, including $97 million more than
the request for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D, for development and demonstration
activities to reduce the use of highly enriched uranium in high-performance research reactors and
molybdenum-99 production. The Senate bill would have provided $3.631 billion, including $68
million less than the request for Naval Reactors operations and infrastructure. The final
appropriation of $3.760 billion included $53 million for the development of new fuels for highperformance research reactors and the requested amount for the Naval Reactors program.
57 Department of Energy, U.S. Participation in the ITER Project, May 2016, http://science.energy.gov/~/media/fes/pdf/
DOE_US_Participation_in_the_ITER_Project_May_2016_Final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
27
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
The FY2017 request for DOE energy R&D was $5.332 billion, up 37.6% from $3.875 billion in
FY2016. The requested total included $650 million in mandatory funding. Considering only
discretionary funding, the request was $4.442 billion, an increase of 14.6%. Discretionary
funding for R&D on Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) was to increase by
42.6%, with increases requested for all major EERE programs. Within EERE, the largest
requested increases were for Vehicle Technologies ($469 million, up from $310 million) and a
new Crosscutting Innovation Initiatives program ($215 million). The latter was to support new
regional and small business partnerships, business accelerators that leverage the capabilities of
the national laboratories, and funding opportunities for “off-roadmap” R&D projects. The request
for $500 million in mandatory funding for EERE was to support R&D on clean transportation,
biofuels, and smart mobility. Discretionary funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency–
Energy (ARPA-E) was to increase by 20.3%. The request proposed to maintain a 60:40 split
between ARPA-E project funding in the areas of Stationary Power Systems and Transportation
Systems. A proposed five-year ARPA-E trust was to provide $150 million in mandatory funding
in FY2017, rising to $650 million in FY2021, with the goal of reaching total ARPA-E funding of
$1 billion per year. In the Fossil Energy program, the request included an increase for natural gas
technologies, mostly directed toward carbon capture, from $43 million in FY2016 to $58 million
in FY2017. The House bill would have provided $3.704 billion for energy R&D. The Senate bill
would have provided $3.977 billion. For EERE, both bills would have provided less than the
FY2016 amount (and much less than the requested amount). Both would have provided a smaller
than requested increase for ARPA-E, and more than the request for fossil energy R&D overall.
For natural gas technologies, the House bill would have provided $25 million, while the Senate
bill would have provided $46 million. The final appropriation was $3.988 billion, including
slightly more than the FY2016 amount for EERE (but much less than the request), the House
amount for ARPA-E, more than either the House or Senate bill for fossil energy R&D overall, and
$43 million for natural gas technologies.
Table 9. Department of Energy R&D and Related Activities
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2016
Enacted
FY2017
Request
FY2017
House
FY2017
Senate
FY2017
Enacted
$5,347
$5,672
$5,400
$5,400
$5,392
Basic Energy Sciences
1,849
1,937
1,860
1,913
1,872
High Energy Physics
795
818
823
833
825
Biological and Environmental Research
609
662
595
637
612
Nuclear Physics
617
636
620
636
622
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
621
663
621
656
647
Fusion Energy Sciences
438
398
450
280
380
University Grants (Mandatory)
—
100
—
—
—
Other
418
458
431
445
435
3,636
3,702
3,753
3,631
3,760
Weapons Activities RDT&E
1,819
1,855
1,818
1,839
1,842
Naval Reactors
1,375
1,420
1,420
1,352
1,420
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D
419
394
492
407
470
Defense Environmental Cleanup Technol. Devel.
23
33
23
33
28
Science
National Security
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
28
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
FY2016
Enacted
FY2017
Request
FY2017
House
FY2017
Senate
FY2017
Enacted
3,875
5,332
3,704
3,977
3,988
1,804
3,072
1,560
1,802
1,812
Discretionary
1,804
2,572
1,560
1,802
1,812
Mandatory
—
500
—
—
—
Fossil Energy R&D
632
600b
645
632c
668c
Nuclear Energy
986
994
1,012
1,058
1,017
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability R&D
162
165
182
160
185
Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy
291
500
306
325
306
Discretionary
291
350
306
325
306
Mandatory
—
150
—
—
—
12,858
14,705
12,857
13,007
13,140
Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energya
DOE, Total
Source: DOE FY2017 congressional budget justification, http://energy.gov/cfo/downloads/fy-2017-budgetjustification; H.R. 5055 as reported in the House and H.Rept. 114-532; H.R. 2028 as passed by the Senate and
S.Rept. 114-236; and P.L. 115-31 and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, May 3, 2017.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
a. Excluding Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.
b. Includes use of $240 million in prior-year balances.
c. Bill would also rescind $240 million in prior-year balances.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration58
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was created in 1958 by the National
Aeronautics and Space Act (P.L. 85-568) to conduct civilian space and aeronautics activities.
NASA has research programs in planetary science, Earth science, heliophysics, astrophysics, and
aeronautics, as well as development programs for future human spacecraft and for multipurpose
space technology such as advanced propulsion systems. In addition, NASA operates the
International Space Station as a facility for R&D and other purposes.
The Administration requested $15.890 billion for NASA R&D in FY2017. This amount was 2.4%
less than the FY2016 level of about $16.282 billion.59 Unusually, the FY2017 request included
$763 million in mandatory funds. The House bill (H.R. 5393 as reported) would have provided
about $16.483 billion. The Senate bill (S. 2837) would have provided about $16.274 billion.
Neither bill would have provided any mandatory funds. The final appropriation provided about
$16.657 billion. For a breakdown of these amounts, see Table 10. NASA R&D funding comes
through five accounts: Science, Aeronautics, Space Technology, Exploration, and the
International Space Station and Commercial Crew portions of Space Operations.
58 This section was written by (n ame redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division. For more information, see CRS Report R44397, NASA: FY2017 Budget and Appropriations, by
(name redacted).
59 FY2016 amounts in this section are based on the operating plan reported in the NASA FY2018 congressional budget
justification.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
29
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
The FY2017 request for Science was $5.601 billion, an increase of 0.3%. Within this total,
funding for Earth Science, Astrophysics, and Heliophysics were to increase, while funding for
Planetary Science and the James Webb Space Telescope were to decrease. The House bill would
have provided $4 million less than the request, while the Senate bill would have provided $206
million less. Relative to the request, the House bill would have shifted more than $300 million
from Earth Science to Planetary Science. In contrast, most of the Senate bill’s decrease would
have been in Planetary Science. The final appropriation was $5.765 billion. It included the House
bill’s level of funding for Planetary Science, but with less reduction for Earth Science.
Within Earth Science, the request included $131 million (up from $100 million in FY2016) for
the Landsat-9 land imaging satellite. Launch is anticipated “as early as” 2021. NASA previously
proposed the Thermal Infrared Free Flyer, a lower-cost satellite intended to reduce the risk of a
gap in data availability prior to the launch of Landsat-9. Congress rejected funding for the
Thermal Infrared Free Flyer in the FY2016 appropriations cycle, and the mission was not
included in the FY2017 request. The House report directed NASA to prioritize funds for Landsat9 and to evaluate commercially available data in the event of a data gap in the Landsat program.
The Senate report recommended the requested amount for Landsat-9 and directed NASA to
provide a plan detailing the technical and schedule progress needed for a 2020 launch date. The
final explanatory statement also included the requested amount.
Within Planetary Science, the request included $50 million (down from $175 million in FY2016)
for a mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa. Although a mission to Europa was a high priority of the
2011 National Research Council (NRC) decadal survey of planetary science,60 the NRC
expressed reservations about its anticipated cost. For several years, Congress has appropriated
more for formulation of a Europa mission than NASA has requested. As directed by the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, NASA’s FY2017 congressional budget justification
included a five-year estimate of the funding required assuming a 2022 launch. The justification
stated that “the notional outyear profile in the Budget may support a launch as early as the late
2020s, assuming the mission concept and scope remain stable.... Acceleration of the launch to
2022 is not recommended, given potential impacts to the rest of the Science portfolio.” The
House report recommended at least $260 million for Europa orbiter and lander missions, with the
orbiter launch no later than 2022 and the lander launch no later than 2024. The Senate report
called for “an expeditious launch and reduced travel time” in order to maximize the scientific
return of a Europa mission, but it did not specify a funding level or a launch date. It directed
NASA to provide a report on options for the mission “to assist the Committee in evaluating
potential mission configurations.” The final explanatory statement provided $275 million “as
outlined by the House” and explicitly omitted the Senate language regarding an analysis of
options.
The FY2017 request for Aeronautics was $790 million, an increase of 24.7% from FY2016. The
request included New Aviation Horizons (NAH), a new initiative of experimental aircraft and
systems demonstrations. NAH projects on subsonic aircraft were to receive $100 million in
mandatory funding from the proposed 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan.61 An additional
$56 million in mandatory funding was to fund a low-boom supersonic flight demonstrator. The
House bill would have provided $78 million less than the request for Aeronautics, while the
60 National Research Council, Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022 (National
Academies Press, 2011). Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13117.
61 See “Fact Sheet: President Obama’s 21st Century Clean Transportation System,” White House press release,
February 4, 2016, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/04/fact-sheet-president-obamas-21stcentury-clean-transportation-system.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
30
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
Senate bill would have provided $189 million less. The House committee’s recommendation
included $61 million (of discretionary funds) for a low-boom demonstrator. The House and
Senate committee reports both directed NASA to work with the Federal Aviation Administration
on research related to the integration of unmanned aerial systems in the National Airspace
System.62 The final appropriation was $660 million. The explanatory statement did not mention
the low-boom flight demonstrator; it supported the House language on unmanned aerial systems.
The FY2017 request for Space Technology was $827 million, an increase of 20.4% from FY2016.
Space Technology was first established as a separate account in FY2011. Each year since then,
the Administration has proposed to increase Space Technology funding. Congress has provided
increases each year except FY2014, but always less than the Administration’s request. Proposed
mandatory funding of $136 million accounted for almost all of the requested increase in FY2017.
The bulk of the mandatory funding was to support technology demonstration missions, including
the Restore-L satellite servicing mission for which Congress appropriated $133 million in
FY2016. The House bill would have provided $88 million less than the request for Space
Technology, or $48 million more than the FY2016 appropriation, while the Senate bill would
have provided the FY2016 amount. The Senate committee report recommended $130 million (of
discretionary funds) for Restore-L. The House and Senate committee reports both identified
nuclear propulsion research and a small launch technology demonstration platform as funding
priorities. The final appropriation for Space Technology was the FY2016 amount. Within this
total, the explanatory statement allocated funding for both nuclear propulsion and small launch
capabilities. It did not mention Restore-L.
The FY2017 request for Exploration was $3.337 billion, a decrease of 16.5% from FY2016. The
Exploration account primarily funds development of the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle and
the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket, the capsule and launch vehicle mandated by
the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 for future human exploration beyond Earth orbit. The
account previously also funded development of a commercial crew transportation capability for
U.S. astronaut access to the International Space Station (ISS), but Congress transferred this
activity to Space Operations in FY2016. Within Exploration, the FY2017 request for Orion, the
SLS, and related ground systems (known collectively as Exploration Systems Development) was
$2.860 billion, a decrease of 21.5% from FY2016. The bulk of the proposed reduction was for
SLS launch vehicle development, which was to receive $1.263 billion, down 34.3% from $1.922
billion in FY2016. At the time of the FY2017 budget release, NASA was targeting a first test
flight of SLS carrying Orion but no crew (known as EM-1) in November 2018; that schedule has
since slipped to 2019. The launch readiness date for the first flight of Orion and the SLS with a
crew on board (known as EM-2) continues to be FY2023. The House and Senate bills would have
provided $4.183 billion and $4.330 billion, respectively, for Exploration. These increases relative
to the request would have funded the SLS at the FY2016 level (in the House bill) or higher (in the
Senate bill). The House and Senate reports both recommended funding for development of the
SLS Exploration Upper Stage (EUS)—$250 million and $300 million, respectively—which was
not included in the Administration request. The House report specified that none of the funds in
the House bill were for the Asteroid Redirect Mission, which was proposed in the FY2014 budget
but faced ongoing opposition in Congress. The final appropriation for Exploration was $3.324
billion. The explanatory statement directed NASA to continue developing certain technologies
associated with the Asteroid Redirect Mission, but also directed that these activities “should not
distract from the overarching goal of sending humans to Mars.”
62 For more information on this issue, see CRS Report R44352, Unmanned Aircraft Operations in Domestic Airspace:
U.S. Policy Perspectives and the Regulatory Landscape, by (name redacted)
.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
31
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
In the Space Operations account, the request for the ISS was $1.431 billion, a decrease of 0.4%
from FY2016, and the request for Commercial Crew was $1.185 billion, a decrease of 4.7%. The
FY2017 budget was the first to request Commercial Crew funding within Space Operations.
Commercial Crew is now part of the Space Transportation budget item, which also includes the
cost of U.S. commercial cargo flights to the ISS and payments to Russia for Soyuz flights
carrying ISS crews. The House and Senate bills would have provided $186 million less and $125
million less, respectively, than the request for Space Operations. For the most part, the committee
reports did not specify how the recommended funding should be allocated. However, the Senate
report did note that its total included $1.185 billion for Commercial Crew, the same as the
request. The enacted bill provided the same amount as the Senate for Space Operations overall
and for Commercial Crew, again without specifying funding for the ISS.
Table 10. National Aeronautics and Space Administration R&D
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2016
Actual
FY2017
Request
(Total)
FY2017
FY2017
Request
Request
(Mandatory) (Discr.)
5,584
5,601
298
Earth Science
1,927
2,032
Planetary Science
1,628
Astrophysics
FY2017
House
FY2017
Senate
FY2017
Enacted
5,303
5,597
5,395
5,765
60
1,972
1,690
1,984
1,921
1,519
128
1,391
1,846
1,356
1,846
762
782
85
697
793
807
750
James Webb Space Telescope
620
569
—
569
569
569
569
Heliophysics
647
699
25
674
699
679
679
Aeronautics
634
790
156
635
712
601
660
Space Technology
686
827
136
691
739
687
687
3,996
3,337
173
3,164
4,183
4,330
4,324
3,641
2,860
173
2,687
3,779
3,934
3,929
355
477
—
477
404
396
395
n/sa
n/sa
Science
Exploration
Exploration Systems Development
Exploration R&D
International Space Station
1,436
1,431
—
1,431
n/sa
Commercial Crew
1,244
1,185
—
1,185
n/sa
1,185
1,185
Subtotal R&D
13,581
13,170
—
12,409
13,751
13,579
14,005
Non-R&D Programsb
2,505
2,599
—
2,599
2,523
2,530
2,519
Safety, Security, and Mission Services
2,772
2,837
—
2,837
2,835
2,797
2,769
2,341
2,369
—
2,369
2,396
2,357
2,347
Associated with R&Dc
Construction & Environmental C&R
427
420
—
420
398
400
361a
Associated with R&Dc
361
351
—
351
336
337
306
NASA, Total (R&D)
16,282
15,890
763
15,127
16,483
16,274
16,657
NASA, Total
19,285
19,025
763
18,262
19,508
19,306
19,653a
Sources: FY2016 actual from operating plan as of NASA FY2018 congressional budget justification,
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/. FY2017 request from NASA FY2017 congressional budget justification.
FY2017 House from H.R. 5393 as reported and H.Rept. 114-605. FY2017 Senate from S. 2837 and S.Rept. 114239. FY2017 enacted from P.L. 115-31 and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, May 3, 2017, pp. H3374H3375.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
32
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding. The Request (Total) column
includes both discretionary and mandatory funding. For readability, a dash indicates zero. C&R = Compliance and
Remediation.
a. Not specified. The R&D totals shown lower in the table assume that unspecified amounts within Space
Operations are allocated in proportion to the Administration request.
b. Space Operations other than ISS and Commercial Crew; Education; and Inspector General.
c. CRS estimates the allocation between R&D and non-R&D in proportion to the underlying program amounts
in order to allow calculation of a total for R&D. The Safety, Security, and Mission Services account and the
Construction and Environmental Compliance and Remediation account consist mostly of indirect costs for
other programs, assessed in proportion to their direct costs.
d. Does not include $109 million in emergency appropriations for natural disaster repairs.
National Science Foundation63
The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports basic research and education in the non-medical
sciences and engineering. Congress established the foundation as an independent federal agency
in 1950 and directed it to “promote the progress of science; to advance the national health,
prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.”64 The NSF is a
primary source of federal support for U.S. university research, especially in mathematics and
computer science. It is also responsible for significant shares of the federal science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education program portfolio and federal STEM student
aid and support.65
NSF has six major appropriations accounts: Research and Related Activities (RRA, the main
research account), Education and Human Resources (EHR, the main education account), Major
Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC), Agency Operations and Award
Management (AOAM), the National Science Board (NSB), and the Office of Inspector General
(OIG). FY2016 and FY2017 funding for these accounts are tracked in Table 11.
Overall. The Obama Administration requested $7.964 billion for the NSF in FY2017, a $501
million (6.7%) increase over the FY2016 estimate of $7.463 billion. This request included $7.564
billion in discretionary budget authority and $400 million in new one-time mandatory budget
authority (excluding new mandatory funding, the total NSF request is $101 million [1.3%] greater
than the FY2016 appropriation). The request would have increased budget authority in three
accounts relative to the FY2016 estimate: RRA by $392 million (6.5%), EHR by $73 million
(8.3%), and AOAM by $43 million (13%). The request would have provided NSB and OIG
accounts with about the same amount as in FY2016 and decreased funding for the MREFC
account by $7 million (3.6%).
As reported by the Senate, S. 2837 would have provided a total of $7.510 billion to NSF for
FY2017, which is $46 million (0.6%) above the FY2016 estimate and $54 million (0.7%) below
the FY2017 discretionary request. As reported by the House, H.R. 5393 would have provided a
total of $7.406 billion to NSF for FY2017, which is $57 million (0.8%) below the FY2016
estimate, and $158 million (2.1%) below the FY2017 discretionary request. Neither bill would
have provided mandatory funding. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31),
63 This section was written by Laurie Harris, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
64 The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-507).
65 For more information about the NSF, see CRS Report R43585, The National Science Foundation: Background and
Selected Policy Issues, by (name redacted)
; and CRS Report R44679, The National Science Foundation: FY2017
Appropriations and Funding History, by (name redacted) and (name redacted)
.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
33
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
signed by the President on May 5, 2017, provides $7.472 billion in discretionary funding to NSF,
0.1% above the FY2016 enacted amount. The increase of nearly $9 million for NSF is provided
entirely within the MREFC account.
The FY2017 NSF budget justification identifies two areas of major emphasis, four crossfoundation investments, and six ongoing NSF-wide priorities. The two areas of major emphasis
are Clean Energy R&D and strengthening support for core activities. The FY2017 request would
have increased funding for Clean Energy R&D by $141 million to $512 million (37.9%).
Strengthening support for core services would have been funded by new mandatory budget
authority of $400 million.
NSF identifies four cross-foundation activities that aim to bring researchers from different fields
of science and engineering together to address cross disciplinary questions. These activities are
Understanding the Brain (UtB, $142 million requested, 3.6% decrease); Risk and Resilience
($43 million requested, 4.9% increase); Innovations at the Nexus of Food, Energy, and Water
Systems (INFEWS, $62 million requested, 27.7% increase); and NSF Inclusion across the Nation
of Communities of Learners of Underrepresented Discoverers in Engineering and Science (NSF
INCLUDES, $16 million requested, 3.2% increase).
NSF identifies six foundation-wide priorities for FY2017. These are Cyber-Enabled Materials,
Manufacturing, and Smart Systems (CEMMSS, $257 million requested, 0.3% increase);
Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science, Engineering, and Education (CIF21,
$100 million requested, 24.4% decrease); Innovation Corps (I-Corps, $30 million requested, no
change); Research at the Interface of Biological, Mathematical, and Physical Sciences (BioMaPS,
$30 million requested, 4.8% decrease); Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability
(SEES, $52 million requested, 29.8% decrease); and Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC,
$150 million requested, 15.4% increase). The report to accompany S. 2837, S.Rept. 114-239
(Senate report), expressed support for the I-Corps program but did not specify a funding level.
The report to accompany H.R. 5393, H.Rept. 114-605 (House report), recommended $5 million
above the requested level for the program. The explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 115-31
directs NSF to provide $30.0 million for I-Corps.
Research. The Obama Administration sought a $392 million (6.5%) increase in funding for RRA
in FY2017, for a total of $6.425 billion. Of this total, the request included $6.079 billion as
discretionary funding and $346 million as new mandatory budget authority.
The FY2017 request included increases for all of the RRA subaccounts except for the U.S. Arctic
Research Commission (USARC), which would not have changed. The largest percentage increase
would have gone to Engineering (ENG, 9.4%). The largest increase in dollars would have gone to
Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS, $87.3 million). The other subaccounts would have
received increases between 6.0% and 6.5%, except for International and Integrative Activities
(IIA), which would have received a 2.9% increase. The FY2017 request included an increase for
the widely tracked RRA program Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
(EPSCoR) from $160 million to $171 million (6.7%), of which $8.56 million was requested as
new mandatory funding. The explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 115-31 specifies no less
than $160 million for EPSCoR.
In recent years, policymakers have actively debated congressional funding directives at the major
subaccount level within RRA. Some analysts assert that legislators have a role in establishing
funding priorities by scientific field within RRA, as part of the legislative oversight function and
in order to assure accountability for taxpayer funds. Other analysts argue that the scientists who
manage NSF ought to determine the distribution of funding by field, based on their deeper
knowledge of research needs and scientific possibilities within each field, and of how these needs
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
34
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
are best balanced across the NSF portfolio. For FY2016, P.L. 114-113 did not specify the funding
distribution within RRA, except to limit the budget authority for Social, Behavioral and
Economic Sciences to its FY2015 level.66 For FY2017, S. 2837 and H.R. 5393 did not specify
allocations within RRA, though the accompanying reports specified funding amounts for a subset
of programs. Similarly, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, which provides $6.033 billion
overall for RRA, does not specify allocations at the RRA subaccount level but does specify that
$544 million remain available for polar research and operations support, including activities for
the U.S. Antarctic program.
Education. The FY2017 request included a $73 million (8.3%) increase for EHR, for a total of
$953 million. Of that total, $54 million was requested as mandatory budget authority. As reported
by the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, both S. 2837 and H.R. 5393 would have
kept EHR funding at the FY2016 enacted level of $880 million. Similarly, P.L. 115-31 provides
$880 million in discretionary funding with no mandatory funding.
By program, the largest increase in the FY2017 EHR request was for EHR Core Research (ECR):
STEM Learning, within the Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings.67
The FY2017 request for ECR: STEM Learning was $52 million, or double the FY2016 estimate
of $26 million. Congress did not fund a similar requested increase for FY2016.
EHR programs that are widely tracked by congressional policymakers include the Graduate
Research Fellowship (GRF) and National Research Traineeship (NRT). The FY2017 request for
GRF was $332 million, which was essentially the same as the FY2016 estimate. GRF funding
would have been split equally between RRA and EHR, which would each have contributed $166
million. The FY2017 request for NRT was $59 million, a $4 million (8.3%) increase from
FY2016. Funding for the NRT would have been split between EHR and RRA, but not equally.
The RRA contribution would have been $21 million, $2 million below the FY2016 estimate. The
EHR contribution would have been $35 million, $6 million above the FY2016 estimate.
Other widely tracked EHR programs include Advanced Technological Education ($66 million
requested, no change); Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program ($61 million requested, no
change); Cybercorps: Scholarships for Service ($70 million requested, 40.0% increase);
Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL, $63 million requested, no change in total but $8
million was requested as mandatory funding); Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics + Computing Partnerships (STEM+C, $52 million requested, no change in total but
$31 million was requested as mandatory funding); Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP, $35 million requested, no change); Tribal Colleges and
University Programs ($14 million requested, no change); and the Louis Stokes Alliance for
Minority Participation ($46 million requested, no change). The Senate report recommended $55
million for the CyberCorps program (10% increase); the House report did not specify an amount.
The Senate and House reports additionally recommended $5 million and $30 million,
respectively, for broadening participation in STEM fields at Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs).
The explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 115-31 directs NSF to provide funding levels for
numerous programs at the requested levels, including the HBCU Program, STEM+C
Partnerships, Tribal Colleges and University Programs, and AISL. For the
CyberCorps:Scholarships for Service program, the explanatory statement specifies $55 million,
which is $15 million below the NSF requested amount, equal to the Senate report
66 Explanatory statement, P.L. 114-113.
67 Each EHR division has a core research program. ECR:STEM Learning is the core research program of the Division
of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL).
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
35
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
recommendation, and 10% above the FY2016 funding level for that program.68 Further, though
NSF reports ~$226.3 million in investments to HSIs in FY2015 through various agency
programs,69 the explanatory statement directs NSF to establish a specific HSI program at no less
than $15 million and encourages the foundation to “use this program to build capacity at
institutions of higher education that typically do not receive high levels of NSF grant funding.”
Construction. Other accounts that fund R&D at NSF include the MREFC account, which
supports large construction projects and scientific instruments. The Obama Administration sought
just over $193 million for MREFC in FY2017, $7 million less than the FY2016 estimate. In
FY2017, MREFC funding would have supported continued construction of the Large Synoptic
Survey Telescope ($67 million requested, 32.7% decrease) and Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope
($20 million requested, no change).70 Most of this request ($106 million) would have funded the
Regional Class Research Vessels (RCRV) program to build two ships to support science in U.S.
coastal waters.
The Senate report recommended increasing MREFC funding to $247 million ($54 million above
the request), including $159 million to build three ships for the RCRV program. In contrast, the
House report recommended decreasing funding to $87 million ($106 million below the request)
and did not discuss the RCRV program. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, provides
$209 million, 4.3% more than the FY2016 estimate. The accompanying explanatory statement
directs NSF to provide $122 million to build three RCRVs. This amounts to $41 million per ship,
compared to the FY2017 request of $53 million per ship.
Historically, the MREFC account has typically supported between four and six projects at a time.
The FY2015-FY2017 requests for three projects were lower than the historical trend, which could
indicate that some potentially scientifically valuable projects have been delayed or overlooked.
On the other hand, when these large projects come online their operations costs must be
shouldered by research accounts. For example, NSF requested $65 million to operate and
maintain a MREFC project that received its final construction funding in FY2016, the National
Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). This represented 8.2% of the FY2017 RRA Biological
Sciences (BIO) request. In a constrained budget environment, this dynamic could precipitate
difficult choices between funding for research and funding for research facilities and equipment.
Other accounts and initiatives. The Obama Administration sought $373 million for AOAM, a
$43 million (13.0%) increase. A multi-year plan to relocate NSF headquarters accounts for the
majority of this increase. Funding for NSB ($4 million) and OIG ($15 million) would not have
changed significantly between FY2016 and FY2017 under the request. In line with the
recommendations from the House and Senate reports, P.L. 115-31 provides approximately the
same levels as in FY2016 for these accounts: $330 million for AOAM (including $41 million for
relocating the NSF headquarters), $4 million for NSB, and $15 million for OIG.
The FY2017 NSF budget request included funding for three multiagency initiatives. The National
Nanotechnology Initiative would have received $415 million, about the same as in FY2016. The
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development would have received $1.254
billion, an increase of $59 million (4.9%). Most of this increase ($56 million) was requested as
mandatory budget authority. The U.S. Global Change Research Program would have received
68 The explanatory statement further directs, of the $55 million for CyberCorps, “no less than $7.5 million for qualified
community colleges as directed by the Senate.”
69 NSF, Report to Congress, National Science Foundation Support to Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), September
2016, provided via email to CRS on April 3, 2017.
70 The Advanced Technology Solar Telescope was renamed the Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope in December 2013.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
36
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
$348 million, $9 million (2.6%) more than the FY2016 estimate. The House and Senate reports
did not include recommendations for these initiatives, nor does P.L. 115-31 specify funding for
them.
Table 11. National Science Foundation Funding
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2016
Estimate
FY2017
Request
FY2017
House
FY2017
Senate
FY2017
Enacted
6,033.7
6,425.4
6,079.4
6,033.6
6,033.6
Biological Sciences (BIO)
744.2
790.5
n/s
n/s
n/s
Discretionary
744.2
745.7
–
–
–
Mandatory
0
44.8
–
–
–
935.8
994.8
n/s
n/s
n/s
Discretionary
935.8
938.4
–
–
–
Mandatory
0
56.4
–
–
–
Engineering (ENG)
916.2
1,002.7
n/s
n/s
n/s
Discretionary
916.2
946.4
–
–
–
Mandatory
0
56.3
–
–
–
Geosciences (GEO)
1,318.5
1,398.8
n/s
n/s
n/s
Discretionary
1,318.5
1,319.6
–
–
–
Mandatory
0
79.3
–
–
–
1,349.2
1,436.5
n/s
n/s
n/s
Discretionary
1,349.2
1,355.1
–
–
–
Mandatory
0
81.4
–
–
–
272.2
288.8
n/s
n/s
n/s
Discretionary
272.2
272.4
–
–
–
Mandatory
0
16.4
–
–
–
49.1
52.1
n/s
n/s
n/s
Discretionary
49.1
49.1
–
–
–
Mandatory
0
3.0
–
–
–
447.1
459.9
n/s
n/s
n/s
Discretionary
447.1
451.3
–
–
–
Mandatory
0
8.6
–
–
–
1.4
1.4
n/s
n/s
n/s
Discretionary
1.4
1.4
–
–
–
Mandatory
0
0
–
–
–
Account
Research and Related Activities (RRA)
Computer and Information Science and
Engineering (CISE)
Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS)
Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
(SBE)
Office of International Science and
Engineering (OISE)
International and Integrative Activities
(IIA)
U.S. Arctic Research Commission
(USARC)
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
37
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
FY2016
Estimate
FY2017
Request
FY2017
House
FY2017
Senate
FY2017
Enacted
6,033.7
6,425.4
6,079.4
6,033.6
6,033.6
Discretionary
6,033.7
6,079.4
6,079.4
6,033.6
6,033.6
Mandatory
0
346.0
0
0
0
880.0
952.9
880.0
880.0
880.0
Discretionary
880.0
898.9
880.0
880.0
880.0
Mandatory
0
54.0
0
0
0
Major Research Equipment and Facilities
Construction (MREFC)
200.3
193.1
87.1
246.6
209.0
Agency Operations and Award
Management (AOAM)
330.0
373.0
340.0
330.0
330.0
National Science Board (NSB)
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
7,463.5
7,964.0
7,406.1
7,509.8
7,472.2
Discretionary
7,463.5
7,564.0
7,406.1
7,509.8
7,472.2
Mandatory
0
400.0
0
0
0
Account
RRA Subtotal
Education and Human Resources (EHR)
NSF, Total
Source: Data in the columns titled, “FY2016 Estimate” and “FY2017 Request” are from the FY2017 NSF Budget
Request to Congress. Data in the column headed “FY2017 House” are from H.R. 5393 as reported and H.Rept.
114-605. Data in the column headed “FY2017 Senate” are from S. 2837 as reported and S.Rept. 114-239. Data in
the column headed “FY2017 Enacted” are from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31).
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding. The term “n/s” means “not
specified.”
Department of Agriculture71
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was created in 1862 in part to support agricultural
research in an expanding, agriculturally dependent country. USDA conducts intramural research
at federal facilities with government-employed scientists, and supports external research at
universities and other facilities through competitive grants and formula-based funding. The
breadth of contemporary USDA research spans traditional agricultural production techniques,
organic and sustainable agriculture, bioenergy, nutrition needs and composition, food safety,
animal and plant health, pest and disease management, economic decisionmaking, and other
social sciences affecting consumers, farmers, and rural communities.
Four agencies carry out USDA’s research and education activities, grouped together into the
Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area. The agencies are the Agricultural
Research Service (ARS), National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), and Economic Research Service (ERS).
For FY2017, the enacted Agriculture appropriation is in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L.
115-31. Both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committees reported their Agriculture
appropriations bills (H.R. 5054, S. 2956) in April and May 2016. In addition to discretionary
71 This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Agricultural Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
38
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
appropriations, agricultural research is also funded by state matching contributions and private
donations or grants, as well as mandatory funding from the farm bill.72
The enacted FY2017 appropriation provides $2.891 billion for agricultural research, down $45
million from the enacted FY2016 total (-1.5%). This overall change is comprised of $67 million
more for research programming across the four agencies, and $112 million less for buildings and
facilities than in FY2016. The enacted bill is less of a reduction than either the House or Senate
bills, generally providing more to research programs than the House bill proposed, and reducing
building and facilities by less than the Senate bill proposed. (See Table 12.)
Agricultural Research Service
The Agricultural Research Service is USDA’s in-house basic and applied research agency. It
operates approximately 90 laboratories nationwide with about 6,600 employees. ARS also
operates the National Agricultural Library, one of the department’s primary information
repositories for food, agriculture, and natural resource sciences. ARS laboratories focus on
efficient food and fiber production, development of new products and uses for agricultural
commodities, development of effective controls for pest management, and support of USDA
regulatory and technical assistance programs.
For FY2017, the enacted appropriation provides $1.170 billion for ARS salaries and expenses,
$26 million more than FY2016 (+2.3%; Table 12). The House-reported bill would have increased
this amount by $8 million and the Senate-reported bill by $34 million.
ARS had proposed increases across several programmatic areas for prioritized research projects,
coupled with reductions in funding for several existing programs. The enacted appropriation, via
the explanatory statement, expressly rejects those specific reductions and reprogramming.
The enacted appropriation does not include concerns that were mentioned in the FY2016
appropriation about animal care are ARS research facilities. However, the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is instructed in the explanatory statement to continue its
inspections of ARS facilities and post the results online.
For the ARS buildings and facilities account, the enacted appropriation provides $99.6 million in
FY2017, a decrease from the $212 million appropriated in FY2016. USDA had requested $94.5
million for FY2017. The appropriation directs that funding be used for priorities identified in the
“USDA ARS Capital Investment Strategy.”73 ARS’s priorities include completion of the Foreign
Disease and Weed Science Research Unit in Fort Detrick, MD ($30.2 million) and Phase I of the
Agricultural Research Technology Center in Salinas, CA ($64.3 million).74
72 For background on agricultural research, see CRS Report R40819, Agricultural Research: Background and Issues,
by (name redacted)
. For background on FY2017 agricultural appropriations, see CRS Report R44588, Agriculture and
Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations, coordinated by (name redacted)
.
73 USDA-ARS, The USDA Agricultural Research Service Capital Investment Strategy, April 2012, http://www.ars.
usda.gov/sp2UserFiles/Subsite/ARSLegisAffrs/USDA_ARS_Capital_Investment_Strategy_FINAL_eeo.pdf.
74 In FY2016, ARS buildings and facilities funding went to construction of a biocontainment laboratory at the ARS
poultry research facility in Athens, GA ($145 million); a foreign disease-weed science facility in Frederick, MD ($70
million); and an animal science, human nutrition, and bee research center in Beltsville, MD ($33 million).
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
39
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture provides federal funding for research, education,
and extension projects conducted in partnership with the State Agricultural Experiment Stations,
the State Cooperative Extension System, land grant universities, colleges, and other research and
education institutions, as well as individual researchers. These partnerships include the 1862 landgrant institutions, 1890 historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), 1994 tribal landgrant colleges, and Hispanic-serving institutions.75 Federal funds enhance capacity at universities
and institutions by statutory formula funding, competitive awards, and grants.
For FY2017, the enacted appropriation provides $1.363 billion for NIFA, an increase of $36
million over FY2016 (+2.7%; Table 12). The President had requested slightly more discretionary
funding for NIFA plus an increase in mandatory funding as described below.
The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)—USDA’s flagship competitive grants
program with 25% of NIFA’s total budget—received the Administrations requested increase of
$25 million, for a $375 million appropriation. The Administration had also requested an
additional $325 million of new mandatory money to “fully fund” AFRI at its farm-bill authorized
level of $700 million. New mandatory funding is generally more germane to the authorization
process (such as the farm bill) rather than the annual appropriations, and the House and Senate
did not include this request in their bills or the final appropriation.
Formula-funded programs in both research and extension are held constant under the FY2017
appropriation, though the Administration had requested an increase for the Evans-Allen program
that supports historically black colleges of agriculture.
The FY2017 appropriation continues to direct that at least 15% of NIFA’s competitive grant
funding be available for research enhancement awards such as USDA-EPSCoR.
The President’s request again proposed to consolidate federal science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) education funding so that USDA would no longer fund Higher
Education Challenge Grants, Graduate and Post-graduate Fellowship Grants, the Higher
Education Multicultural Scholars Program, the Women and Minorities in STEM Program,
Agriculture in the Classroom, and Secondary/Postsecondary Challenge Grants. As in prior years,
the enacted appropriation rejected that proposal and continues to fund these STEM programs in
USDA. In fact, an additional $500,000 was appropriated to Rural Development to develop a plan
to increase access to STEM education in rural areas via the Distance Learning and Telemedicine
program. For more on efforts to reorganize federal STEM education programs, see CRS In Focus
IF10229, The Changing Federal STEM Education Effort, by (name redacted)
.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
The National Agricultural Statistics Service conducts the Census of Agriculture and provides
official statistics on agricultural production and indicators of the economic and environmental
status of the farm sector. For FY2017, the enacted appropriation provides NASS $171 million, an
increase of $2.8 million over FY2016 (+2.7%). Most of that increase ($1.6 million) is targeted to
expand a feed cost survey at the national level.
75 The numbers 1862, 1890, and 1994 in this context refer to the years that laws were enacted creating these
classifications of colleges and universities, not to the number of institutions.
Congressional Research Service
R44516 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
40
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017
Economic Research Service
The Economic Research Service supports economic and social science analysis about agriculture,
rural development, food, commodity markets, and the environment. It collects and disseminates
data concerning USDA programs and policies. For FY2017, the enacted appropriation provides
ERS $86.8 million, a $1.4 million increase over FY2016 (+1.6%). The increase is supposed to
support additional research on groundwater modeling and drought resilience.
Table 12. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2016
Enacted
FY2017
Request
FY2017
House
FY2017
Senate
FY2017
Enacted
1,143.8
1,161.3
1,151.8
1,177.9
1,170.2
212.1
94.5
99.6
64.3
99.6
1,355.9
1,255.8
1,251.4
1,242.2
1,269.8
AFRI (competitive grants)
350.0
375.0Error
!
Referenc
e source
not
found.
375.0
375.0
375.0
Hatch Act (1862 institutions)
243.7
243.7
243.7
243.7
243.7
Evans-Allen (1890 institutions)
54.2
58.0
54.2
54.2
54.2
McIntire-Stennis (forestry)
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
Other
137.8
126.3
126.0
144.6
142.7
Subtotal
819.7
836.9
832.9
851.5
849.5
Smith-Lever (b) and (c)
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
Smit
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.