# Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018 > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR44888 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** January 25, 2018 - **Citation:** R44888 ## 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 Divisio [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR44888. Public record. Not legal advice.