Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Congressional research reportJan 25, 2018
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Federal Research and Development Funding:
FY2018
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
January 25, 2018
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R44888
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Summary
President Trump’s budget request for FY2018 includes $117.697 billion for research and
development (R&D). This represents a $30.605 billion (20.6%) decrease from the FY2016 actual
level of $148.302 billion (FY2017 enacted levels were not available at the time of publication).
Adjusted for inflation, the President’s FY2018 R&D request represents a constant dollar decrease
of 23.6% from the FY2016 actual level.
However, in 2016 the Office of Management and Budget changed the definition used for
“development” to “experimental development.” This new definition was used in calculating R&D
in the FY2018 budget, but no adjustments were made to data reported for FY2016 or FY2017
data to reflect the new definition. OMB asserts that the definitional change results in the
exclusion of $33.547 billion from FY2018 requested R&D funding (DOD and NASA) that would
have been included in previous years. According to OMB, these funds are being requested in the
FY2018 budget, but no longer classified as R&D. Thus, applying the prior definition for R&D,
aggregate federal R&D in the Trump Administration’s budget for FY2018 would represent a
$2.942 billion (2.0%) increase over FY2016; in constant dollars, federal R&D would be down
$2.837 billion, or 1.9%. The DOD and VA would receive increased R&D funding for FY2018.
The other major federal R&D funding agencies would see their R&D budgets reduced under the
President’s budget.
The request represents the President’s R&D priorities; Congress may opt to agree with none, part,
or all of the request, and it may express different priorities through the appropriations process. In
particular, Congress will play a central role in determining the allocation of the federal R&D
investment in a period of intense pressure on discretionary spending. Budget caps may limit
overall R&D funding and may require movement of resources across disciplines, programs, or
agencies to address priorities.
Funding for R&D is concentrated in a few departments and agencies. Under President Trump’s
FY2018 budget request, eight federal agencies would receive 96.5% of total federal R&D
funding, with the Department of Defense (45.4%) and the Department of Health and Human
Services (22.2%) combined accounting for more than two-thirds of all federal R&D funding.
President’s Trump’s FY2018 budget is largely silent on funding levels for a number of
multiagency R&D initiatives in President Obama’s FY2017 request, including 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. However, some activities supporting these initiatives are discussed in
agency budget justifications and reported in the agency analyses in this report.
In recent years, Congress has completed the annual appropriations process after the start of the
fiscal year. Failure to complete the process by the start of the fiscal year and the accompanying
use of continuing resolutions can affect agencies’ execution of their R&D budgets, including the
delay or cancellation of planned R&D activities and the acquisition of R&D-related equipment.
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
The President’s FY2018 Budget Request ........................................................................................ 3
Federal R&D Funding Perspectives ................................................................................................ 3
Federal R&D by Agency ........................................................................................................... 4
Federal R&D by Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment ............................................... 6
Federal Role in U.S. R&D by Character of Work ..................................................................... 7
Federal R&D by Agency and Character of Work Combined .................................................... 7
Multiagency R&D Initiatives .......................................................................................................... 8
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program...................... 9
U.S. Global Change Research Program .................................................................................... 9
National Nanotechnology Initiative .......................................................................................... 9
Other Initiatives....................................................................................................................... 10
FY2018 Appropriations Status ...................................................................................................... 10
Department of Defense .................................................................................................................. 12
Department of Health and Human Services .................................................................................. 15
National Institutes of Health ................................................................................................... 16
Department of Energy ................................................................................................................... 23
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ........................................................................... 27
National Science Foundation ......................................................................................................... 30
Department of Agriculture ............................................................................................................. 35
Agricultural Research Service ................................................................................................. 35
National Institute of Food and Agriculture ............................................................................. 36
National Agricultural Statistics Service .................................................................................. 37
Economic Research Service .................................................................................................... 37
Department of Commerce ............................................................................................................. 38
National Institute of Standards and Technology ..................................................................... 39
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ................................................................ 41
Department of Veterans Affairs ..................................................................................................... 44
Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................. 47
U.S. Geological Survey ........................................................................................................... 48
Other DOI Components .......................................................................................................... 49
Department of Transportation........................................................................................................ 50
Federal Aviation Administration ............................................................................................. 51
Federal Highway Administration ............................................................................................ 51
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ................................................................... 52
Other DOT Components ......................................................................................................... 52
Department of Homeland Security ................................................................................................ 53
Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) ....................................................................... 53
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) ......................................................................... 54
Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 55
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Tables
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2016-FY2018 ..................... 5
Table 2. Federal R&D Funding by Character of Work and Facilities and Equipment,
FY2016-FY2018 .......................................................................................................................... 6
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2016-FY2018 ................................................................................................ 8
Table 4. Alignment of Agency R&D Funding and Regular Appropriations Bills .......................... 11
Table 5. Department of Defense RDT&E ..................................................................................... 14
Table 6. National Institutes of Health Funding.............................................................................. 22
Table 7. Department of Energy R&D and Related Activities ........................................................ 26
Table 8. National Aeronautics and Space Administration R&D.................................................... 29
Table 9. National Science Foundation Funding............................................................................. 34
Table 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D ........................................................................... 38
Table 11. National Institute of Standards and Technology Funding .............................................. 40
Table 12. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration R&D ............................................. 44
Table 13. Department of Veterans Affairs R&D ............................................................................ 46
Table 14. Department of Veterans Affairs Amounts by Designated Research Areas .................... 46
Table 15. Department of the Interior R&D.................................................................................... 50
Table 16. Department of Transportation R&D Activities and Facilities........................................ 52
Table 17. Department of Homeland Security R&D Accounts ....................................................... 54
Table 18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science and Technology (S&T)
Account ...................................................................................................................................... 59
Appendixes
Appendix A. Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................... 61
Appendix B. CRS Contacts for Agency R&D ............................................................................... 65
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 66
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Introduction
The 115th Congress continues its 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 are driving difficult decisions about the prioritization of R&D, both in the
context of the entire federal budget and among competing needs within the federal R&D
portfolio.
The U.S. government supports a broad range of scientific and engineering R&D. Its purposes
include specific concerns such as addressing national defense, health, safety, the environment,
and energy security; advancing knowledge generally; developing the scientific and engineering
workforce; and strengthening U.S. innovation and competitiveness in the global economy. Most
of the R&D funded by the federal government is performed in support of the unique missions of
individual funding agencies.
The federal R&D budget is an aggregation of the R&D activities of each federal agency. There is
no single, centralized source of R&D funds allocated to individual agencies. Agency R&D
budgets are developed internally as part of each agency’s overall budget development process and
may be included either in accounts that are entirely devoted to R&D or in accounts that include
funding for non-R&D activities. These budgets are subjected to review, revision, and approval by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and become part of the President’s annual budget
submission to Congress. The federal R&D budget is then calculated by aggregating the R&D
activities 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. Other Members of
Congress have expressed support for increased federal spending for R&D as an investment in the
nation’s future competitiveness. As Congress acts to complete the FY2018 appropriations
process, it faces two overarching issues: the extent to which federal R&D investments can be
made in the face of increased pressure on discretionary spending and the prioritization and
allocation of the available funding. Budget caps may limit overall R&D funding and may require
movement of resources across disciplines, programs, or agencies to address priorities. Moving
funding between programs/accounts/agencies can 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 Trump’s FY2018 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. Appendix A provides a list of acronyms and
abbreviations.
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
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” (July 2016).
This document provides guidance to agencies in the preparation of the President’s annual budget and instructions on
budget execution. As reflected in the July 2016 update, OMB has adopted a refinement to the categories of R&D,
replacing “development” with “experimental development,” which more narrowly defines the set of activities to be
included, resulting in lower reported R&D by some agencies, including the Department of Defense and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. This definition is used in the President’s FY2018 budget, but the figures for
earlier years have not been adjusted.
Conduct of Research. Research and experimental development (R&D) activities are defined as creative and
systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge—including knowledge of people, culture,
and society—and to devise new applications using available knowledge.
Basic Research. Basic research is defined as experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire
new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts. Basic research may include
activities with broad or general applications in mind, but should exclude research directed towards a specific
application or requirement.
Applied Research. Applied research is defined as original investigation undertaken in order to acquire new
knowledge. Applied research is, however, directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or objective.
Experimental Development. Experimental development is creative and systematic work, drawing on
knowledge gained from research and practical experience, which is directed at producing new products or
processes or improving existing products or processes. Like research, experimental development will result in
gaining additional knowledge.
R&D Equipment. R&D equipment includes amounts for major equipment for research and development.
Includes acquisition, design, or production of major movable equipment, such as mass spectrometers, research
vessels, DNA sequencers, and other major movable instruments for use in R&D activities. Includes programs of
$1 million or more that are devoted to the purchase or construction of major R&D equipment
R&D Facilities. R&D facilities includes construction of facilities that are necessary for the execution of an R&D
program. This may include land, major fixed equipment, and supporting infrastructure such as a sewer line or
housing at a remote location.
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.
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
The President’s FY2018 Budget Request
On May 23, 2017, President Trump released his proposed FY2018 budget. This report provides
government-wide, multiagency, and individual agency analyses of the President’s FY2018 request
as it relates to R&D and related activities. Additional information and analysis will be included as
the House and Senate act on the President’s budget request through appropriations bills that
provide funding for R&D and related activities.
For FY2018, the Trump Administration is using a new definition for development (“experimental
development”), drawn up in 2016 by the Obama Administration (see box entitled “Caveats With
Respect to Analysis of the FY2018 Budget Request” for a more detailed explanation) in its R&D
calculations. The new definition excludes some activities previously characterized as
development in previous budgets. The Trump Administration did not, however, provide
adjustments to its FY2016 R&D data based on this new definition. For purposes of this section of
the report, CRS is providing additional lines in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 that adjust the
FY2018 Department of Defense (DOD), National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), and development and total R&D figures by the amounts the Office of Management and
Budget has stated were excluded under the new definition ($31.036 billion and $2.511 billion
respectively) to allow for a more accurate comparison between years.1
Under the new definition, President Trump is proposing $117.697 billion for R&D. Adjusting this
figure to include an additional $33.547 billion of development funding that is being requested for
DOD and NASA but not counted in the President’s budget under the experimental development
definition, the President’s request is $151.244 billion, an increase of $2.942 billion (2.0%) over
the comparable FY2016 level.2 Adjusted for inflation, the President’s FY2018 adjusted R&D
request represents a constant dollar decrease of 1.9% from the FY2016 actual level.3
The President’s R&D request includes 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.”
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.
1
Email correspondence from OMB to CRS on May 26, 2017.
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 FY2017 and FY2018 in
Table 10.1, “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2022,” Budget of the United
States Government, Fiscal Year 2018, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/
hist10z1.xls.
2
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Caveats with Respect to Analysis of the FY2018 Budget Request
A number of factors complicate the analysis of changes in R&D funding for FY2018, both in aggregate and for selected
agencies. For example:
For FY2018, OMB replaced the R&D category “development” with a subset referred to as “experimental
development” in an effort that OMB asserts would better align its data with the data collected by the National
Science Foundation on its multiple R&D surveys, and to be consistent with international standards. According to
OMB, this change reduces reported R&D funding by approximately $33.5 billion in FY2018 (of which $31.036
billion is attributable to DOD, and $2.511 billion is attributable to NASA); while these funds are being requested
as part of the FY2018 budget, they are not characterized as R&D. OMB opted not to apply the category revision
to earlier fiscal years in the FY2018 budget so there is no comparable data for FY2016 or FY2017. Relevant
changes in agency guidance were embodied in a July 2016 update to OMB Circular No. A-11, as discussed earlier
(see box titled, “Definitions Associated with Federal Research and Development Funding”).
Several large NASA Human Exploration and Space Operations programs will transition from the development
phase to operations in FY 2018, and will no longer be counted as part of NASA’s R&D funding.
Due to the late completion of the FY2017 appropriations process, FY2017 enacted budget authority was not
available at the time the FY2018 budget was prepared. Accordingly, OMB included FY2017 annualized continuing
resolution (CR) R&D funding levels in place of FY2017 enacted budget authority. However, enactment of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 in May 2017, rendered the FY2017 annualized CR levels obsolete.
Where FY2017 enacted levels were available, this report compares FY2018 request levels to FY2017 enacted
levels. Where FY2017 enacted levels were not available, this report compares FY2018 request levels to FY2016
actual levels; in those cases, as FY2017 enacted levels become available, the agency analyses in this report will be
updated.
In President Obama’s FY2017 budget, 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.”
In addition, inconsistency among agencies in the reporting of R&D and the inclusion of R&D activities in accounts with
non-R&D activities may result in different figures being reported by OMB and the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP), including those shown in Table 1, and those in agency budget analyses that appear later in
this report.
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 FY2016 (actual) and FY2018 (request).4 Data for FY2017 (enacted)
were not included in the president’s FY2018 budget due to the late completion of the FY2017
budget process in May 2017.
Under President Trump’s FY2018 budget request, eight federal agencies would receive more than
96% of total federal R&D funding: the Department of Defense (DOD), 45.4%; Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) (primarily the National Institutes of Health [NIH]), 22.2%;
Department of Energy (DOE), 11.4%; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
8.8%; National Science Foundation (NSF), 4.6%; Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1.7%;
Department of Commerce (DOC), 1.3%; and Veterans Affairs (VA), 1.2%. This report provides
an analysis of the R&D budget requests for these agencies, as well as for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), Department of the Interior (DOI), Department of Transportation
(DOT), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Setting aside the aforementioned caveats, nearly every federal agency would see its R&D funding
decrease under the President’s FY2018 request compared to their FY2016 levels. The only
4
EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2018, May 23, 2017, pp.
203-205, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives.
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
agencies with increased R&D funding in FY2018 would be the Department of Veterans Affairs
(up $135 million, 11.0%), the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (up $64 million,
13.6%), and the Smithsonian Institution (up $53 million, 21.1%). However, applying the previous
definition of R&D to the FY2018 data (to allow for comparability to FY2016 data), DOD R&D
funding would receive the largest dollar increase, rising by $13.011 billion (18.2%).5
The largest declines (as measured in dollars) would occur in the budgets of HHS (down $6.099
billion, 18.9%), DOE (down $1.809 billion, 11.9%), USDA (down $666 million, 25.1%), NSF
(down $639 million, 10.6%), and the EPA (down $239 million, 46.3%). Applying the previous
definition of R&D to the FY2018 data (to allow for comparability to FY2016 data), NASA R&D
would decline by $415 million (3.1%).6
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2016-FY2018
(Please note definitional difference in FY2016 and FY2018 data as described in the table notes)
(budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change, FY2016-FY2018
Department/Agency
FY2016
Actual
Department of Defense
$71,421
Department of Defense (adjusted)
FY2018
Request
Dollar
Percent
$53,396
n/a
n/a
$84,432
$13,011
18.2
Dept. of Health and Human Services
32,243
26,144
-6,099
-18.9
Department of Energy
15,217
13,408
-1,809
-11.9
NASA
13,253
10,327
n/a
n/a
12,838
-415
-3.1
NASA (adjusted)
National Science Foundation
6,010
5,371
-639
-10.6
Department of Agriculture
2,657
1,991
-666
-25.1
Department of Commerce
1,681
1,567
-114
-6.8
Department of Veterans Affairs
1,222
1,357
135
11.0
Department of Transportation
927
923
-4
-0.4
Department of the Interior
973
818
-155
-15.9
Department of Homeland Security
582
564
-18
-3.1
Environmental Protection Agency
516
277
-239
-46.3
Other
1,600
1,554
-46
-2.9
Total
$148,302
$117,697
n/a
n/a
$148,302
$151,244
$2,942
2.0
Total (adjusted)
Source: CRS analysis of data from Executive Office of the President (EOP), Office of Management and Budget,
Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2018, May 23, 2017, pp. 203-205,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives.
5
DOD R&D would be $31.036 billion higher for FY2018 using the FY2016 definition of R&D than reported by OMB
for FY2018 using the new definition. Email correspondence from OMB to CRS on May 26, 2017.
6
NASA R&D would be $2.511 billion higher for FY2018 using the FY2016 definition of R&D than reported by OMB
for FY2018 using the new definition. Email correspondence from OMB to CRS on May 26, 2017.
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Notes: Amounts in this table may differ from amounts reported in the agency chapters of this report due to a
variety of factors.
Figures shown in italics have been adjusted to include certain development work at DOD and NASA that is
being requested in the FY2018 budget, but not counted by the Office of Management and Budget as R&D under
the new definition of development that OMB adopted in 2016 (discussed earlier) and has applied to its reported
FY2018 data; this adjustment provides greater comparability to the FY2016 data.
n/a = not applicable; FY2018 unadjusted DOD and NASA R&D figures are not comparable to FY2016 data.
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 Trump’s FY2018 request
includes $28.936 billion for basic research, down $3.977 billion (12.1%) from FY2016; $33.485
billion for applied research, down $3.562 billion (9.6%); $53.194 billion for (experimental)
development (data not comparable to FY2016); and $2.082 billion for facilities and equipment,
down $500 million (19.4%). Using the FY2016 definition for development, President Trump’s
budget includes $86.741 billion in development funding for FY2018, an increase of $10.981
billion (14.5%) above the FY2016 level. The $33.5 billion difference in funding between the new
and old definitions of development is being requested in the FY2018 budget, but is not being
reported as R&D.
Table 2. Federal R&D Funding by Character of Work and Facilities and Equipment,
FY2016-FY2018
(Please note definitional difference in FY2016 and FY2018 data as described in the table notes)
(budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change, FY2016-FY2018
FY2016
Actual
FY2018
Request
Dollar
Percent
Basic research
$32,913
$28,936
-$3,977
-12.1
Applied research
37,047
33,485
-3,562
-9.6
Development
75,760
53,194
n/a
n/a
86,741
10,981
14.5
2,582
2,082
-500
-19.4
$148,302
$117,697
n/a
n/a
$151,244
$2,942
Development (adjusted)
Facilities and Equipment
Total
Total (adjusted)
2.0%
Source: CRS analysis of data from Executive Office of the President (EOP), Office of Management and Budget,
Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2018, May 23, 2017, pp. 203-205,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives.
Notes: Figures shown in italics have been adjusted to include certain development work at DOD and NASA
that is being requested in the FY2018 budget, but not counted by the Office of Management and Budget as R&D
under the new definition of development that OMB adopted in 2016 (discussed earlier) and has applied to its
reported FY2018 data; this adjustment provides greater comparability to the FY2016 data.
n/a = not applicable; FY2018 unadjusted DOD and NASA R&D figures are not comparable to FY2016 data.
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
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 45.4% of U.S.
basic research in 2014.7 Business funded 27.4% of U.S. basic research in 2014, with state
governments, universities, and other non-profit organizations funding the remaining 27.2%.8
In contrast to basic research, business is the primary funder of applied research in the United
States, accounting for an estimated 51.7% in 2014, while the federal government accounted for an
estimated 36.0%.9
Business also provides the vast majority of funding for development. Business accounted for
82.4% of development in 2014, while the federal government provided 16.0%.10
Federal R&D by Agency and Character of Work Combined
Combining these perspectives, federal R&D funding can be viewed in terms of each agency’s
contribution to basic research, applied research, development, and facilities and equipment. (See
Table 3.) The overall federal R&D budget reflects a wide range of national priorities, including
supporting advances in spaceflight, developing new and affordable sources of energy, and
understanding and deterring terrorist groups. These priorities and the mission of each individual
agency contribute to the composition of that agency’s R&D spending (i.e., the allocation among
basic research, applied research, development, and facilities and equipment). In the President’s
FY2018 budget request, the Department of Health and Human Services, primarily NIH, would
account for nearly half (44.3%) of all federal funding for basic research. HHS would also be the
largest federal funder of applied research, accounting for about 39.3% of all federally funded
applied research in the President’s FY2018 budget request. DOD would be the primary federal
funder of development, accounting for 86.6% of total federal development funding in the
President’s FY2018 budget request.11
7
CRS analysis of data from the National Science Foundation, National Patterns of R&D Resources: 2014–15 Data
Update, March 14, 2017. More recent data regarding business and other R&D funding are not yet available.
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2018, May 23, 2017, pp.
203-205, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives.
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2016-FY2018
(Please note definitional difference in FY2016 and FY2018 data as described in the table notes)
(budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
FY2016
Actual
FY2018
Request
$15,630
National Science Foundation
Dept. of Energy
Change, FY2016-FY2018
Dollar
Percent
12,816
-2,814
-18.0
4,841
4,280
-561
-11.6
4,609
3,978
-631
-13.7
Dept. of Health and Human Services
16,422
13,158
-3,264
-19.9
Dept. of Energy
6,469
6749
280
4.3
Dept. of Defense
5,058
5,097
39
0.8
64,011
46,047
n/a
77,083
13,072
3,955
n/a
n/a
6,466
-728
-10.1
2,981
1,705
-1,276
-42.8
1,158
976
-182
-15.7
National Science Foundation
409
420
11
2.7
Dept. of Commerce
314
376
62
19.7
Basic Research
Dept. of Health and Human Services
Applied Research
Development
Dept. of Defense
Dept. of Defense (adjusted)
NASA
7,194
NASA (adjusted)
Dept. of Energy
n/a
20.4
Facilities and Equipment
Dept. of Energy
Source: EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2018, May 23, 2017,
pp. 206-207, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives.
Notes: The top three funding agencies in each category, based on the FY2018 request, are listed.
Figures shown in italics have been adjusted to include certain development work at DOD and NASA that is
being requested in the FY2018 budget, but not counted by the Office of Management and Budget as R&D under
the new definition of development that OMB adopted in 2016 (discussed earlier) and has applied to its reported
FY2018 data; this adjustment provides greater comparability to the FY2016 data.
n/a = not applicable; FY2018 unadjusted DOD and NASA R&D figures are not comparable to FY2016 data.
Multiagency R&D Initiatives
For many years, presidential budgets have reported on multiagency R&D initiatives and often
provided various levels of detail with respect to agency funding. Some of these efforts have a
statutory basis—for example, Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development (NITRD) program, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), and the U.S.
Global Change Research Program. These programs generally produce annual budget supplements
identifying objectives, activities, funding levels, and other information, usually published shortly
after the presidential budget release. Other multiagency R&D initiatives have operated at the
discretion of the President without such a basis and may be eliminated at the discretion of the
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
President. President Trump’s FY2018 budget is largely silent on funding levels for these efforts
and whether some or all of the non-statutory initiatives will continue. Some activities related to
these initiatives are discussed in agency budget justifications and may be included in the
agencies’ analyses in this report. This section provides available information on these initiatives
and will be updated as additional information becomes available.
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. In FY2017, 21 agencies were
NITRD members; non-member agencies also participate in NITRD activities. NITRD efforts are
coordinated by the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Subcommittee on
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development. Additional NITRD
information can be obtained at https://www.nitrd.gov. This section will be updated when the
NITRD subcommittee publishes its updated budget information.
U.S. Global Change Research Program13
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.”14 In FY2017, 13 departments and agencies participated in the USGCRP.
USGCRP efforts are coordinated by the NSTC Subcommittee on Global Change Research.
Additional USGCRP information can be obtained at http://www.globalchange.gov. This section
will be updated when the USGCRP updates its budget information.
National Nanotechnology Initiative15
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.16 In 2003,
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
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) .
14
U.S. Global Change Research Program website, http://www.globalchange.gov/about/mission-vision-strategic-plan.
15
For additional information on the NNI, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative:
Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by (name redacted)
16
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
9
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Congress enacted the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (P.L. 108153), providing a legislative foundation for some of the activities of the NNI. In FY2017, the NNI
included 11 federal departments and independent agencies and commissions with budgets
dedicated to nanotechnology R&D, as well as nine other federal departments and independent
agencies and commissions with responsibilities for health, safety, and environmental regulation;
trade; education; training; intellectual property; international relations; and other areas that might
affect or be affected by nanotechnology. NNI efforts are coordinated by the NSTC Subcommittee
on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET). Additional NNI information can be
obtained at http://www.nano.gov. This section will be updated when the NSET subcommittee
publishes its updated budget information.
Other Initiatives
Presidential initiatives without statutory foundations in operation at the end of the Obama
Administration, but not explicitly addressed in President Trump’s FY2018 budget, include: the
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (including the National Robotics Initiative [NRI] and the
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation [NNMI]), the Cancer Moonshot, the BRAIN
Initiative, the Precision Medicine Initiative, the Materials Genome Initiative, and an effort to
doubling federal funding for clean energy R&D. Some of the activities of these initiatives are
discussed in agency budget justifications and the agency analyses in this report.
FY2018 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. Where
FY2017 enacted levels were available, agency analyses in this report compare FY2018 request
levels to FY2017 enacted levels. Where FY2017 enacted levels were not available, agency
analyses compare FY2018 request levels to FY2016 actual levels; in those cases, as FY2017
enacted levels become available, the agency analyses in this report will be updated.
Annual appropriations for these agencies are provided through 9 of the 12 regular appropriations
bills. For each agency covered in this report, Table 4 shows the corresponding regular
appropriations bill that provides primary funding for the agency, including its R&D activities.
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 in the president’s budget or otherwise provided by OMB.
Funding for R&D is often included in appropriations line items that also include non-R&D
activities; therefore, in such cases, it may not be possible to identify precisely how much of the
funding provided in appropriations laws is allocated to R&D specifically. In general, R&D
funding levels are known only after departments and agencies allocate their appropriations to
specific activities and report those figures.
As of the start of the 2018 fiscal year on October 1, 2017, the House had completed action on
each of the 12 regular appropriations bills; the Senate had completed action on none. On
September 8, 2017, Congress enacted the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 and Supplemental
Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-56), providing continuing
appropriations through December 8, 2018, “until the enactment into law of an appropriation for
any project or activity provided for in this Act,” or until “the enactment into law of the applicable
appropriations Act for fiscal year 2018 without any provision for such projector activity,”
Congressional Research Service
10
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
whichever comes first. Subsequently, three additional continuing resolutions (CRs) were passed
providing appropriations through December 22, 2017 (P.L. 115-90), January 19, 2018 (P.L. 11596), and February 8, 2018 (H.R. 195). The fourth CR followed a three-day government shutdown.
This report will be updated as Congress takes additional actions to complete the FY2018
appropriations process.
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/iap/appropriations.
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.
Table 4. 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 Health and Human Services
- National Institutes of Health
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act
Department of Energy
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act
National Science Foundation
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 Commerce
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Department of Veterans Affairs
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act
Department of the Interior
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 Homeland Security
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act
Source: CRS Report R40858, Locate an Agency or Program Within Appropriations Bills, by (name redacted)
.
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Department of Defense17
The mission of the Department of Defense (DOD) is “to provide the military forces needed to
deter war and to protect the security of our country.”18 Congress supports research and
development activities at DOD primarily through the department’s Research, Development, Test,
and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding. The appropriation supports the development of the nation’s
future military hardware and software and the science and 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 5.) 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.
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 associated with 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 George W. Bush Administration termed the Global War on Terror
(GWOT), and what the Obama Administration referred to as Overseas Contingency Operations
(OCO). In appropriations bills, the term Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terror
(OCO/GWOT) has been used; President Trump’s FY2018 budget uses the term Overseas
Contingency Operations. Typically, the RDT&E funds appropriated for OCO/GWOT activities go
to specified Program Elements (PEs) in Title IV.
In addition, OCO/GWOT-related requests/appropriations have included 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 has made a single appropriation into each of these funds and
17
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
18
Department of Defense, https://www.defense.gov/.
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
authorized 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 FY2018, the Trump Administration is requesting $83.328 billion for DOD’s Title IV RDT&E
PEs (base and OCO/GWOT), $9.547 billion (12.9%) above the enacted FY2017 level. On July
27, 2017, the House passed a “minibus” bill that included four of the regular appropriations acts
(Defense, Military Construction-Veterans Affairs, Legislative Branch, Energy and Water
Development) reported by the House appropriations committee. Defense appropriations were
included as Division A of the bill, H.R. 3219 (Defense, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs,
Legislative Branch, and Energy and Water Development National Security Appropriations Act,
2018). The bill includes $82.685 billion for Title IV base RDT&E funding and $1.621 billion in
OCO/GWOT base RDT&E funding for a total of $84.306 billion.19 This represents an increase of
$10.525 billion (14.3%) over the FY2017 enacted Title IV RDT&E funding level (base and
OCO/GWOT), and an increase of $978 million (1.2%) above the request level. The House bill
includes $1.000 billion in RDT&E funding in both base and OCO funding ($2.000 billion in
total) under a new account entitled National Defense Restoration Fund. The funds in this account
are allocated by organization, but not by budget activity (see discussion about budget activities
below).
In addition to the Title IV RDT&E request, the Administration’s FY2018 request includes $673
million in RDT&E through the Defense Health Program (DHP; down $1.429 billion, 68.0%, from
FY2017), $839 million in RDT&E through the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction
program (up $323 million, 62.6%, from FY2017), and $19 million in RDT&E funding for the
National Defense Sealift Fund, which received no funding in FY2017.
The House level for DHP is $1.340 billion, a decrease of $762 million (36.3%) from the FY2017
enacted level and an increase of $667 million (99.1%) above the FY2018 request; for the
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction program is $839 million, up $323 million (62.7%)
from the FY2017 level and equal to the request; for the National Defense Sealift Fund is zero,
equal to the FY2017 enacted level and $19 million below the FY2018 request; and for the
Inspector General for RDT&E is $3 million, equal to the FY2017 enacted level and the FY2018
request.
RDT&E funding can be analyzed in different ways. RDT&E funding can be characterized
organizationally. Each of the military departments request and receive their own RDT&E
funding. So, too, do various DOD agencies (e.g., the Missile Defense Agency and the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency), collectively aggregated within the Defensewide account.
RDT&E funding also can be characterized by budget activity (i.e., the type of RDT&E
supported). Those budget activities designated as 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 (basic research, applied
research, and advanced technology development, respectively) constitute what is called DOD’s
Science and Technology program (S&T) and represent the more research-oriented part of the
RDT&E program. Budget activities 6.4 and 6.5 focus on the development of specific weapon
systems or components (e.g., the Joint Strike Fighter or missile defense systems), for which an
operational need has been determined and an acquisition program established. Budget activity 6.6
provides management support, including support for test and evaluation facilities. Budget activity
6.7 supports the development of system improvements in existing operational systems.20
19
OCO/GWOT is included in Title IX of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2018, but supports the PEs in
Title IV.
20
For additional information on the structure of Defense RDT&E, see CRS Report R44711, Department of Defense
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E): Appropriations Structure, by (name redacted)
Congressional Research Service
13
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Many congressional policymakers are particularly interested in DOD S&T program 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.
The FY2018 request for Title IV S&T funding (base and OCO/GWOT) is $13.224 billion, $804
million (5.7%) below the FY2017 enacted level.21 The House level for Title IV S&T funding
(base and OCO/GWOT) is $13.8 billion, down $203 million (1.4%) from the FY2017 enacted
level and $601 million (4.5%) higher than the request.
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 Trump Administration is requesting $2.229 billion for DOD basic
research for FY2018. This is $47 million (2.1%) less than the FY2017 enacted level. The House
would provide $2.280 billion in 6.1 funding, up $4 million (0.2%) from the FY2017 enacted level
and $51 million (2.3%) higher than the request.22
Table 5. Department of Defense RDT&E
(obligational authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2017
Enacted
Budget Account
Base +
OCO
FY2018
Request
FY2018
House
Base
OCO
FY2018
Senate
Base
OCO
Army
8,675
9,425
119
9,701
125
Navy
17,541
17,675
130
17,239
125
Air Force
28,154
34,914
135
33,896
145
Defensewide
19,221
20,491
226
20,638
226
190
211
0
211
1,000
1,000
73,781
82,717
611
82,685
1,621
6.1 Basic Research
2,276
2,229
0
2,280
0
6.2 Applied Research
5,296
4,973
0
5,243
0
Dir., Operational Test & Eval.
Nat’l Defense Restoration
Fund
Total Title IV—By Account
Base
OCO
FY2018
Enacted
Base
OCO
Budget Activity
6.3 Advanced Dev.
6,456
5,997
25
6,277
25
6.4 Advanced Component Dev.
And
Prototypes
6.5 Systems
Dev. And Demo
15,376
17,451
59
17,079
53
12,781
14,671
58
14,172
58
6.6 Management Supporta
4,575
6,085
0
6,159
0
6.7 Op. Systems Developmentb
26,987
31,311
469
30,560
479
21
For this calculation, CRS allocated the $50 million undistributed reduction in FY2017 DARPA funding to DOD S&T
since most DARPA funding (more than 94% in FY2016) supports DOD S&T. An amendment to the committeereported bill added $6 million for the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center;
these funds have not been distributed by account activity.
22
The budget activity levels discussed in this paragraph do not account for increases and decreases that may result from
undistributed amounts identified in Table 5.
Congressional Research Service
14
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
FY2017
Enacted
Budget Account
Base +
OCO
FY2018
Request
Base
FY2018
House
OCO
Base
FY2018
Senate
OCO
Base
OCO
FY2018
Enacted
Base
OCO
Undistributed
DARPA Reduction
-50
-100
Management Costs
Nat’l Defense Restoration
Fund
OCO Funding
-15
1,000
30
6
82
House Floor Amendments
Total Title IV—by Budget
Activity
1,000
73,781
82,717
611
82,685
1,621
0
19
0
0
0
2,102
673
0
1,340
0
516
839
0
839
0
3
3
0
3
0
76,401
84,251
611
84,867
1,621
Title V—Revolving and
Management Funds
National Defense Sealift Fund
Title VI—Other Defense
Programs
Defense Health Program
Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction
Inspector General
Grand Total
Source: CRS analysis of: Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2018, RDT&E Programs (R‑1), May 2017;
explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 115-31, as published in the Congressional Record, May 3, 2017, Book
II, H3391-H3703; Division B, P.L. 114-254; H.R. 3219; and H.Rept. 115-219.
Notes: Figures for the columns headed “FY2018 Senate” and “FY2018 Enacted” will be added, if available, as
each action is completed. Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding. The House
version of H.R. 3219 does not provide a breakout of RDT&E funding by budget activity; funding by budget
activity shown in the FY2018 House column is based on the House committee-reported version of H.R. 3219
and H.Rept. 115-219, with the net effect of House floor amendments accounted for on a separate line as
undistributed. n/s = not specified
a. Includes funding for Director of Test and Evaluation.
b. Includes funding for Classified Programs.
Department of Health and Human Services
The mission of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is “to enhance and protect
the health and well-being of all Americans ... by providing for effective health and human
services and fostering advances in medicine, public health, and social services.” 23 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.24 Other HHS agencies that provide
funding for R&D include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Centers for
23
HHS, “About,” http://www.hhs.gov/about.
CRS analysis of data presented in the Office of Management and Budget’s Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the
United States Government, Fiscal Year 2018, May 23, 2017, pp. 203-205, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/
Analytical_Perspectives.
24
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), 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).25
National Institutes of Health26
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.”27 The
agency’s organization consists of the NIH Office of the Director (OD) and 27 institutes and
centers (ICs).
The 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 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 6,
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.
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
10% of the NIH budget supports intramural research projects conducted by the nearly 6,000 NIH
scientists, most of whom are located on the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland. More than 80%
of NIH’s budget goes out to the extramural research community in the form of grants, contracts,
and other awards. This funding supports research performed by more than 300,000 nonfederal
scientists and technical personnel who work at more than 2,500 universities, hospitals, medical
schools, and other research institutions.28
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
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 Trump’s FY2018 budget requests an NIH program level total of $26.92 billion, a
decrease of $7.4 billion (-21.5%) compared with the FY2017 enacted amount (see Table 6).
Under President Trump’s FY2018 budget request, each of the ICs would receive a decrease
compared to FY2017. The Trump budget proposes the elimination of the Fogarty International
25
Ibid.
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Biomedical Policy, CRS Domestic Social Policy
Division. For background information on NIH, see CRS Report R41705, The National Institutes of Health (NIH):
Background and Congressional Issues, by (name redacted) .
27
National Institutes of Health, “About NIH, What We Do, Mission and Goals,” at http://www.nih.gov/about-nih/whatwe-do/mission-goals.
28
Department of Health and Human Services, Fiscal Year 2018 Budget in Brief, Washington, DC, May 2017, p. 38,
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/Consolidated%20BIB_ONLINE_remediated.pdf.
26
Congressional Research Service
16
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Center but retains in OD $25 million for international research and related activities.29 The Trump
budget also proposes the consolidation of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
(AHRQ) with NIH, forming a new Institute, the National Institute for Research on Safety and
Quality (NIRSQ). The FY2018 budget proposal includes $272 million in budget authority for
NIRSQ “to preserve key research activities previously carried out by AHRQ.”30 For example,
NIRSQ would provide administrative support for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
(USPSTF); requested funding for this activity in the FY2018 Trump budget is $7 million.31 “In
addition, NIRSQ is projected to receive $107 million in mandatory resources from the PatientCentered Outcomes Research Trust Fund to continue the targeted dissemination of study results
and workforce development efforts in research designed to help patients and providers make
better informed health care decisions.”32
The FY2018 program level request for NIH includes $60 million for Superfund-related research,
and $150 million in mandatory funding for research on type 1 diabetes.33 The FY2018 program
level request proposes $780 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 FY2017) 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.34
The main funding mechanism NIH uses to support extramural research is research project grants
(RPGs), which are competitive, peer-reviewed, and largely investigator-initiated. The FY2018
Trump budget requests a total of $14.2 billion in funding for RPGs, representing about 53% of
29
The NIH website states that Fogarty “is dedicated to advancing the mission of [NIH] by supporting and facilitating
global health research conducted by U.S. and international investigators, building partnerships between health research
institutions in the U.S. and abroad, and training the next generation of scientists to address global health needs.”
https://www.fic.nih.gov/About/Pages/mission-vision.aspx.
30
Department of Health and Human Services, Fiscal Year 2018 Budget in Brief, Washington, DC, May 2017, p. 37,
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/Consolidated%20BIB_ONLINE_remediated.pdf.
31
Ibid., p. 41. This is a reduction of $4 million below AHRQ’s FY2017 Continuing Resolution level of administrative
support for the USPSTF.
32
NIH, FY2018 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Vol. I, Overview, “Overview of Budget
Request, Introduction” p. 3. The Affordable Care Act (ACA, P.L. 111-148) created the Patient-Centered Outcomes
Research Trust Fund (PCORTF) to help build the national capacity and infrastructure needed to conduct patientcentered outcomes research (PCOR), and to enable PCOR findings to be integrated into clinical practice. See
https://aspe.hhs.gov/patient-centered-outcomes-research-trust-fund.
33
The Superfund amount is provided in the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Acts. Mandatory funds of $150 million per fiscal year for type 1 diabetes research (under PHS Act
§330B) were provided by P.L. 114-10 for FY2016 and FY2017; $37,500,000 were provided for the first two quarters of
FY2018 by Section 3102 of P.L. 115-96.
34
For more information, see the “PHS Evaluation Set-Aside” section of CRS Report R44505, Public Health Service
Agencies: Overview and Funding (FY2015-FY2017), coordinated by (name redacted) and (name redacted)
. By
convention, budget tables such as Table 6 do not subtract the amount of the evaluation tap from the donor agencies’
appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
17
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
NIH’s proposed budget.35 The FY2018 budget request would cap the indirect cost rate for NIH
grants at 10%. Over the last 10 years, NIH data indicates that direct costs (project-specific
expenses) have averaged about 72% of the total grant award, while indirect costs (overhead—
facilities and administrative, or F&A, costs) have averaged about 28%.36 The Trump FY2018
NIH budget request would decrease the average annual cost of an RPG award by about 20%, to
$389,000.37
Except for the mandatory type 1 diabetes funding, Congress has not usually specified amounts for
particular diseases or research areas. Generally, specific amounts are appropriated to each IC;
NIH and its scientific advisory panels allocate funding to different research areas. This allows
maximum flexibility for NIH to pursue scientific opportunities that are important to public
health.38 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 in FY2016
with Alzheimer’s disease research39 and in FY2017 with the NIH Innovation account established
by the 21st Century Cures Act (see text box below).
The FY2018 NIH budget request includes $496 million for the NIH Innovation account. Amounts
specified for FY2018 by the 21st Century Cures Act for the NIH Innovation Projects are as
follows: the Precision Medicine Initiative ($100 million), the BRAIN Initiative ($86 million),
cancer research ($300 million), and regenerative medicine using adult stem cells ($10 million).
The House Appropriations Committee-reported version of the FY2018 LHHS appropriations bill
(H.R. 3358) recommends a total of $35.184 billion for NIH, including $824 million provided by
the evaluation tap and $496 million from the NIH Innovation account. Adding to this total the
amounts for Superfund related activities ($77 million) and the mandatory type 1 diabetes program
($150 million) would bring the NIH program level to $35.411 billion. H.R. 3358 would provide
NIH with a $1.1 billion (3.2%) increase over the FY2017 enacted amount and $8.58 billion
(32.3%) more than the FY2018 Trump budget request for NIH.
The report accompanying H.R. 3358 (H.Rept. 115-244) stated that the Trump Administration’s
proposed cap on indirect (F&A) costs was “misguided and would have a devastating impact on
35
Department of Health and Human Services, Fiscal Year 2018 Budget in Brief, Washington, DC, May 2017, p. 37 and
p. 43, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/Consolidated%20BIB_ONLINE_remediated.pdf.
36
NIH, FY2018 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Vol. I, Overview, “Statistical Data: Direct
and Indirect Cost Awarded,” p. 95.
37
Ibid, p. 96.
38
See NIH website, “Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC),”
http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx.
39
For example, in the year before this new pattern developed, the explanatory statement accompanying the FY2015
omnibus stated the following:
In keeping with longstanding practice, the agreement does not recommend a specific amount of
NIH funding for this purpose or for any other individual disease. Doing so would establish a
dangerous precedent that could politicize the NIH peer review system. Nevertheless, in recognition
that Alzheimer’s disease poses a serious threat to the Nation’s long-term health and economic
stability, the agreement expects that a significant portion of the recommended increase for NIA
should be directed to research on Alzheimer's. The exact amount should be determined by scientific
opportunity of additional research on this disease and the quality of grant applications that are
submitted for Alzheimer’s relative to those submitted for other diseases.
See Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 160, no. 151, Book II (December 11, 2014), p. H9832,
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2014-12-11/pdf/CREC-2014-12-11-pt2-PgH9307-2.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
18
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
biomedical research across the country.”40 The House Appropriations Committee directs NIH to
continue reimbursing institutions for indirect costs according to current rules and procedures via a
new general provision in the bill (§228) that “also prohibits funds in this Act from being used to
implement any further caps on F&A cost reimbursements.”41 The House Appropriations
Committee provides an increase in funding for the Fogarty International Center rather than the
elimination proposed by the Trump Administration. The House Appropriations Committee did not
adopt the Trump Administration’s proposed consolidation of NIH and AHRQ. Lastly, H.Rept.
115-244 states that “the Committee recommends an increase of $400 million within NIA
[National Institute on Aging] to support a total of at least $1.791 billion on Alzheimer’s disease
research.”42
40
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2018, report to accompany H.R. 3358, 115th Cong., 1st sess., July
24, 2017, H.Rept. 115-244 (Washington: GPO, 2017), p. 50.
41
Ibid.
42
Ibid., pp. 59-60.
Congressional Research Service
19
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
The Senate Appropriations Committeereported version of the FY2018 LHHS
appropriations bill (S. 1771) recommends a
total of $36.084 billion for NIH, including
$1.074 billion provided by the evaluation tap
and $496 million from the NIH Innovation
account. Adding to this total the amounts for
Superfund related activities ($77 million) and
the mandatory type 1 diabetes program ($150
million) would bring the NIH program level to
$36.311 billion. S. 1771 would provide NIH
with a $2 billion (5.92%) increase over the
FY2017 enacted amount and $9.48 billion
(35.6%) more than the FY2018 Trump budget
request for NIH.
The report accompanying S. 1771 (S.Rept.
115-150) states that the Committee “rejects
the administration’s proposals to: cap
Facilities and Administrative costs; eliminate
the John E. Fogarty International Center; and
create the National Institute for Research on
Safety and Quality” by merging AHRQ with
NIH. It also provides an increase in funding
for Alzheimer’s disease research of $414
million for a total of $1.828 billion in
FY2018.
The 21st Century Cures Act and the NIH
Innovation Account
The 21st Century Cures Act (P.L. 114-255) created the
NIH Innovation account and specified that funds in the
account must be appropriated in order to be available
for expenditure. The first round of funding was provided
by Section 194 of the Further Continuing and Security
Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 (CR, P.L. 114-254).
The CR appropriated $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 Cures Act. The four projects
authorized by the Cures Act are the Precision Medicine
Initiative (FY2017, $40 million; FY2018, $100 million), the
BRAIN Initiative (FY2017, $10 million; FY2018, $86
million), cancer research (FY2017, $300 million; FY2018,
$300 million), and regenerative medicine using adult stem
cells (FY2017, $2 million; FY2018, $10 million). (The
$352 million that was appropriated for FY2017 is
available until expended.)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.
For further information, see CRS Report R44720, The
21st Century Cures Act (Division A of P.L. 114-255),
coordinated by (name redacted) , and CRS Report
R44723, Overview of Further Continuing Appropriations for
FY2017 (H.R. 2028), coordinated by (name redacted) .
The overview below outlines the four priority
themes highlighted by NIH in the FY2018
budget request; dollar amounts for these research activities were not provided by the agency.
Selected responses from congressional report language are also provided.
1. Fundamental Science Enhanced by Technological Advances. More than half of the proposed
NIH budget is targeted for basic research, which “provides the foundation for translational and
clinical studies that can lead to major medical advances, such as cancer-fighting drugs, vaccines,
and medical devices.”43 One example of basic research is the BRAIN Initiative, a collaborative
effort of ten ICs 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 help provide new treatments or prevention approaches. The House recommends an increase
for the BRAIN Initiative to the level authorized in the 21st Century Cures Act ($86 million); the
Senate would provide $400 million.
Another example is the NIH Common Fund’s Single Cell Analysis Program (SCAP).44 According
to NIH, “Understanding more about how single cells function could help researchers identify rare
43
NIH FY2018 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Vol. I, Overview, p. 4.
The NIH Common Fund is part of OD; it supports large complex research efforts that involve the collaboration of
two or more research ICs.
44
Congressional Research Service
20
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
cells in a group (e.g., ones that could become cancerous), cells infected latently with a virus, or
cells that develop drug resistance.”45 A third example is the National Cancer Institute’s efforts
using cryo-electron microscopy to observe key molecules in cancer cells almost at the atomic
level; this may help in the development of more effective and targeted therapies.
2. Treatments and Cures. NIH-supported scientists are using a novel research method in an effort
to correct the genetic mutations causing sickle cell disease. Although more work would be
necessary before this approach could be used in patients, the lessons learned may pave the way
for new treatments to improve human health. Addressing the opioid epidemic is another high
priority topic. NIH is supporting research efforts to combat opioid addiction and the treatment of
overdoses. NIH is responding to the growing public health threat posed by antimicrobial
resistance bacteria by various mechanisms. These include support for the Antibacterial Resistance
Leadership Group and participation in a multi-agency effort focused on advancing antimicrobial
resistance research. The House would provide an increase of $30 million for combating
antibiotic-resistant bacteria; the Senate would provide an increase of $50 million. Cancer
immunotherapy is yet another high priority area of research and is at the core of work supported
by the “Cancer Moonshot,” funded by the 21st Century Cures Act. The House would direct NIH
to transfer $300 million from the NIH Innovation Account to the National Cancer Institute (NCI)
to support the Cancer Moonshot, the same level as authorized in the 21st Century Cures Act. The
Senate report states that the total amount provided for NCI includes $300 million from the NIH
Innovation Account.
3. Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. As part of the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI),
NIH would continue to establish a group of 1 million or more volunteers—called the All of Us
Research Program—whose health, genetic, environmental, and other data would be collected and
used in research studies to identify novel therapeutics and prevention strategies. The House would
provide an increase of $80 million for All of Us; the Senate would provide an increase of $60
million.
Vaccination is another important prevention strategy. NIH is engaged in vaccine research to
prevent many different diseases, including emerging diseases such as the Zika virus. NIH is also
involved in developing a “universal” influenza vaccine that produces a strong long-lasting
immune response to elements that are shared among all strains of the flu virus.
4. Enhancing Stewardship. NIH states that it recognizes that to earn and maintain the public’s
trust it is essential to be “an efficient and effective steward of taxpayer funds” and to “allocate its
resources with sufficient transparency to allow taxpayers to see how their money is invested.”46
The agency continues to “streamline administrative processes that can take investigators’ time
away from their research.”47 One key way NIH is focused on strengthening stewardship is
through the release and implementation of a new policy designed to enhance reproducibility of
scientific research through increased rigor and transparency in reporting.48 According to NIH,
another means of investing in the long-term health of the nation is “by strengthening and
sustaining a diverse, world-class research workforce.”49 The agency has crafted funding
opportunities directed at new investigators as well as created procedures to normalize success-ingrant-receipt rates between early and more experienced scientists.
45
NIH, FY2018 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Vol. I, Overview, p. 5.
Ibid., p. 10.
47
Ibid.
48
NIH, Rigor and Reproducibility, at https://grants.nih.gov/reproducibility/index.htm.
49
NIH, FY2018 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Vol. I, Overview, p. 10.
46
Congressional Research Service
21
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Table 6. National Institutes of Health Funding
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2017 Enacted
FY2018 Request
FY2018
House
FY2018
S.Cmte.
Cancer Institute (NCI)
$5,389
$4,174
$5,471
$5,558
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
3,207
2,535
3,257
3,323
Dental/Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
426
321
432
440
Diabetes/Digestive/Kidney (NIDDK)a
1,871
1,450
1,900
1,936
Neurological Disorders/Stroke (NINDS)
1,784
1,313
1,810
1,862
Allergy/Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
4,907
3,783
5,006
5,128
General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)b
1,826
1,405
1,889
1,813
Child Health/Human Development (NICHD)
1,380
1,032
1,402
1,426
National Eye Institute (NEI)
733
550
744
759
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)c
714
534
725
738
2,049
1,304
2,459
2,536
Arthritis/Musculoskeletal/Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
558
418
567
576
Deafness/Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
437
326
444
452
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
1,602
1,202
1,625
1,682
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
1,091
865
1,107
1,113
Alcohol Abuse/Alcoholism (NIAAA)
483
361
491
500
Nursing Research (NINR)
150
114
153
155
Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)
529
400
537
547
Biomedical Imaging/Bioengineering (NIBIB)
357
283
363
371
Minority Health/Health Disparities (NIMHD)
289
215
294
298
Complementary/Integrative Health (NCCIH)
135
102
137
140
Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)
706
557
719
729
Fogarty International Center (FIC)
72
—
73
74
National Library of Medicine (NLM)
408
373
414
421
Natl Institute for Research on Safety and Quality (NIRSQ)d
—
272
—
—
Office of Director (OD)
1,678
1,342
1,718
1,810
NIH Innovation Account
352
496
496
496
Buildings & Facilities (B&F)
129
99
129
129
PHS Program Evaluation
824
780
824
1,074
34,084
26,604
35,184
36,084
Mandatory type 1 diabetes fundse
150
150
150
150
Superfund (Interior approp. to NIEHS)f
77
60
77
77
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund
—
107
—
—
34,311
26,920
35,411
36,311
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
Subtotal, NIH
Total, NIH Program Level
Source: H.Rept. 115-244, July 24, 2017, pp. 214-216, and S.Rept. 115-150, September 7, 2017, pp. 230-231.
Congressional Research Service
22
FY2018
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
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 2 do not subtract the amount of transfers,
such as the evaluation tap, from the agencies’ appropriation. Figures for the column headed “FY2018 Enacted”
will be added, if available, as 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. Amounts for National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) do not include Interior
Appropriation for Superfund research (see note f).
d. FY2017 enacted total for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality was $324 million; amount
proposed in H.R. 3358 for AHRQ in FY2018 is $300 million and amount proposed in S. 1771 is $324
million.
e. Mandatory funds available to NIDDK for type 1 diabetes research under PHS Act §330B (provided by P.L.
114-10 for FY2017; $37,500,000 was provided for the first two quarters of FY2018 by P.L. 115-96).
f.
This is a separate account in the Interior/Environment appropriations for National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) research activities related to Superfund.
Department of Energy50
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’s FY2018 budget request for DOE includes $10.172 billion for R&D and
related activities, including programs in three broad categories: science, national security, and
energy. This request is 22.6% less than the enacted FY2017 amount of $13.140 billion. The
House bill (H.R. 3219 as passed by the House, together with H.Rept. 115-230 on H.R. 3266)
would provide $12.033 billion. The Senate committee recommendation (based on S. 1609 as
reported and S.Rept. 115-132) is $13.075 billion. (See Table 7 for details.)
The request for the DOE Office of Science is $4.473 billion, a decrease of 17.1% from the
FY2017 appropriation of $5.392 billion. The House bill would provide $5.393 billion. The Senate
bill would provide $5.550 billion. There is no authorized funding level for the Office of Science
for FY2018. The most recent authorization of appropriations (in the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010, P.L. 111-358) was through FY2013.
The Office of Science includes six major research programs. The request for the largest program,
Basic Energy Sciences (BES), is $1.555 billion, a decrease of 16.9% from $1.872 billion in
FY2017. Within BES, most research areas and facilities would receive reduced funding, and
funds would be eliminated for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
(EPSCoR, $15 million in FY2017); the Energy Innovation Hub on Batteries and Energy Storage
($24 million in FY2017); and the Energy Innovation Hub on Fuels from Sunlight ($15 million in
FY2017). The BES program’s five synchrotron light sources would receive $428 million for
50
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
23
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
operations, down from $494 million in FY2017. This reduction would result in reduced operating
hours (about 85% of optimal, as calculated by DOE) and operation of the Stanford Synchrotron
Radiation Lightsource for only the first quarter of the year. The House bill would provide $1.872
billion for BES, including $15 million for EPSCoR, no funding for the two hubs, and $489
million for operations at the light sources. The Senate bill would provide $1.980 billion, including
$20 million for EPSCoR, the same amounts as in FY2017 for the two hubs, and $496 million for
operations at the light sources.
The request for High Energy Physics is $673 million, a decrease of 18.5% from $825 million in
FY2017. This total includes $44 million for ongoing construction of the Muon to Electron
Conversion Experiment (Mu2E), as previously planned, and $55 million for ongoing construction
of the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility/Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (LBNF/DUNE),
up from $50 million in FY2017. Most other research areas and facilities would receive reduced
funding. The House bill would provide $825 million, including the requested amount for Mu2E
and $80 million for LBNF/DUNE. The Senate bill would provide $860 million, including the
requested amount for Mu2E and $82 million for LBNF/DUNE.
The request for Biological and Environmental Research (BER) is $349 million, a decrease of
43.0% from $612 million in FY2017. This program has historically consisted of two roughly
equal parts: Biological Systems Science and Climate and Environmental Sciences. The request
would rename the latter program as Earth and Environmental Systems Sciences and decrease its
share of the reduced BER total to about one-third. Within Earth and Environmental Systems
Sciences, funding for Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling (formerly Climate and Earth
System Modeling) would decrease to $27 million from $99 million in FY2016 (the FY2017
amount is not available). Climate Model Development and Validation would receive no funding.
The House bill would provide $582 million. The House report does not directly address the
balance between Biological Systems Science and Earth and Environmental Systems Sciences.
The Senate bill would provide $633 million, roughly evenly divided as in past years between
Biological Systems Science ($322 million) and Earth and Environmental Systems Sciences ($311
million).
The request for Nuclear Physics is $503 million, a decrease of 19.2% from $622 million in
FY2017. The proposed reduction is spread across most research areas and facilities. The request
includes $80 million for ongoing construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB),
down from $100 million in FY2017 and $17 million less than previously projected for FY2018. It
includes no further funding for construction of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator
Facility (CEBAF) upgrade, which is to be completed in FY2017. Reduced funding for facility
operations would support operation of CEBAF at about 29% utilization and the Relativistic
Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at about 67% utilization. The House bill would provide $619 million,
including $97 million for FRIB construction. House report language encourages DOE to fund
optimal operations at CEBAF and RHIC “within available funds.” The Senate bill would provide
$639 million, including $97 million for FRIB construction, $10 million more than the request for
operations at RHIC, and optimal operations at CEBAF.
The request for Advanced Scientific Computing Research is $722 million, an increase of 11.6%
from $647 million in FY2017. Of this total, $347 million would contribute to the DOE-wide
Exascale Computing Initiative: $197 million, up from $164 million in FY2017, for the Office of
Science Exascale Computing Project (SC-ECP), and $150 million for upgrades at the two
Leadership Computing Facilities, located at Oak Ridge and Argonne National Laboratories. The
House bill would provide $694 million, including $170 million for the SC-ECP. The Senate bill
would provide $763 million, including $184 million for the SC-ECP.
Congressional Research Service
24
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
The request for Fusion Energy Sciences is $310 million, a decrease of 18.4% from $380 million
in FY2017. Included is $63 million for U.S. contributions to the construction of the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), up from $50 million in FY2017 but down from a
peak of $200 million in FY2014. The DOE budget justification cites U.S. concerns about the cost
and schedule of the ITER project, which is currently under construction in France. The estimated
total U.S. cost range for ITER was updated in January 2017 and is now $4.7 to $6.5 billion (the
low end of the range was previously $4.0 billion). The House bill would provide $395 million for
Fusion Energy Sciences, including the requested amount for U.S. contributions to ITER. The
Senate bill would provide $232 million, including no funding for ITER. The Senate report states
that funding for ITER “would come at the expense of other Office of Science priorities.”
The request for DOE national security R&D is $3.982 billion, an increase of 5.9% from $3.760
billion in FY2017. The bulk of the increase would be in the Weapons Activities account,
including $51 million for a newly consolidated subprogram on Enhanced Capabilities for
Subcritical Experiments, $40 million to initiate a Stockpile Responsiveness program, and $25
million in new construction funding for exascale computing facilities at Los Alamos and
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. Funding for Naval Reactors would increase by $60
million. The DOE budget justification describes most of the proposed changes within Naval
Reactors as consistent with prior plans for ongoing projects. The House bill would provide $4.036
billion, including $78 million more than requested for Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D to support
development of low-enriched uranium fuels for research reactors. The Senate bill would provide
$3.865 billion, including no funds for the proposed Stockpile Responsiveness program.
The FY2018 request for DOE energy R&D is $1.717 billion, a decrease of 56.9% from $3.988
billion in FY2017. Funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D would decrease by
64.9%, with reductions in all major research areas and a shift in emphasis toward early-stage
R&D rather than later-stage development and deployment.51 Funding for fossil energy R&D
would decrease by 58.1%, with reductions focused particularly on coal carbon capture and
storage ($31 million, down from $196 million in FY2017) and natural gas technologies ($6
million, down from $43 million in FY2017). Funding for nuclear energy would decrease by
30.8%, with no funding requested for small modular reactor licensing technical support ($95
million in FY2017), the Integrated University Program ($5 million in FY2017), or the
Supercritical Transformational Electric Power (STEP) R&D initiative ($5 million in FY2017),
and $89 million for fuel cycle R&D (down from $208 million in FY2017). The Advanced
Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) ARPA-E, which is intended to advance high-impact
energy technologies that have too much technical and financial uncertainty to attract near-term
private-sector investment, would be terminated, with requested FY2018 funds used only to close
out the program.
The House bill would provide $2.620 billion for DOE energy R&D. Relative to FY2017, it would
decrease funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy by 55.4% and nuclear energy by
4.7%, with funding at the FY2017 level for the Integrated University Program and STEP R&D,
but no funding for small modular reactor licensing technical support. A floor amendment restored
funding for fossil energy R&D to the FY2017 level. The House bill would provide no funding for
ARPA-E.
51
For more detailed information about energy efficiency and renewable energy funding, see CRS In Focus IF10661,
DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: FY2017 Appropriations and the FY2018 Budget Request, by
(name redacted) and (name redacted)
.
Congressional Research Service
25
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
The Senate bill would provide $3.660 billion for DOE energy R&D. Relative to FY2017, it would
decrease funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy by 7.7%, fossil energy R&D by
14.3%, and nuclear energy by 9.1%, including funding at the FY2017 level for the Integrated
University Program but no funding for STEP R&D or small modular reactor licensing technical
support. For ARPA-E, the Senate bill would provide $330 million, $24 million more than the
FY2017 appropriation.
Table 7. Department of Energy R&D and Related Activities
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2017
Enacted
FY2018
Request
FY2018
House
FY2018
S. Cmte.
$5,392
$4,473
$5,393
$5,550
Basic Energy Sciences
1,872
1,555
1,872
1,980
High Energy Physics
825
673
825
860
Biological and Environmental Research
612
349
582
633
Nuclear Physics
622
503
619
639
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
647
722
694
763
Fusion Energy Sciences
380
310
395
232
Other
435
362
406
443
3,760
3,982
4,036
3,865
Weapons Activities RDT&E
1,842
2,028
2,004
1,964
Naval Reactors
1,420
1,480
1,486
1,437
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D
470
446
524
436
Defense Environmental Cleanup Technol. Devel.
28
28
23
28
3,988
1,717
2,620
3,660
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energya
1,812
636
808
1,672
Fossil Energy R&D
668b
280
668
573
Nuclear Energy
1,017
703
969
917
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability R&D
185
78
175
168
Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy
306
20
0
330
13,140
10,172
12,049
13,075
Science
National Security
Energy
DOE, Total
FY2018
Enacted
Source: FY2017 enacted from P.L. 115-31 and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, May 3, 2017. FY2018
request from DOE FY2018 congressional budget justification, https://energy.gov/cfo/downloads/fy-2018-budgetjustification. FY2018 House from H.R. 3219 as passed by the House and H.Rept. 115-230 (on H.R. 3266). FY2018
Senate committee from S. 1609 as reported and S.Rept. 115-132. Figures for the column headed “FY2018
Enacted” will be added, if available, as action is completed.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
a. Excluding Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.
b. Does not include rescission of $240 million in prior-year balances.
Congressional Research Service
26
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
National Aeronautics and Space Administration52
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was created in 1958 by the National
Aeronautics and Space Act (P.L. 85-568) to conduct civilian space and aeronautics activities.
NASA has research programs in planetary science, Earth science, heliophysics, astrophysics, and
aeronautics, as well as development programs for future human spacecraft and for multipurpose
space technology such as advanced propulsion systems. In addition, NASA operates the
International Space Station (ISS) as a facility for R&D and other purposes.
The Administration is requesting about $15.950 billion for NASA R&D in FY2018. This is 4.2%
less than the FY2017 level of about $16.657 billion. The House committee recommendation
(based on H.R. 3627 as reported and H.Rept. 115-231) is $16.737 billion. The Senate committee
recommendation (based on S. 1662 as reported and S.Rept. 115-139) is $16.324 billion. For a
breakdown of these amounts, see Table 8. NASA R&D funding comes through five accounts:
Science, Aeronautics, Space Technology, Exploration, and the ISS and Commercial Crew
portions of Space Operations.
The FY2018 request for Science is $5.712 billion, a decrease of 0.9%. Within this total, funding
for Earth Science would decrease by $167 million (8.7%); funding for the James Webb Space
Telescope would decrease by $36 million (6.3%) in line with previous plans; and funding for
Planetary Science and Astrophysics would increase. The bulk of the proposed reduction for Earth
Science would result from the elimination of four items in the Earth Systematic Missions
program: the Pre-Aerosol, Clouds, and ocean Ecosystem (PACE) mission, the Radiation Budget
Instrument (RBI), the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO)
Pathfinder mission, and the NASA-provided instruments on the Deep Space Climate Observatory
(DSCOVR) mission. In Planetary Science, funding for an orbiter mission to Jupiter’s moon
Europa (with no accompanying lander) would increase from $275 million in FY2017 to $425
million in the FY2018 request; NASA expects this mission to advance to Phase C (final design
and fabrication) at the beginning of FY2019. The House committee bill would provide $5.859
billion for Science, including $50 million less than the request for Earth Science and $191 million
more than the request for Planetary Science. The House committee report does not mention
PACE, RBI, CLARREO Pathfinder, or DSCOVR. It recommends $495 million for Europa orbiter
and lander missions. The Senate committee bill would provide $5.572 billion for Science,
including $167 million more than the request for Earth Science and $318 million less than the
request for Planetary Science. The Senate committee report includes funds for PACE, CLARREO
Pathfinder, and DSCOVR. It directs NASA to provide a report on the cost and schedule progress
of RBI, and to fund it from within the Earth Science appropriation if the report is favorable. It
does not mention the Europa mission.
The FY2018 request for Aeronautics is $624 million, a decrease of 5.5%. The request includes
$79 million for a low-boom supersonic flight demonstrator, first proposed in the FY2017 budget.
The House committee bill would provide $660 million, the same as in FY2017. The Senate
committee bill would provide $650 million. Both committee recommendations include the
requested amount for the low-boom flight demonstrator.
The FY2018 request for Space Technology is $679 million, a decrease of 1.2%. This is the first
year since FY2011, when Space Technology was first established as a separate account, that the
Administration has not proposed to increase Space Technology funding. The request includes no
52
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Scienceand Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
27
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
funding for the Restore-L satellite servicing mission. According to the FY2018 congressional
budget justification, NASA will “transition the Restore-L project to reduce its cost and better
position it to support a nascent commercial satellite servicing industry” and “pursue
collaborations with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA] and industry to
most effectively advance satellite servicing technologies and ensure broad commercial
application.” The House committee bill would provide $687 million, the same as in FY2017. The
committee report states that “The Committee strongly supports Restore-L and expects NASA to
continue developing satellite servicing capabilities in collaboration with its public and private
sector and academic partners.” The Senate committee bill would provide $700 million, including
$130 million for Restore-L “to maintain a schedule that targets a launch in calendar year 2019.”
The committee report states that Restore-L is complementary to DARPA’s activities and
encourages NASA to “share expertise and lessons learned with DARPA and to accept any
financial contributions from DARPA.”
The FY2018 request for Exploration is $3.934 billion, a decrease of 9.0%. 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 launch readiness
date for the first test flight of SLS carrying Orion but no crew (known as EM-1) was previously
planned for FY2018 but is expected to slip to 2019.53 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
committee bill would provide $4.550 billion for Exploration. The committee report expresses
concern about schedule slips and directs NASA to submit a report identifying the schedule
milestones that must be met for EM-1 and EM-2. The Senate committee bill would provide
$4.395 billion. The committee report states that the recommended funding level is “to ensure the
earliest possible crewed launch, as well as prepare for future crewed launches.”
In the Space Operations account, the request for Commercial Crew is $732 million, a decrease of
38.2%, and the request for the ISS is $1.491 billion (an increase of 3.8% from FY2016; the
FY2017 act did not specify an allocation for the ISS). The reduction in Commercial Crew funding
is in line with previous plans and reflects the expected transition of commercial crew activities
from development to operations. A domestic commercial capability to transport crews to the ISS
is expected to become available in September 2018. The House committee bill would provide $64
million (1.4%) less than the request for Space Operations as a whole; it does not specify how
much of the total should be allocated to the ISS and Commercial Crew programs. The Senate
committee bill would provide $11 million more than the request for Space Operations; its
recommendation includes the requested amount for Commercial Crew but does not specify an
allocation for the ISS.
53
See NASA comments in Government Accountability Office, NASA Human Space Exploration: Delay Likely for First
Exploration Mission, GAO-17-414, April 2017, http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/684360.pdf, p. 18.
Congressional Research Service
28
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Table 8. National Aeronautics and Space Administration R&D
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2017
Enacted
FY2018
Request
FY2018
H. Cmte.
FY2018
S. Cmte.
5,765
5,712
5,859
5,572
Earth Science
1,921
1,754
1,704
1,921
Planetary Science
1,846
1,930
2,121
1,612
Astrophysics
750
817
822
817
James Webb Space Telescope
569
534
534
534
Heliophysics
679
678
678
689
Aeronautics
660
624
660
650
Space Technology
687
679
687
700
4,324
3,934
4,550
4,395
3,929
3,584
4,100
4,045
Science
Exploration
Exploration Systems Development
Exploration R&D
395
350
450
350
n/sa
1,491
n/sa
n/sa
Commercial Crew
1,185
732
n/sa
732
Subtotal R&D
14,005
13,171
13,947
13,546
Non-R&D Programsb
2,519
2,595
2,612
2,660
Safety, Security, and Mission Services
2,769
2,830
2,826
2,827
2,347
2,364
2,380
2,363
361d
496
486
496
Associated with R&Dc
306
414
409
415
NASA, Total (R&D)
16,657
15,950
16,737
16,324
NASA, Total
19,653d
19,092
19,872
19,529
International Space Station
Associated with R&Dc
Construction & Environmental C&R
FY2018
Enacted
Sources: FY2017 enacted from P.L. 115-31 and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, May 3, 2017, pp.
H3374-H3375. FY2018 request from NASA FY2018 congressional budget justification, http://www.nasa.gov/
news/budget/. FY2018 House committee from H.R. 3627 as reported and H.Rept. 115-231. FY2018 Senate
committee from S. 1662 as reported and S.Rept. 115-139. Figures for the column headed “FY2018 Enacted” will
be added, if available, as action is completed.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding. 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.
Congressional Research Service
29
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
National Science Foundation54
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.”55 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.56
NSF has six 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).
Appropriations are generally provided at the account level, while program-specific direction may
be included in appropriations acts, or accompanying conference reports or explanatory
statements.
For FY2017, P.L. 115-31 provided appropriations at the account level, and Congress directed
funding for a subset of programs within the RRA, EHR, and MREFC accounts in the
accompanying explanatory statement.57 Because NSF reports that FY2017 amounts were not
available when the FY2018 budget request was prepared, requested funding at the subaccount
level is generally compared to FY2016 actual funding. Therefore, this section of the report
compares account funding (and program-specific funding, where directed by Congress) to
FY2017 enacted funding; subaccount and R&D funding amounts are compared to FY2016 actual
levels.58
Funding for R&D is included in the RRA, EHR, and MREFC accounts, which also include nonR&D funding. Together, these three accounts comprise 95% of the total requested funding for
NSF. Actual R&D obligations for each account are known after NSF allocates funding
appropriations to specific activities and reports those figures.59 The budget request specifies R&D
funding for the conduct of research, including basic and applied research, and for physical assets,
including R&D facilities and major equipment. Funding amounts for FY2016 actual, FY2017
enacted, and FY2018 requested levels are reported by account, including amounts for R&D
conduct and physical assets where applicable, in Table 9.
54
This section was written by Laurie Harris, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
55
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-507).
56
For more information about NSF and the agency’s funding history, see CRS Report R45009, The National Science
Foundation: FY2018 Appropriations and Funding History, by (name redacted) .
57
Explanatory Statement, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Division B (Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017), Congressional Record, vol. 163, no. 76—Book II (May 3, 2017), p.
H3375.
58
Long-term, multi-year construction projects supported through the MREFC account are an exception, as NSF is able
to provide FY2017 estimated funding amounts for these projects.
59
R&D prior year (FY2016) and requested (FY2018) amounts are reported in the “Quantitative Data Tables” section of
the FY2018 NSF Budget Request to Congress, May 23, 2017, pp. QDT-1–QDT-7.
Congressional Research Service
30
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Overall. The Trump Administration is requesting $6.653 billion for the NSF in FY2018, an $819
million (11%) decrease from the FY2017 enacted amount of $7.472 billion. The request would
decrease budget authority primarily in three accounts relative to the FY2017 enacted level: RRA
by $672 million (11%), EHR by $119 million (14%), and MREFC by $26 million (12%). The
request would provide slight decreases to the AOAM (0.5%, $1.5 million), and OIG (1.3%,
$200,000) accounts, and no change for the NSB account. Overall, NSF estimates that, under the
FY2018 request, funding for research grant awards would decrease from 21% to 19%, resulting in
800 fewer grants awarded, compared to FY2016.
As a proportion of NSF’s total funding, R&D activities account for approximately 81%. For
FY2018, $5.370 billion is requested for R&D activities, a 10.8% decrease from FY2016 actual
funding for R&D of $6.022 million. The total request includes $4.950 billion (92%) for the
conduct of R&D, and $420 million (8%) for R&D facilities and major equipment. Of funding
requested for the conduct of R&D, 86% is requested for basic research, and 14% for applied
research. Overall funding for R&D facilities and major equipment supports not only the
construction and acquisition phases, funded through MREFC ($183 million requested), but also
the planning, design, and post-construction operations and maintenance, funded through RRA
($237 million requested).
As passed by the House on September 14, 2017, the Interior and Environment, Agriculture and
Rural Development, Commerce, Justice, Science, Financial Services and General Government,
Homeland Security, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, State and Foreign Operations,
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Defense, Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs, Legislative Branch, and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2018, (H.R.
3354),60 would provide a total of $7.340 billion for NSF in FY2018, a $132.7 million (1.8%)
decrease from the FY2017 enacted level and $687 million (10.3%) more than the FY2018
request. As reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commerce, Justice,
Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018 (S. 1662), would provide a total of
$7.311 billion for NSF in FY2018, a $161.1 million (2.2%) decrease from the FY2017 enacted
level and $658.2 million (9.9%) more than the FY2018 request. These amounts include both
R&D and non-R&D funding.
NSF’s budget justification identifies seven ongoing agency-wide investments that aim to bring
researchers from different fields of science and engineering together to address cross-disciplinary
questions. Compared to the FY2016 actual amounts, a slight increase in funding is requested for
one of these initiatives—the Inclusion across the Nation of Communities of Learners of
Underrepresented Discoverers in Engineering and Science (INCLUDES, 6.5%, $1 million
increase). Decreases of between 12% and 70% are requested for the remaining six investments.
These include Cyber-Enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems (CEMMSS, $222
million requested, 18% decrease); Innovations at the Nexus of Food, Energy, and Water Systems
(INFEWS, $24 million requested, 70% decrease); Innovation Corps (I-Corps, $26 million
requested, 12% decrease); Risk and Resilience ($31 million requested, 27% decrease); Secure and
Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC, $114 million requested, 12% decrease); and Understanding the
Brain (UtB), $134 million requested, 22% decrease). The committee report to accompany S. 1662
(S.Rept. 115-139) recommends no less than the FY2017 level for I-Corps.
60
Language from the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018 (H.R. 3267),
originally reported by the House Committee on Appropriations on July 17, 2017, was incorporated as Division C of
H.R. 3354.
Congressional Research Service
31
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Research. The Trump Administration seeks a $627 million (11%) decrease in funding for RRA in
FY2018 compared to FY2017 enacted funding, for a total of $5.362 billion. Compared to the
FY2016 actual levels, the FY2018 request includes decreases for all ten of the RRA subaccounts
except for the U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC), which would not change. The largest
percentage decrease would go to Integrative Activities (26%, $111 million decrease). The largest
decrease in dollars would go to Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS, $129 million, 9.6%).
The other subaccounts would receive decreases between 7.1% and 10.6%. The FY2018 request
also includes $100 million for the RRA program Established Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR), which has drawn congressional interest, a decrease of 37.5% from the $160
million directed in the explanatory statement for FY2017 enacted funding.
In recent years, policymakers have debated congressional funding directives at the subaccount
level within RRA. Some assert that legislators have a role in establishing funding priorities by
scientific field, as part of the legislative oversight function and in order to assure accountability
for taxpayer funds. Others 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 are best balanced across the NSF portfolio.
For FY2016, P.L. 114-113 did not specify the funding distribution within RRA, though it did limit
the budget authority for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences to its FY2015 level.61 For
FY2017, P.L. 115-31 did not specify allocations for RRA subaccounts, but did specify that $544
million remain available for polar research and operations support, including activities for the
U.S. Antarctic program.
Within the RRA account, the FY2018 request includes $4.839 billion for R&D, a decrease of
$537 million (10%) compared to the FY2016 actual amount. Of this amount, the majority ($4.602
billion, 95%) is requested for the conduct of research, including $4.160 billion for basic research
and $443 million for applied research.
As passed by the House, H.R. 3354 would provide a total of $6.034 billion for RRA, equal to the
FY2017 enacted level. As reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, S. 1662 would
provide a total of $5.918 billion for RRA, $115.8 million (1.9%) below the FY2017 enacted level.
For EPSCoR, the Senate committee report recommends no less than $160 million for EPSCoR,
equal to the FY2017 level but does not specify funding amounts for RRA subaccounts.
Education. The FY2018 request includes a $119 million (13.6%) decrease for EHR, for a total of
$761 million. This represents the largest percentage reduction requested among NSF’s
appropriations accounts. In FY2017, P.L. 115-31 provided $880 million for EHR and the
accompanying explanatory statement directed funding levels for a number of EHR programs. As
passed by the House, H.R. 3354 would provide $880 billion for EHR, equal to the FY2017
enacted level and $119.4 million (16%) above the FY2018 request. As reported by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations, S. 1662 would provide $862.4 million for EHR, $17.6 million
(2%) below the FY2017 enacted level and $101.8 million (13.4%) above the FY2018 request.
By program division, the largest decrease in the FY2018 request is for the Division of Graduate
Education (20.5%, $57 million decrease), which would receive $221 million. The divisions on
human resource development, formal and informal learning, and undergraduate education would
receive decreases of 9.4% ($200 million requested), 11% ($135 million requested), and 12%
($204 million requested), respectively.
61
Explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 114-113.
Congressional Research Service
32
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
EHR programs of particular interest to congressional policymakers include the Graduate
Research Fellowship (GRF) and National Research Traineeship (NRT) programs. The FY2018
request for GRF is $246 million, a reduction of $86 million (26%) from the FY2016 actual level.
The requested amount would support 1,000 new fellows, a reduction from the 2,000 new fellows
supported through the GRF each year since 2011; in addition, funding will continue for an
estimated 5,000 active fellows. The FY2018 request for NRT is $40 million, a $16 million (28%)
decrease from FY2016.
Proposed funding for FY2018 for other EHR programs of particular congressional interest
include CyberCorps: Scholarships for Service ($40 million requested, 27.0% below the FY2017
directed level);62 Advancing Informal STEM Learning ($63 million requested, no change);
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics + Computing Partnerships ($20 million
requested, 61% decrease); Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program
(HBCU-UP, $35 million requested, no change); Tribal Colleges and University Programs (TCUP,
$13 million requested, 7.1% decrease); and the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation
(LSAMP, $41 million requested, 10.9% decrease). Funding for the Hispanic Serving Institutions
program (HSI), established in FY2017 per congressional direction, is requested at the FY2017
enacted level of $15 million. The Senate committee report recommends no less than $35 million
for the HBCU-UP program, $14 million for the TCUP program, $46 million for the LSAMP
program, and $15 million for the HSI program. The Senate committee report also recommends no
less than the FY2017 enacted amounts for the GRF program and $55 million for CyberCorps.
Within EHR, requested funding for R&D is $348 million, which accounts for approximately
(6.5%) of the agency’s total R&D request. The requested amount is a $57 million (14%) decrease
from the FY2016 actual amount of $405 million. The vast majority of the requested funding
would support the conduct of R&D, including $120 million for basic research and $228 million
for applied research.
Construction. The MREFC account supports large construction projects and scientific
instruments, with nearly all of the funding directed for R&D facilities. The Trump Administration
is seeking just over $183 million for MREFC in FY2018, $26 million (12.5%) less than the
FY2017 enacted amount.
Requested MREFC funding would support three main projects, including continued construction
of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST, $58 million requested, 13.6% decrease from the
FY2017 estimate) and the Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope (DKIST, $20 million requested, no
change). Most of the request ($105 million) would fund the Regional Class Research Vessels
(RCRV) program to build ships to support science in U.S. coastal waters. The FY2018 request—
prepared in advance of final FY2017 appropriations action by Congress—included support for
two ships. Subsequently, Congress directed NSF to provide $122 million to build three RCRVs.
This amounts to $41 million per ship, compared to the FY2018 request of $52.5 million per ship.
The budget request notes that the direction from Congress for three RCRVs will impact current
and future funding requirements at unspecified amounts.
As passed by the House, H.R. 3354 would provide a total of $77.8 million for MREFC in
FY2018, $131 million (63%) below the FY2017 enacted level, and $105 million (57%) below the
FY2018 request. This amount would provide $57.8 million for LSST and $20 million for DKIST
but no funding for RCRVs. As reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, S. 1662
would provide a total of $182.8 million for MREFC in FY2018, $26.2 million (12.5%) below the
62
The explanatory statement further directed, of the $55 million provided for CyberCorps in FY2017, “no less than
$7.5 million for qualified community colleges as directed by the Senate.”
Congressional Research Service
33
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
FY2017 enacted level, and equal to the FY2018 request. The recommended amount includes
funding at the requested levels for DKIST, LSST, and three RCRVs.
Other initiatives. The FY2018 NSF budget request includes funding for three multiagency
initiatives. This funding is included in the six NSF appropriations accounts and not separately
provided. The National Nanotechnology Initiative would receive $389 million, $122 million
(24%) less than in FY2016. The Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development program would receive $1.062 billion, a decrease of $157 million (12.9%). The
U.S. Global Change Research Program would receive $264 million, $85 million (25.6%) less
than in FY2016. P.L. 115-31 did not specify NSF funding for these initiatives. Similarly, H.R.
3354, S. 1662, and Senate committee report do not specify funding for the initiatives.
Table 9. National Science Foundation Funding
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2016
Actual
FY2017
Enacted
FY2018
Request
FY2018
House
FY2018
S.Cmte.
$5,998.1
$6,033.6
$5,361.6
$6,033.6
$5,917.8
R&D, RRA Total
5,375.8
n/s
4,839.0
n/s
n/s
Conduct of R&D
5,184.6
n/s
4,602.3
n/s
n/s
R&D Facilities and Major Equipment
191.2
n/s
236.7
n/s
n/s
Education and Human Resources
(EHR)
884.1
880.0
760.6
880.0
862.4
R&D, EHR Total
405.0
n/s
348.2
n/s
n/s
Conduct of R&D
Account
Research and Related Activities
(RRA)
404.8
n/s
348.0
n/s
n/s
R&D Facilities and Major Equipment
0.2
n/s
0.2
n/s
n/s
Major Research Equipment and
Facilities Construction (MREFC)
241.5
209.0
182.8
77.8
182.8
R&D, MREFC Total
241.5
n/s
182.8
n/s
n/s
–
n/s
–
n/s
n/s
R&D Facilities and Major Equipment
241.5
n/s
182.8
n/s
n/s
Agency Operations and Award
Management (AOAM)a
351.1
330.0
328.5
328.5
328.5
National Science Board (NSB)a
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
Office of the Inspector General
(OIG)a
14.8
15.2
15.0
15.2
15.2
$7,493.9
$7,472.2
$6,652.9
$7,339.5
$7,311.1
6,022.3
n/s
5,369.9
n/s
n/s
5,589.4
n/s
4,950.3
n/s
n/s
432.8
n/s
419.6
n/s
n/s
Conduct of R&D
NSF, Total
R&D, NSF Total
Total, Conduct of R&D
Total, R&D Facilities & Major
Equipment
FY2018
Enacted
Source: Data in the columns titled, “FY2016 Actual” and “FY2018 Request” are from the FY2018 NSF Budget
Request to Congress. Data in the column headed “FY2017 Enacted” are from the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31) and the accompanying Division B Explanatory Statement. Funding amounts in the column
“FY2018 House-passed” are from the Division C—Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2018 of H.R. 3354, as passed by the House on September 14, 2017. Funding amounts in the
column “FY2018 S.Cmte. Reported” are from the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Congressional Research Service
34
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Appropriations Act, 2018 (S. 1662), as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations on July 27, 2017,
and S.Rept. 115-139.
Notes: Appropriations accounts are in bold. NSF total may differ from the sum of the accounts due to rounding.
Non-bold R&D funding amounts are a subset of funding for the specified accounts. The term “n/s” means “not
specified.”
a. The AOAM, NSB, and OIG accounts have no reported R&D funding.
Department of Agriculture63
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 involved are the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA),
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), and Economic Research Service (ERS).
For FY2018, the House-passed bill (H.R. 3354, as amended from committee-reported H.R. 3268)
would provide $2.793 billion for USDA’s four research agencies, a reduction of $98 million (3.4%) from the enacted FY2017 appropriation (P.L. 115-31). The Senate-reported bill (S. 1603)
would provide $2.834 billion ($41 million more than the House bill, and a reduction of 2% from
FY2017). The Administration’s budget request was for $2.508 billion, a reduction of $382 million
(-13.2%) from FY2017. (See Table 10.)
In addition to discretionary appropriations, agricultural research is also funded by state matching
contributions and private donations or grants, as well as mandatory funding from the farm bill.64
USDA’s discretionary appropriations are profiled below.
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.
63
This section was written by (name redacted) and (name redacted), Specialists in Agricultural Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
64
For background on agricultural research, see CRS Report R40819, Agricultural Research: Background and Issues,
by (name redacted)
. For background on agricultural appropriations, see CRS Insight IN10710, The President’s FY2018
Budget Request for Agriculture Appropriations and the Farm Bill, by (name redacted)
, and CRS Report R44588,
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations, coordinated by (name redacted)
.
Congressional Research Service
35
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
For FY2018, the House-passed bill would provide $1.134 billion for ARS salaries and expenses,
and $60 million for ARS buildings and facilities; each component is nearly $40 million less than
comparable FY2017 levels (Table 10). The Senate-reported bill would provide $50 million more
than the House bill for salaries and expenses, $1.182 billion, but nothing for buildings and
facilities. The Administration requested $993 million for ARS salaries and expenses, a reduction
of $177 million (-15.1%) from the enacted FY2017 appropriation, and nothing for buildings and
facilities.
To achieve its requested reduction, the Administration proposed budgetary decreases across all
ARS programmatic areas, and specifically reducing or eliminating several dozen prioritized
research projects. The programmatic reduction was coupled with proposals to close 5 laboratories
at ongoing locations, and close another 12 laboratory locations entirely. Both the House and
Senate bills reject these closures and project terminations, though the House bill encourages ARS
to reallocate resources as projects mature and goals are achieved. Previous years’ budgets and
administrations have proposed similar laboratory closures and realignments that were expressly
rejected in enacted appropriations.
For the ARS buildings and facilities account, the Senate-reported bill concurs with the
Administration’s request for no appropriation. The House-passed bill would provide $60 million.
This follows buildings and facilities appropriations of $99.6 million in FY2017 and $212 million
in FY2016. The House report language mirrors past appropriations that have directed ARS to
follow funding priorities identified in the 2012 “USDA ARS Capital Investment Strategy.”65
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.66 Federal funds enhance capacity at universities
and institutions by statutory formula funding, competitive awards, and grants.
For FY2018, the House-passed bill would provide $1.344 billion for NIFA, a reduction of $19
million from FY2017 (-1.4%). The Senate-reported bill would provide $1.373 billion, an increase
of $10 million above FY2017. The Administration had requested $1.253 billion, a decrease of
$110 million from FY2017 (-8.1%; Table 10).
The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)—USDA’s flagship competitive grants
program with 25% of NIFA’s total budget—would remain at $375 million in both the Housepassed and Senate-reported bills, the same as provided in FY2017.
65
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. In
FY2016, 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). The priorities funded in FY2017 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).
66
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
36
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
The Administration had proposed to eliminate or reduce funding for several other specific
organic, pest management, and crop-specific research programs. The House bill is generally more
generous to these programs than the Administration’s request, though it concurs with eliminating
funding for some programs while maintaining it for others. The Senate-reported bill generally has
a slight increase over FY2017 levels for these other smaller research programs.
Formula-funded programs in both research and extension are held constant under both the Housepassed and Senate-reported bills. This is similar to the Administration’s request, though the
Administration proposed a 15% reduction to McIntire-Stennis cooperative forestry research
funding.
The President’s request proposes to eliminate funding for several programs, including several
federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education programs at USDA (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). Previous years’
budget requests have proposed moving these programs away from USDA and consolidating
STEM programming across the government, but enacted appropriations have continued to
maintain the programs at USDA. Both the House-reported and Senate-reported bills maintain
these programs at USDA and at FY2017 levels.
As in past years, the House-passed and Senate-reported bills continue to direct that at least 15%
of NIFA’s competitive grant funding be available for research enhancement awards such as
USDA-EPSCoR.
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 FY2018, the House-passed bill would provide $178 million and the Senate-reported bill
would provide $192 million. Both are increases over the FY2017 appropriation of $171 million.
The FY2018 request by the Administration of $186 million reflects additional expenses for
conducting the Agricultural Census.
For the core NASS Agricultural Estimates program, the Administration had requested a $7.3
million reduction (-5.6%), and the House-passed bill would decrease it an even larger amount, 14.2%. The Senate-reported bill basically maintains the core statistical program at FY2017 levels,
with only a -0.5% reduction. The Administration proposed to achieve at least some of this
reduction by reducing the sample size of 12 specific surveys and producing fewer estimates
(including by reducing the number of published states by commodity).67
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.
67
USDA, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, FY2018 Congressional Budget Justification for the National
Agricultural Statistics Service, p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
37
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
For FY2018, the House-reported bill follows the Administration request for $77 million, a
decrease of $10 million (-11.5%) from the enacted FY2017 appropriation. The Senate-reported
bill would maintain the FY2018 appropriation at the FY2017 level of $87 million.
The Administration’s budget proposed to reduce activities in many areas of research, including
drought resilience, international agriculture, bioenergy, and consumer food purchases.
Table 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2017
Enacted
FY2018
Request
FY2018
House
FY2018
S.Cmte.
1,170.2
993.1
1,134.1
1,182.4
99.6
0.0
60.0
0.0
1,269.8
993.1
1,194.1
1,182.4
AFRI (competitive grants)
375.0
349.3
375.0
375.0
Hatch Act (1862 institutions)
243.7
243.2
243.7
243.7
Evans-Allen (1890 institutions)
54.2
54.1
54.2
54.2
McIntire-Stennis (forestry)
34.0
28.9
34.0
34.0
Other
142.7
94.1
126.1
148.0
Subtotal
849.5
769.6
832.9
854.9
Smith-Lever (b) and (c)
300.0
299.4
300.0
300.0
Smith-Lever (d)
85.5
79.2
85.5
85.5
Other
91.9
84.3
90.3
95.8
477.4
462.9
475.9
481.4
36.0
20.3
35.0
37.0
1,362.9
1,252.8
1,343.8
1,373.2
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
171.2
185.7
178.2
191.7
Economic Research Service (ERS)
86.8
76.7
76.8
86.8
Total, USDA Research Mission Area
2,890.7
2,508.3
2,792.9
2,834.2
Agency or Major Program
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
Buildings and Facilities
Subtotal, ARS
FY2018
Enacted
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
Research and Education
Extension
Subtotal
Integrated Activities
Subtotal, NIFA
Source: CRS, compiled P.L. 115-31 (including tables in the joint explanatory statement), H.R. 3354, H.R. 3268,
H.Rept. 115-232, S. 1603, and S.Rept. 115-131.
Notes: Components may not add to subtotals or total due to rounding. Figures for “FY 2018 Senate,” and
“FY2018 Enacted” will be added, if available, as Congress completes each action.
Department of Commerce
Two agencies of the Department of Commerce have major R&D programs: the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).
Congressional Research Service
38
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
National Institute of Standards and Technology68
The mission of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is “to promote U.S. innovation
and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in
ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.”69 NIST research provides
measurement, calibration, and quality assurance methods and techniques that support U.S.
commerce, technological progress, product reliability, manufacturing processes, and public safety.
NIST’s responsibilities include the development, maintenance, and custodial retention of the
national standards of measurement; providing the means and methods for making measurements
consistent with those standards; and ensuring the compatibility of U.S. national measurement
standards with those of other nations.70
The President is requesting $725.0 billion in funding for NIST in FY2018, a decrease of $229.0
million (24.0%) from the FY2017 enacted appropriation of $954.0 million. (See Table 11.) NIST
discretionary funding is provided through three accounts: Scientific and Technical Research and
Services (STRS), Industrial Technology Services (ITS), and Construction of Research Facilities
(CRF). The House passed the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Bill, 2018 as Division C of H.R. 3354,71 on September 14, 2017. The House-passed bill includes
$870.0 million in funding for NIST, down $84.0 million (8.8%) from the FY2017 enacted level
and up $145.0 million (20.0%) from the request. The Senate Committee on Appropriation
reported the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018 (S.
1662) on July 27, 2017. The Senate committee-reported bill includes $944.0 million for NIST,
down $10.0 million (1.0%) from the FY2017 enacted level, up $219.0 million (30.2%) from the
request, and up $74.0 million (8.5%) from the House-passed bill.
The President’s FY2018 request includes $600.0 million for R&D, standards coordination, and
related services in the STRS account, a decrease of $90.0 million (13.0%) from the FY2017
level.72 The House-passed bill includes $660.0 million in funding for the STRS account, down
$30.0 million (4.3%) from the FY2017 enacted level and up $60.0 million (10.0%) from the
request. Specific areas the House committee report identified for NIST attention include disaster
resiliency, textile research, football helmet safety, Internet of Things (IoT) security, cybersecurity,
and nanostructured metals. The Senate committee-reported bill includes $695.0 million for the
STRS, up $5.0 million (0.7%) from the FY2017 enacted level, up $95.0 million (15.8%) from the
request, and up $35.0 million (5.3%) from the House level. Among the specific areas the Senate
committee identified for NIST attention are cybersecurity, the National Cybersecurity Center of
Excellence, the IoT, forensic sciences, disaster resilient buildings, helmet safety, metals-based
additive manufacturing, plastics and polymeric materials, pyrrhotite in concrete aggregate,
regenerative medicine standards, a challenge prize focused on spectrum efficiency, and NIST’s
Urban Dome program. The Senate committee also recommends support for the NIST Baldrige
68
This section was written by (name redacted), Spe cialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
69
NIST website, “General Information,” http://nist.gov/public_affairs/general_information.cfm.
70
15 U.S.C. 272.
71
H.R. 3354 is titled the “Interior and Environment, Agriculture and Rural Development, Commerce, Justice, Science,
Financial Services and General Government, Homeland Security, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, State
and Foreign Operations, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Defense, Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs, Legislative Branch, and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2018.”
72
U.S. Department of Commerce, Department of Commerce, Budget in Brief, Fiscal Year 2018,
http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY18BIB/All508.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
39
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Performance Excellence program in the amount of $2.2 million, but emphasizes the need for the
program to become self-sustaining through fundraising and private sector support.
The President is requesting $21.0 million for the ITS account for FY2018, down $134.0 million
(86.5%) from the FY2017 enacted level. The ITS request includes $6.0 million “for the orderly
wind down” of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, and $15.0 million for
the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI, also referred to as Manufacturing
USA), a $10.0 million (40.0%) reduction from the FY2017 enacted level.73 The $15.0 million
provided for the NNMI includes $10.0 million for continued support of the NIST-sponsored
National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals and $5.0 million to
support NIST’s role in coordination of the network. The House-passed bill includes $110.0
million in funding for the ITS account, down $45.0 million (29.0%) from the FY2017 enacted
level and up $89.0 million (423.8%) from the request. Within the ITS account, the bill would
provide $105.0 million for the MEP program, down $25.0 million (19.2%) from the FY2017
enacted level and up $99.0 million from the request, and would provide $5.0 million for the
NNMI, down $20.0 million (80.0%) from the FY2017 enacted level and down $10.0 million
(66.7%) from the request. The Senate committee-reported bill includes $145.0 million for the ITS
account, down $10.0 million (6.5%) from the FY2017 enacted level, up $124.0 million (590.5%)
from the request, and up $35.0 million (31.8%) from the House-passed bill. In doing so, the
Senate committee rejected the Administration’s proposed elimination of the MEP program and
funds it at the FY2017 level of $130.0 million, $25.0 million more than the House passed bill.
The Senate committee-reported bill would provide $15 million for the NNMI, $10 million below
the FY2017 level, equal to the Administration’s request, and $10 million more than the Housepassed bill. Of these funds, up to $5.0 million may be used for network coordination activities.
The President is requesting $104.0 million for FY2018 for the NIST CRF account, down $5.0
million (4.6%) from the FY2017 enacted level.74 The House-passed bill includes $100.0 million
in funding for the CRF account, down $9 million (8.3%) from the FY2017 enacted level and
down $4.0 million (3.8%) from the request. The Senate committee-reported bill includes $104.0
million for the CRF account, down $5.0 million (4.6%) from the FY2017 enacted level, equal to
the request, and up $4.0 million (4.0%) from the House-passed bill.
Table 11. National Institute of Standards and Technology Funding
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2017
Enacted
FY2018
Request
FY2018
House
FY2018
S. Cmte.
Scientific and Technical Research and
Services
$690.0
$600.0
$660.0
$695.0
Industrial Technology Services
155.0
21.0
110.0
145.0
Manufacturing Extension Partnership
130.0
6.0
105.0
130.0
Network for Manufacturing Innovation
25.0
15.0
5.0
15.0
Construction of Research Facilities
109.0
104.0
100.0
104.0
NIST, Totala
$954.0
$725.0
$870.0
$944.0
Budget Account
FY2018
Enacted
73
Ibid. For additional information on the MEP program, see CRS Report R44308, The Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program, by (name redacted)
74
U.S. Department of Commerce, Department of Commerce, Budget in Brief, Fiscal Year 2018.
Congressional Research Service
40
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
Source: P.L. 115-31; explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 115-31, as published in the Congressional Record,
May 3, 2017, Book II, H3365; U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and
Technology/National Technical Information Service Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Submission to Congress, NIST-4; H.R. 3267;
H.Rept. 115-231; and H.R. 3354.
Notes: Figures for the columns headed “FY2018 Senate” and “FY2018 Enacted” will be added, if available, as
Congress completes each action.
a. NIST stated that it would continue to execute mandatory resources in FY2017 (not include in the table
figures) provided in FY2017 through the NIST Public Safety Communications Research Fund to help develop
wireless technologies for public safety users, as part of the National Wireless Initiative included in the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-96). This act provides mandatory funds for
NIST from spectrum auction proceeds to help industry and public safety organizations conduct research
and develop new standards, technologies and applications to advance public safety communications in
support of the initiative’s efforts to build an interoperable nationwide broadband network for first
responders. The act provided NIST a total of $300 million, though rescissions have reduced this amount to
$285 million.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration75
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration conducts scientific research in areas such
as ecosystems, climate, global climate change, weather, and oceans; collects and provides data on
the oceans and atmosphere; and manages coastal and marine organisms and environments.
NOAA was created in 1970 by Reorganization Plan No. 4.76 The reorganization was intended to
unify elements of the nation’s environmental programs and to provide a systematic approach for
monitoring, analyzing, and protecting the environment. One of the agency’s main challenges
relates to its diverse mission of science, service, and stewardship. A review of research
undertaken by NOAA found, “The major challenge for NOAA is connecting the pieces of its
research program and ensuring research is linked to the broader science needs of the agency.”77
NOAA’s Research Council78 developed a five-year plan (2013-2017) to guide the agency’s R&D
efforts.79 R&D efforts support the long-term goals and enterprise objectives of NOAA’s Next
Generation Strategic Plan.80 The strategic plan is organized into four categories of long-term
goals including (1) climate adaptation and mitigation, (2) a weather-ready nation,81 (3) healthy
oceans, and (4) resilient coastal communities and economies; and three groups of enterprise
75
This section was written by (name redacted), Analyst in Natural Resources, CRS Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
76
“Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970,” 35 Federal Register 15627-15630, October 6, 1970; see also
http://www.lib.noaa.gov/noaainfo/heritage/ReorganizationPlan4.html.
77
Dr. Kathryn Sullivan, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator, NOAA
Response to the NOAA Science Advisory Board’s Portfolio Review Task Force Report, NOAA, April 15, 2014,
http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Reports/2014/NOAA.Response.to.PRTF.Report_2014.04.15.pdf.
78
According to NOAA, “The NOAA Research Council is an internal body composed of senior scientific personnel
from every line office in the agency who provide corporate oversight to ensure NOAA’s research and development
activities are of the highest quality, meet near- to long-term mission requirements and societal needs, take advantage of
emerging scientific and technological opportunities, shape a forward-looking research agenda, and are accomplished in
an efficient and cost-effective manner.” Source: NOAA website, “NOAA Research Council,” http://nrc.noaa.gov.
79
NOAA, Research and Development at NOAA, Five-Year Research and Development Plan 2013-2017, Washington,
DC, 2014, http://nrc.noaa.gov/CouncilProducts/ResearchPlans/5YearRDPlan/NOAA5YRPHome/Preface/
Purpose.aspx.
80
NOAA, NOAA’s Next-Generation Strategic Plan, Silver Spring, MD, December 2010, http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/wpcontent/uploads/NOAA_NGSP.pdf.
81
According to NOAA, a weather-ready nation is envisioned as a society that is prepared for and responds to weatherrelated events.
Congressional Research Service
41
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018
objectives including (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) data and observations, and (3) integrated
environmental modeling. To achieve the strategic plan’s goals and objectives, NOAA has
identified gaps in knowledge and capabilities. NOAA’s R&D plan attempts to address these gaps
by asking key questions. Key questions are used in the plan to frame and organize R&D
objectives and to identify tasks associated with achieving these objectives.
One of the main challenges identified in the NOAA R&D plan is the need to integrate the diverse
perspectives and professional expertise required by the agency’s mission. The plan states that
“holistically understanding the earth system is not only understanding its individual components,
but understanding and interpreting the way each of the components interact and behave as an
integrated composite that is more than the sum of its parts.”
For FY2018, President Trump requested $671.6 million in R&D funding for NOAA, a decrease
of $176.4 million (20.8%) below the FY2017 enacted level of $848.0 million. R&D funding for
FY2017 consists of $497.8 million for research (58.7% of total R&D funding), $86.9 million for
development (10.3%), and $263.3 million for R&D equipment (31.0%).82 In FY2017, R&D is
14.9% of NOAA’s total discretionary budget of $5,675.4 million. The FY2018 request for R&D
funding includes $365.8 million for research (54.4% of total R&D funding), $64.2 million for
development (9.6%), and $241.6 million for R&D equipment (36.0%). The President’s request
for R&D is 14.1% of NOAA’s total discretionary budget request of $4,770.7 million.
NOAA’s administrative structure is organized by five line offices that reflect its diverse mission:
the National Ocean Service (NOS); National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); National
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS); National Weather Service
(NWS); and Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). In addition to NOAA’s five
line offices, two major funding categories include Mission Support (formerly Program Support)
and the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO). Mission support is a cross-cutting
budget activity, which provides administrative functions related to planning, information
technology, human resources, and infrastructure. OMAO is responsible for the agency’s ships and
aircraft that collect data in support of NOAA’s environmental and scientific missions.83
Table 12 provides R&D funding levels for FY2017 enacted and the Administration’s FY2018
request for each NOAA office.84 Funding for NOAA R&D is included in budget 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 legislation is allocated to R&D. In general, R&D funding
levels are known only after NOAA allocates its appropriations to specific activities and reports
those figures.
Most of NOAA’s R&D activities are conducted by OAR and in most years OAR accounts for
over half of NOAA’s R&D funding. The FY2018 request would provide OAR with $350.0
million for R&D, a decrease of $130.1 million (27.1%) below the FY2017 enacted funding level
of $480.1 million.85
OAR conducts research in three major areas: weather and air chemistry; climate; and oceans,
coasts, and the Great Lakes. A significant portion of these efforts is implemented through
partnerships between NOAA and cooperative research institutes. NOAA supports 16 cooperative
82
NOAA Budget Office, email to CRS, June 14, 2017.
Most of NOAA’s discretionary funding for the five offices, OMAO, and Mission Support is from the Operations,
Research and Facilities and th
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.