Federal Research and Development Funding:
FY2015
John F. Sargent Jr., Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
December 17, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43580
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Summary
President Obama’s budget request for FY2015 includes $135.352 billion for research and
development (R&D), a $1.670 billion (1.2%) increase from the FY2014 level of $133.682 billion.
The request represents the President’s R&D priorities; Congress may opt to agree with part or all
of the request, or it may express different priorities through the appropriations process. In
particular, Congress will play a central role in determining the growth rate and allocation of the
federal R&D investment in a period of intense pressure on discretionary spending. Low or
negative growth in the overall R&D investment 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 Obama’s
FY2015 budget request, seven federal agencies would receive 95.4% of total federal R&D
funding, with the Department of Defense (DOD, 47.6%) and the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS, 23.0%) accounting for more than two-thirds of all federal R&D funding.
In addition to the FY2015 base budget request, the President has proposed an Opportunity,
Growth, and Security Initiative (OGSI) that seeks, together with funding for other purposes, $5.3
billion for R&D at certain agencies, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST, $2.515 billion), National Institutes of Health ($970 million), NASA ($874 million),
National Science Foundation (NSF, $552 million), Department of Agriculture ($277 million), and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ($180 million). Of the NIST funding, $2.4
billion would support the establishment of a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.
The R&D budgets of NIST, NSF, and the DOE Office of Science were targeted for doubling over
7 years, from their FY2006 levels, by the America COMPETES Act, and over 11 years by the
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. Although the President’s FY2015 budget
requests increases for these accounts, it departs, as did the FY2014 request, from earlier Obama
and Bush Administration budgets that explicitly stated the doubling goal.
The President’s FY2015 request continues support for three multi-agency R&D initiatives,
proposing $1.537 billion for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), $3.786 billion for the
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program, and
$2.501 billion for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The request also
proposes approximately $200 million in FY2015 for a Brain Research through Advancing
Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative, as well as funding for the Materials Genome
Initiative and the National Robotics Initiative.
Congress completed appropriations action for most federal agencies through enactment of the
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, which was signed into law on
December 16, 2014. The measure provides FY2015 appropriations for agencies covered by 11
regular appropriations bills, and provides continuing appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security through February 27, 2015. Previously, Congress provided FY2015
appropriations to federal agencies through a series of continuing resolutions.
In recent years, continuing resolutions and sequestration have resulted in the annual
appropriations process being completed after the start of the fiscal year. This can affect agencies’
execution of their R&D budgets, including the delay or cancellation of planned R&D activities
and acquisition of R&D-related equipment.
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Contents
Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 1
The President’s FY2015 Budget Request ........................................................................................ 3
Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative .................................................................................. 4
Federal R&D Funding Perspectives ................................................................................................ 5
Federal R&D by Agency ........................................................................................................... 5
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
Defense-Related and Nondefense-Related R&D....................................................................... 8
Multiagency R&D Initiatives ........................................................................................................... 9
Efforts to Double Certain R&D Accounts ................................................................................. 9
National Nanotechnology Initiative ......................................................................................... 12
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program .................... 12
U.S. Global Change Research Program ................................................................................... 13
BRAIN Initiative ..................................................................................................................... 14
Materials Genome Initiative .................................................................................................... 14
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership ..................................................................................... 15
National Robotics Initiative .............................................................................................. 15
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation ............................................................. 16
Reorganization of STEM Education Programs ....................................................................... 16
FY2015 Appropriations Status ....................................................................................................... 17
Department of Defense .................................................................................................................. 18
Department of Homeland Security ................................................................................................ 22
National Institutes of Health .......................................................................................................... 26
Department of Energy .................................................................................................................... 30
National Science Foundation ......................................................................................................... 35
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ........................................................................... 40
Department of Commerce .............................................................................................................. 44
National Institute of Standards and Technology ...................................................................... 44
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ................................................................ 47
Department of Agriculture ............................................................................................................. 49
Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................. 53
U.S. Geological Survey ........................................................................................................... 54
Other DOI Agencies ................................................................................................................ 54
Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 56
Department of Transportation ........................................................................................................ 59
Federal Highway Administration............................................................................................. 60
Federal Aviation Administration .............................................................................................. 60
Other DOT Agencies ............................................................................................................... 61
Department of Veterans Affairs...................................................................................................... 63
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Figures
Figure 1. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling: Appropriations, Authorizations,
and Requests versus Selected Doubling Rates ........................................................................... 11
Tables
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2013-FY2015 ..................... 5
Table 2. Federal R&D Funding by Character of Work and Facilities and Equipment,
FY2013-FY2015 ........................................................................................................................... 6
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2013-FY2015 ................................................................................................ 8
Table 4. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling, FY2006-FY2015 ..................................... 10
Table 5. National Nanotechnology Initiative Funding, FY2013-FY2015 ..................................... 12
Table 6. Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program
Funding, FY2013-FY2015 ......................................................................................................... 13
Table 7. U.S. Global Change Research Program Funding, FY2013-FY2015 ............................... 13
Table 8. Alignment of Agency R&D Funding and Regular Appropriations Bills ......................... 18
Table 9. Department of Defense RDT&E ...................................................................................... 21
Table 10. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs ................................... 25
Table 11. National Institutes of Health Funding ............................................................................ 29
Table 12. Department of Energy R&D and Related Activities ...................................................... 34
Table 13. NSF Funding by Major Account .................................................................................... 39
Table 14. NASA R&D ................................................................................................................... 43
Table 15. NIST ............................................................................................................................... 46
Table 16. NOAA R&D ................................................................................................................... 48
Table 17. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D............................................................................ 52
Table 18. Department of the Interior R&D .................................................................................... 55
Table 19. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account .......................................................... 58
Table 20. Department of Transportation R&D .............................................................................. 62
Table 21. Department of Veterans Affairs R&D ............................................................................ 64
Appendixes
Appendix. Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................... 65
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 69
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Overview
The 113th Congress continues to take a strong interest in the health of the U.S. research and
development (R&D) enterprise and in providing support for federal R&D activities. The federal
government has played an important role in supporting R&D efforts that have led to scientific
breakthroughs and new technologies, from jet aircraft and the Internet to communications
satellites, shale gas extraction, and defenses against disease. However, widespread concerns about
the federal debt and recent and projected federal budget deficits are driving difficult decisions
about the prioritization of R&D, both in the context of the entire federal budget and among
competing needs within the federal R&D portfolio.
The U.S. government supports a broad range of scientific and engineering R&D. Its purposes
include specific concerns such as national defense, health, safety, the environment, and energy
security; advancing knowledge generally; developing the scientific and engineering workforce;
and strengthening U.S. innovation and competitiveness in the global economy. Most of the R&D
funded by the federal government is performed in support of the unique missions of individual
funding agencies.
The federal R&D budget is an aggregation of the R&D components of each federal agency. There
is no single, centralized source of funds that is allocated to individual agencies. In fact, agency
R&D budgets are developed internally as part of each agency’s overall budget development
process and may be included in accounts that are entirely for R&D and 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 and become part of the President’s annual budget
submission to Congress. The federal R&D budget is then calculated by aggregating the R&D
components of the appropriations provided by Congress to each federal agency.
Congress plays a central role in defining the nation’s R&D priorities as it makes decisions about
the level and allocation of R&D funding—overall, within agencies, and for specific programs.
Some Members of Congress have expressed concerns about the level of federal spending (for
R&D as for other purposes) in light of the current federal deficit and debt. As Congress acts to
complete the FY2015 appropriations process, it faces two overarching issues: the extent to which
federal R&D investments can grow in the face of increased pressure on discretionary spending
and the prioritization and allocation of the available funding. Low or negative growth in the
overall R&D investment may require movement of resources across disciplines, programs, or
agencies to address priorities. Moving funding between programs/accounts/agencies can become
more complex and difficult if the funding for programs/accounts/agencies is provided through
different appropriations bills.
Structurally, this report begins with a discussion of the overall level of R&D funding requested in
the President’s budget, followed by analyses of requested R&D funding 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 about 98% of total federal R&D funding. A list of definitions associated
with federal R&D funding is provided in the text box on the following page.
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Definitions Associated with Federal Research and Development Funding
Two key sources of definitions associated with federal research and development funding are the Office of
Management and Budget and the National Science Foundation.
Office of Management and Budget. The Office of Management and Budget provides the fol owing definitions of
R&D-related terms in OMB Circular No. A-11, “Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget,” (July 2013).
This document provides guidance to agencies in the preparation of the President’s annual budget and instructions on
budget execution.
Conduct of Research. Research and development activities comprise creative work undertaken on a systematic
basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture, and society, and the use of
this stock of knowledge to devise new applications. Includes administrative expenses for R&D, including the
operating costs of research facilities and equipment; does not include physical assets for R&D such as R&D
equipment and facilities or routine product testing, quality control, mapping, collection of general-purpose
statistics, experimental production, routine monitoring and evaluation of an operational program, and the training
of scientific and technical personnel.
Basic Research. Basic research is defined as systematic study directed toward fuller knowledge or understanding
of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications towards processes
or products in mind. Basic research, however, may include activities with broad applications in mind.
Applied Research. Applied research is defined as systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding
necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met.
Development. Development is defined as systematic application of knowledge or understanding, directed
toward the production of useful materials, devices, and systems or methods, including design, development, and
improvement of prototypes and new processes to meet specific requirements.
R&D Equipment. Amounts for major equipment for research and development. Includes acquisition or design
and production of movable equipment, such as spectrometers, research satellites, detectors, and other
instruments. At a minimum, this line should include programs devoted to the purchase or construction of R&D
equipment.
R&D Facilities. Amounts for the construction and rehabilitation of research and development facilities. Includes
the acquisition, design, and construction of, or major repairs or alterations to, all physical facilities for use in R&D
activities. Facilities include land, buildings, and fixed capital equipment, regardless of whether the facilities are to be
used by the government or by a private organization, and regardless of where title to the property may rest.
Includes fixed facilities such as reactors, wind tunnels, and particle accelerators.
National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation provides the following definitions of R&D-related
terms in its Science and Engineering Indicators: 2014 report.
Research and Development. Research and development, also called research and experimental development;
comprises creative work undertaken on a systematic basis to increase the stock of knowledge—including
knowledge of man, culture, and society—and its use to devise new applications.
R&D Plant. In general, R&D plant refers to the acquisition of, construction of, major repairs to, or alterations in
structures, works, equipment, facilities, or land for use in R&D activities. Data included in this section refer to
obligated federal dollars for R&D plant.
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: FY2015
The President’s FY2015 Budget Request
On March 4, 2014, President Obama released his proposed FY2015 budget. Using FY2014 as the
base comparison year, this report provides government-wide, multi-agency, and individual agency
analyses of the President’s FY2015 request as it relates to R&D and related activities. The
President’s budget seeks $135.352 billion for R&D in FY2015, a 1.2% increase over the
estimated FY2014 R&D funding level of $133.682 billion.1 Adjusted for anticipated inflation of
1.7%, the President’s FY2015 R&D request represents a decrease of 0.5% from the FY2014
estimated level.2
President Obama’s FY2015 budget reflects a reduced focus on a primary science and technology
policy effort that Congress and two Administrations have pursued for the past eight years.
Referred to frequently as the “doubling effort,” Congress and Presidents Obama and Bush have
sought to increase support for the physical sciences and engineering by doubling funding for
accounts at three federal agencies with a strong R&D emphasis in these disciplines: the
Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the
Department of Commerce (DOC) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) core
laboratory research and construction of research facilities (collectively referred to as the “targeted
accounts”). The doubling goal was expressed in President Bush’s American Competitiveness
Initiative, in budget requests from President Obama before FY2014, and implicitly in the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L.
111-358). The America COMPETES Act and the reauthorization act set appropriations
authorization levels consistent with a doubling pace of 7 years and 11 years, respectively.3 In
aggregate, appropriations provided to these accounts fell short of the levels authorized in P.L.
110-69 and P.L. 111-358. In the FY2015 budget, the President is requesting a 1.2% increase in
aggregate funding for the targeted accounts, a pace that would require more than 58 years to
double and one that is below the expected rate of inflation (1.7%). See “Efforts to Double Certain
R&D Accounts” for more details.
More broadly, in a 2009 speech before members of the National Academy of Sciences, President
Obama put forth a goal of increasing the national (public and private) investment in R&D to more
than 3% of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). President Obama did not provide details on
how this goal might be achieved (e.g., through increases in direct federal R&D funding or
through indirect mechanisms such as the research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit).4
1 Funding levels included in this document are in current dollars unless otherwise noted. Inflation diminishes the
purchasing power of federal R&D funds, so an increase that falls short of the inflation rate may reduce real purchasing
power.
2 As calculated by CRS using the GDP (chained) price index for FY2014 and FY2015 in Table 10.1, Gross Domestic
Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2018, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year
2015, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/hist10z1.xls.
3 As used in this report, the term “doubling pace” means the number of years required for funding for the targeted
accounts to double, relative to the FY2006 baseline year, if the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) were to
continue. For example, the doubling pace of the America COMPETES Act is based on the 10.3% CAGR from FY2006
to FY2010, the last year of authorizations under the act. At 10.3% annual growth, funding for the targeted accounts
would double in approximately 7 years. Similarly, the CAGR for the reauthorization act, which authorized
appropriations through FY2013, was 6.3%, a rate that would take approximately 11 years to double.
4 The research and experimentation tax credit is frequently referred to as the research and development tax credit or
R&D tax credit, through the credit does not apply to development expenditures. For additional information about the
R&E tax credit, see CRS Report RL31181, Research Tax Credit: Current Law and Policy Issues for the 113th
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Achieving the 3% goal would likely require a substantial increase in government and corporate
R&D spending. When President Obama set forth the goal in 2009, total U.S. R&D expenditures
were approximately 2.90% of GDP. In 2012, R&D as a percentage of GDP was 2.89%, with the
federal government contributing 0.86% (down from 0.91% in 2009) and non-federal sources
contributing 2.02% (up from 1.98% in 2009).5
Analysis of federal R&D funding is complicated by several factors, such as inconsistency among
agencies in the reporting of R&D and the inclusion of R&D in accounts with non-R&D activities.
As a result of these and other factors, figures reported by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), including those shown in Table 1,
may differ somewhat from the agency budget analyses that appear later in this report. Another
complicating factor in the President’s FY2015 budget request is the Opportunity, Growth, and
Security Initiative (OGSI), discussed in the next section.
Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative
In addition to the FY2015 base budget request,6 President Obama has proposed an Opportunity,
Growth, and Security Initiative that seeks $56 billion, for various purposes, including $5.3 billion
for R&D. A large fraction of the OGSI R&D funding ($2.4 billion) would go to the NIST to
support the establishment of a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation to promote the
development of manufacturing technologies with broad applications (see “National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation” for more details). Among other R&D agencies that would receive
funding under the OGSI proposal are Department of Defense (DOD), National Institutes of
Health (NIH), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), NSF, Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Department of Transportation (DOT), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and the Department of the Interior (DOI). There are few details on how
agency OGSI funding would be allocated between R&D and non-R&D activities.
The President’s request refers to the OGSI as “separate” and “fully-paid-for.”7 The funding
requested in the President’s base budget seeks to comply with the FY2015 discretionary spending
cap set by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (Division A of P.L. 113-67). The OGSI seeks
funding above the cap and would be offset by an equal amount of proposed additional revenue
produced by spending reforms and changes in the tax code. Analyses in this report address only
the R&D funding included in the base request, except as specifically noted.
(...continued)
Congress, by Gary Guenther.
5 GDP figures from Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business, May 31, 2012; R&D figures from
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, National Patterns of R&D
Resources (annual series).
6 The term “base budget” is used in the President’s budget to distinguish the main request from additional funding
requested as part of the OGSI.
7 Executive Office of the President (EOP), OSTP, “The FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget: Science,
Technology, and Innovation for Opportunity and Growth,” press release, March 4, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/2015%20Budget%20Release.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
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 viewed by agency, by the character of the work
supported, by a combination of these two perspectives, and by defense-related and nondefense-
related R&D.
Federal R&D by Agency
Congress makes decisions about federal R&D funding through the authorization and
appropriations process primarily from the perspective of individual agencies and programs. Table
1 provides data on R&D by agency for FY2013 (actual), FY2014 (estimate), and FY2015
(request) as reported by OSTP.
Under President Obama’s FY2015 budget request, seven federal agencies would receive more
than 95% of total federal R&D funding: the Department of Defense (DOD), 47.6%; Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) (primarily NIH), 23.0%; DOE, 9.1%; NASA, 8.5%; NSF,
4.2%; USDA, 1.8%; and DOC, 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), Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In total, these 12 agencies account for
more than 98% of current and requested federal R&D funding.
The largest agency R&D increases in the President’s FY2015 request (in dollars, not
percentages), compared with FY2014, are for DOE, $950 million (8.4%); DOD, $574 million
(0.9%); HHS, $157 million (0.5%); Interior, $85 million (10.1%); USDA, $29 million (1.2%);
and DOT, $12 million (1.4%). Under the President’s FY2015 budget request, DHS R&D funding
would be reduced by $156 million (15.1%), NASA by $112 million (1.0%), and DOC by $35
million (2.1%).
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2013-FY2015
(budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change,
FY2014-FY2015
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Department/Agency
Actual
Estimate
Request Dollar Percent
Department of Defense
$63,838
$63,856
$64,430
$574 0.9%
Department of Health and Human
Services 29,969
30,912
31,069
157
0.5%
Department of Energy
10,740
11,359
12,309
950 8.4%
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration 11,282
11,667
11,555
-112
-1.0%
National Science Foundation
5,319
5,729
5,727
-2 0.0%
Department of Agriculture
2,116
2,418
2,447
29 1.2%
Department of Commerce
1,360
1,632
1,597
-35 -2.1%
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Change,
FY2014-FY2015
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Department/Agency
Actual
Estimate
Request
Dollar Percent
Department of Veterans Affairs
1,164
1,174
1,178
4 0.3%
Department of the Interior
785
840
925
85 10.1%
Department of Homeland Security
684
1,032
876
-156 -15.1%
Department of Transportation
829
853
865
12 1.4%
Environmental Protection Agency
532
560
560
0 0.0%
Other 1,714
1,650
1,814
164 9.9%
Total 130,332
133,682
135,352
1,670.0 1.2%
Source: EOP, OSTP, “The FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget: Science, Technology, and Innovation
for Opportunity and Growth,” press release, March 4, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/ostp/2015%20Budget%20Release.pdf.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
Federal R&D by Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment
Federal R&D funding can also be examined by the character of work it supports—basic research,
applied research, or development—and by funding provided for construction of R&D facilities
and acquisition of major R&D equipment. (See Table 2.) President Obama’s FY2015 request
includes $32.079 billion for basic research, down $331 million (1.0%) from FY2014; $32.641
billion for applied research, up $582 million (1.8%) from FY2014; $68.017 billion for
development, up $1.540 (2.3%) from FY2014; and $2.615 billion for facilities and equipment,
down $121 million (4.4%) from FY2014.
Table 2. Federal R&D Funding by Character of Work and Facilities and Equipment,
FY2013-FY2015
(budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change, FY2014-
FY2015
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Actual
Estimate
Request Dollar Percent
Basic research
$30,648
$32,410
$32,079
$-331
-1.0%
Applied research
31,199
32,059
32,641
582
1.8%
Development 66,614
66,477
68,017
1,540
2.3%
Facilities and Equipment 1,871
2,736
2,615
-121
-4.4%
Total 130,332
133,682
135,352
1,670
1.2%
Source: EOP, OSTP, “The FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget: Science, Technology, and Innovation
for Opportunity and Growth,” press release, March 4, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/ostp/2015%20Budget%20Release.pdf.
Note: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Federal Role in U.S. R&D by Character of Work
A primary policy foundation for public investments in basic research and 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 because the social returns (i.e.,
all of the benefits (such as rewards, opportunities, improvements) to society resulting from the
research) exceed the private returns (i.e., the benefits accruing to the investor (such as increased
revenues, higher stock value)). Other factors inhibiting corporate investment in basic research
include long time horizons for commercial applications (diminishing the potential returns due to
the time value of money), high levels of technical risk/uncertainty, shareholder demands for
shorter-term returns, and asymmetric and imperfect information. The federal government is the
nation’s largest supporter of basic research, funding 52.6% of U.S. basic research in 2012.8
Industry funded 21.3% of U.S. basic research in 2012, with state governments, universities, and
other non-profit organizations funding the remaining 26.0%.9 In contrast to basic research,
industry is the primary funder of applied research in the United States, accounting for an
estimated 54.0% in 2012, while the federal government accounted for an estimated 36.2%.10
Industry also provides the vast majority of funding for development. Industry accounted for
76.4% of development in 2012, while the federal government provided 22.1% of the funding.11
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, from
supporting advances in spaceflight to developing new and affordable sources of energy. These
priorities and the mission of each individual agency contribute, in part, to the composition of that
agency’s R&D spending (i.e., the allocation between basic research, applied research,
development, and facilities and equipment). In the President’s FY2015 budget request, the
Department of Health and Human Services, primarily NIH, accounts for somewhat more than
half of all federal funding for basic research. HHS is also the largest funder of applied research,
accounting for about 45% of all federally funded applied research in the President’s FY2015
budget request. DOD is the primary federal agency funder of development, accounting for 84.9%
of total federal development funding in the President’s FY2015 budget request.12
8 National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2013, National Patterns of
R&D Resources: 2011–12 Data Update, NSF 14-304, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf14304/. More recent data are not
yet available.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2015, Table 21-1.
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2013-FY2015
(budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change,
FY2014-FY2015
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Actual
Enacted
Request
Dollar Percent
Basic Research
Dept, of Health and Human Services
$15,424
$15,861
$16,085
$224
1.4%
National Science Foundation
4,357
4,711
4,708
-3
-0.1%
Dept. of Energy
3,360
3,907
3,086
-821
-21.0%
Applied Research
Dept. of Health and Human Services
14,294
14,851
14,783
-68
-0.5%
Dept. of Defense
4,158
4,376
4,530
154
3.5%
Dept. of Energy
3,852
3,886
4,269
383
9.9%
Development
Dept. of Defense
57,774
57,326
57,747
421
0.7%
NASA 5,064
5,162
6,009
847
16.4%
Dept. of Energy
2,466
2,585
2,927
342
13.2%
Facilities and Equipment
Dept. of Energy
571
842
970
128
15.2%
National Science Foundation
372
538
539
1
0.2%
Dept. of Commerce
217
227
250
23
10.1%
Source: EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2015, March 2014.
Note: Top three funding agencies in each category based on FY2015 request.
Defense-Related and Nondefense-Related R&D
Federal R&D funding can also be characterized as defense-related or nondefense-related.
Defense-related R&D is provided for primarily by the Department of Defense, but it also includes
some activities at the Department of Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Defense-
related R&D has constituted more than half of total federal R&D funding, fluctuating between
50% and 70% for more than three decades. Defense-related R&D grew from 52.7% of total
federal R&D funding in FY2001 to 60.5% in FY2008, then declined over several years to 56.8%
in 2012.13 The President’s FY2015 budget includes $69.465 billion in defense-related R&D
funding, or about 51.3% of the total R&D request.14
13 CRS analysis of National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2014, NSB 14-01, 2014, Appendix
table 4-33, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/.
14 EOP, OSTP, “The FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget: Science, Technology, and Innovation for
Opportunity and Growth,” press release, March 4, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
2015%20Budget%20Release.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Multiagency R&D Initiatives
Although this report focuses primarily on the R&D activities of individual agencies, President
Obama’s FY2015 budget request supports several multiagency R&D initiatives. The following
sections discuss several of these.
Efforts to Double Certain R&D Accounts15
In 2006, President Bush announced the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) which, in part,
sought to increase federal funding for physical sciences and engineering research by doubling
funding over 10 years (FY2006-FY2016) for targeted accounts at three agencies: the National
Science Foundation, the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, and the NIST Scientific
and Technical Research and Services (STRS) and construction of research facilities (CRF)
accounts.
In 2007, Congress authorized substantial increases for these targeted accounts under the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69), which set the combined authorization levels for these accounts
for FY2008 to FY2010 at a seven-year doubling pace from the FY2006 baseline. However,
funding provided for these agencies in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161),
the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2010 (P.L. 111-117), fell below these targets.16 (See Table 4.)
In 2010, Congress passed the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358)
which, among other things, authorized appropriations for the targeted accounts for FY2011 to
FY2013.17 The aggregate authorization levels for the targeted accounts in this act were consistent
with an 11-year doubling path. However, aggregate FY2013 funding subsequently appropriated
for the targeted accounts was approximately $12.201 billion, $2.904 billion less than authorized
in the act. This funding level set a pace to double over 22 years from the FY2006 level—more
than triple the length of time originally envisioned in the 2007 America COMPETES Act and
about twice as long as the doubling period established by the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010.
Budget constraints appear to have put the future of the doubling path in question. In his FY2010
Plan for Science and Innovation, President Obama stated that he, like President Bush, would seek
to double funding for basic research over 10 years (FY2006 to FY2016) at the ACI agencies.18 In
his FY2011 budget documents, President Obama extended the period over which he intended to
double these agencies’ budgets to 11 years (FY2006 to FY2017).19 The FY2013 budget request
15 For more information, see CRS Report R41951, An Analysis of Efforts to Double Federal Funding for Physical
Sciences and Engineering Research, by John F. Sargent Jr.
16 In 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) provided $5.202 billion in supplemental
funding for several of the targeted accounts. This increased aggregate funding for the accounts above the target levels
in that year.
17 For more information, see CRS Report R41231, America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 5116) and
the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69): Selected Policy Issues, coordinated by Heather B. Gonzalez.
18 EOP, OSTP, The President’s Plan for Science and Innovation: Doubling Funding for Key Basic Research Agencies
in the 2010 Budget, May 7, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ostp/budget/doubling.pdf.
19 EOP, OSTP, The President’s Plan for Science and Innovation: Doubling Funding for Key Basic Research Agencies
in the 2011 Budget, February 1, 2010, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/doubling%2011%20final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
reiterated President Obama’s intention to double funding for the targeted accounts from their
FY2006 levels but did not specify the length of time over which the doubling was to take place.
President Obama’s FY2014 budget expressed a commitment to increasing funding for the
targeted accounts, but did not commit to doubling. In the President’s FY2015 budget, there is no
explicit statement of commitment to increasing funding for the targeted accounts. For FY2015,
President Obama is requesting $13.105 billion in aggregate funding for the targeted accounts, an
increase of $155 million (1.2%) above the estimated FY2014 aggregate funding level of $12.950
billion. However, adjusted for inflation, funding for the targeted accounts would decline by 0.5%.
Congress has not reauthorized the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, major
provisions of which (including authorizations for the targeted accounts) expired in FY2013, nor
has Congress otherwise authorized appropriations for these accounts in FY2014 or future years.
Two bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives that would set authorization
levels for two or more of these accounts. H.R. 4186, the Frontiers in Innovation, Research,
Science, and Technology Act of 2014, would provide authorizations for FY2014 and FY2015 for
NSF and NIST, but not for the DOE’s Office of Science. H.R. 4159, the America Competes
Reauthorization Act of 2014, would provide authorizations for FY2015 to FY2019 for NSF,
NIST, and the DOE Office of Science.
Figure 1 shows total funding for the targeted accounts as a percentage of their FY2006 funding
level, and illustrates how actual (FY2006-FY2014), requested (FY2007-FY2015), and authorized
appropriations (FY2008-FY2013) compare to different doubling rates using FY2006 as the base
year. The thick black line at the top of the chart is at 200%, the doubling level. The data used in
Figure 1 are in current dollars, not constant dollars, thus the effect of inflation on the purchasing
power of these funds is not taken into consideration.
Table 4. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling, FY2006-FY2015
(budget authority, in millions of current dollars)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Agency
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
ARRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Est.
Req.
NSF $5,646
$5,884
$6,084
$6,469
$2,402
$6,972 $6,913a $7,033 $6,884 $7,172
$7,255
DOE/Ofc. of Science
3,632
3,837
4,083
4,807
1,633
4,964
4,843
4,874
4,681
5,071
5,111
NIST/STRS 395
434
441
472
220
515
497
567
580
651
680
NIST/CRF 174
59
161
172
360
147
70
55
56
56
59
Total 9,846
10,214
10,768
11,920
4,615
12,598 12,323
12,529
12,201
12,950
13,105
Sources: NIST budget requests, FY2008-FY2015, available at http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/budget/
index.cfm; DOE budget requests, FY2008-FY2015, available at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/crorgcf30.htm; NSF
budget requests, FY2008-FY2015, available at http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget; and the President’s FY2015
budget, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Appendix.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
a. Includes $54 million transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard for icebreaking services (per P.L. 112-10).
Some analysts have raised questions about the efficacy and unintended consequences of the
doubling policy. Among the questions: What is the basis for asserting that a doubling of funding
is the correct target for increases (as opposed to, say, an increase of 30%, 80%, or 120%)? What
is the basis for setting the time period (e.g., 7 years, 11 years) for doubling? Is the optimal
approach to double funding for specific agencies? If so, should funding for the selected agencies
Congressional Research Service
10
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
be done in aggregate or individually? Are the agencies chosen the right agencies? Should specific
programs or appropriations accounts be targeted rather than entire agencies? What are the
adjustment costs of a post-doubling slowdown in funding increases?
In an effort to understand the potential consequence of the current doubling effort, a 2009
National Bureau of Economic Research paper analyzed the effects of the NIH doubling (which
took place from 1988 to 2003) and subsequent funding slowdown on the U.S. biomedical
research enterprise. Among its conclusions, the authors found that “future increases in research
spending should be seen in terms of increasing the stock of sustainable activity rather than in
attaining some arbitrary target (i.e., doubling) in a short period.”20 Similar views were expressed
by participants at a roundtable held by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in 2014.21
Figure 1. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling:
Appropriations, Authorizations, and Requests versus Selected Doubling Rates
Sources: Prepared by CRS based on data from agency budget justifications for FY2008 to FY2015 and agency
authorization levels from the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) and the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358).
Notes: The 7-year doubling pace represents annual increases of 10.4%, the 10-year doubling pace represents
annual increases of 7.2%, the 11-year doubling pace represents annual increases of 6.5%, the 15-year doubling
pace represents annual increases of 4.7%, and the 20-year doubling pace represents annual increases of 3.3%.
Through compounding, these rates would achieve the doubling of funding in the specified time period. The lines
connecting aggregate appropriations, authorizations, and requests for the targeted accounts are for clarification
purposes only.
20 Richard Freeman and John Van Reenen, “What if Congress Doubled R&D Spending on the Physical,” Innovation
Policy and the Economy, vol. 9 (February 2009), p. 28.
21 A video of the “21st Century Cures Roundtable” held on May 6, 2014, is available at
http://energycommerce.house.gov/event/21st-century-cures-roundtable.
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
National Nanotechnology Initiative22
Launched by President Clinton in his FY2001 budget request, the National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) is a multiagency R&D initiative to advance understanding and control of matter
at the nanoscale, where the physical, chemical, and biological properties of materials differ in
fundamental and useful ways from the properties of individual atoms or bulk matter.23
The President is requesting $1.537 billion for the NNI in FY2015, a reduction of $1 million from
the FY2014 actual level of $1.538 billion. Among the changes in nanotechnology funding under
the Administration’s FY2015 request: reductions for DOD ($32 million, 18.1%), DOC ($15
million, 15.6%), and NASA ($4 million, 23.5%) and increases for DOE ($40 million, 13.1%) and
DHS ($8 million, 35.2%). Nanotechnology funding for other NNI agencies would remain
essentially flat in FY2015.24
Table 5. National Nanotechnology Initiative Funding, FY2013-FY2015
(budget authority, in millions of current dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Change, FY2014-FY2015
Actual
Estimated
Request
Dollars Percent
NNI $1,550
$1,538
$1,537
-$1
-0.4%
Source: EOP, OSTP, “The FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget: Science, Technology, and Innovation
for Opportunity and Growth,” press release, March 4, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/ostp/2015%20Budget%20Release.pdf.
Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Program25
Established by the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194), the Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program is the primary mechanism
by which the federal government coordinates its unclassified networking and information
technology R&D investments in areas such as supercomputing, high-speed networking,
cybersecurity, software engineering, and information management.
President Obama is requesting $3.786 billion in FY2015 for the NITRD program. This is $114
million (2.9%) below the FY2014 funding level. The most substantial agency increases in NITRD
funding under the Administration’s FY2015 request are for the DOE ($54 million, 9.3%) and
DOC ($6 million, 3.8%). The President’s budget would reduce NITRD funding at DOD by $146
22 For additional information on the NNI, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative:
Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by John F. Sargent Jr.
23 In the context of the NNI and nanotechnology, the nanoscale refers to lengths of 1 to 100 nanometers. A nanometer
is one-billionth of a meter, or about the width of 10 hydrogen atoms arranged side-by-side in a line.
24 EOP, OSTP, The 2014 Budget: A World-Leading Commitment to Science and Research—Science, Technology,
Innovation, and STEM Education in the 2014 Budget, Table 2, April 10, 2013.
25 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 Patricia
Moloney Figliola.
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
million (11.9%), DHS by $13 million (13.6%), NASA by $7 million (5.6%), HHS by $6 million
(1-1%), and NSF by $2 million (0.2%).26
Table 6. Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
Program Funding, FY2013-FY2015
(budget authority, in millions of current dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Change, FY2014-FY2015
Actual
Estimated
Request
Dollars Percent
NITRD $3,622
$3,900
$3,786
-$114
-2.9%
Source: OSTP, EOP, “The FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget: Science, Technology, and Innovation
for Opportunity and Growth,” press release, March 4, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/ostp/2015%20Budget%20Release.pdf.
U.S. Global Change Research Program27
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.”28 Thirteen departments and agencies participate in the USGCRP.
President Obama is proposing $2.501 billion for the USGCRP in FY2015, $12 million (0.5%)
above the FY2014 estimated level of $2.489 billion. The most substantial agency increases in
USGCRP funding under the Administration’s FY2014 request are for DOE ($29 million, 13.4%),
DOC ($19 million, 5.9%), and DOI ($18 million, 34.3%). The most significant decreases in
USGCRP funding are for NASA ($39 million, 2.7%) and USDA ($23 million, 20.7%).29
Table 7. U.S. Global Change Research Program Funding, FY2013-FY2015
(budget authority, in millions of current dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Change, FY2014-FY2015
Actual
Estimated
Request
Dollars Percent
USGCRP $2,379
$2,489
$2,501
$12
0.5%
Source: EOP, OSTP, “The FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget: Science, Technology, and Innovation
for Opportunity and Growth,” press release, March 4, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/ostp/2015%20Budget%20Release.pdf.
26 Ibid.
27 For additional information on the USGCRP, see CRS Report R43227, Federal Climate Change Funding from
FY2008 to FY2014, by Jane A. Leggett, Richard K. Lattanzio, and Emily Bruner.
28 U.S. Global Change Research Program website, http://www.globalchange.gov/about/mission-vision-strategic-plan.
29 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
13
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
BRAIN Initiative
In April 2013, President Obama launched the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative
Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, asserting that
There is this enormous mystery waiting to be unlocked, and the BRAIN Initiative will
change that by giving scientists the tools they need to get a dynamic picture of the brain in
action and better understand how we think and how we learn and how we remember. And
that knowledge could be—will be—transformative.30
Among the agencies participating in the BRAIN Initiative are the Defense Advanced Projects
Research Agency (DARPA), NIH, NSF, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The
research supported under this initiative seeks to facilitate a better understanding of “how the brain
records, processes, uses, stores, and retrieves vast quantities of information, and shed light on the
complex links between brain function and behavior,”31 and to help improve the prevention,
diagnosis, and treatment of brain diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.
According to OSTP, federal investment in the BRAIN initiative was approximately $100 million
in FY2014. The President’s budget request seeks to double funding to approximately $200
million in FY2015, including $100 million in funding from NIH, $80 million from DARPA, and
$20 million from NSF.32
Materials Genome Initiative
Announced in June 2011 by President Obama, the Materials Genome Initiative (MGI) is a multi-
agency initiative
to create new knowledge, tools, and infrastructure with a goal of enabling U.S. industries to
discover, manufacture, and deploy advanced materials twice as fast than is possible today.
Agencies are currently developing implementation strategies for the Materials Genome
Initiative with a focus on: (1) the creation of a materials innovation infrastructure, (2)
achieving national goals with advanced materials, and (3) equipping the next generation
materials workforce.33
In congressional testimony, OSTP Director John Holdren stated that the purpose of the Materials
Genome Initiative is to “speed our understanding of the fundamentals of materials science,
providing a wealth of practical information that American entrepreneurs and innovators will be
able to use to develop new products and processes” in much the same way that the Human
Genome Project accelerated a range of biological sciences by identifying and deciphering the
human genetic code.34 Such research may contribute to the identification of substitutes for critical
30 The White House, “Remarks by the President on the BRAIN Initiative and American Innovation,” speech transcript,
April 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/04/02/president-obama-speaks-brain-initiative-
and-american-innovation#transcript.
31 The White House, “Fact Sheet: BRAIN Initiative,” press release, April 2, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-
press-office/2013/04/02/fact-sheet-brain-initiative.
32 EOP, OSTP, “Obama Administration Proposes Doubling Support for The Brain Initiative,” press release, March
2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY%202015%20BRAIN.pdf.
33 Email correspondence between OSTP and CRS, March 14, 2012.
34 John P. Holdren, Director, OSTP, EOP, testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
minerals that are in short supply or have at-risk supply chains; the design, development, and use
of materials that could reduce the number and severity of traumatic brain injuries resulting from
blasts, impacts, and collisions incurred in military engagements, motor vehicle accidents, and
athletics; and the development of new lightweight materials for vehicles that could enable new
energy storage and propulsion systems and improve fuel efficiency.35 The President’s FY2015
budget does not include a table of agency funding for the MGI. Among the agencies funding MGI
R&D are DOE, DOD, NSF, and NIST.
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership
In June 2011, President Obama launched the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP), an
effort to bring together “industry, universities, and the Federal government to invest in emerging
technologies that will create high-quality manufacturing jobs and enhance our global
competitiveness.”36 Two R&D-focused components of the AMP are the National Robotics
Initiative (NRI) and the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI).
National Robotics Initiative
The National Robotics Initiative seeks to “develop robots that work with or beside people to
extend or augment human capabilities.”37 Among the goals of the program are increasing labor
productivity in the manufacturing sector, assisting with dangerous and expensive missions in
space, accelerating the discovery of new drugs, and improving food safety by rapidly sensing
microbial contamination.38 In FY2012, four agencies—NSF, NIH, NASA, and USDA—issued a
joint solicitation to provide research funding for next-generation robotics. In addition, the
Department of Defense, through multiple component agencies, is supporting the NRI through the
Defense University Research Instrumentation Program. DOD is supporting the purchase of
equipment to assist in robotics research to advance defense technologies and applications,
including unmanned ground, air, sea, and undersea vehicles and autonomous systems.39 The
President’s FY2015 budget does not include a table of agency funding for the NRI, but the
initiative is referred to in the Analytical Perspectives supplement to the President’s budget.40
(...continued)
Transportation, Subcommittee on Science and Space, hearing on “Keeping America Competitive Through Investments
in R&D,” March 6, 2012, http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=fed566eb-e2c8-49da-aec5-
f84e4045890b.
35 The White House, Materials Genome Initiative, website, “Examples of Materials Applications, May 2014,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/mgi/examples.
36John P. Holdren, Director, OSTP, EOP, testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, Subcommittee on Science and Space, hearing on “Keeping America Competitive Through Investments
in R&D,” March 6, 2012, http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=fed566eb-e2c8-49da-aec5-
f84e4045890b.
37 Ibid.
38 EOP, OSTP, website, August 3, 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/03/supporting-president-s-national-
robotics-initiative.
39 Ibid.
40 EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2014, p. 371.
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation41
The President’s FY2015 budget again proposes the establishment of a National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation to promote the development of manufacturing technologies with broad
applications. This request is not part of the President’s FY2015 base budget request, but rather a
part of the adjunct $56 billion Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative proposal. (For more
information, see “Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative” section.) The OGSI includes $2.4
billion to establish up to 45 NNMI institutes. The President’s two previous budget requests sought
mandatory appropriations to NIST of $1 billion in support of up to 15 NNMI manufacturing
innovation institutes.
As originally conceived, the NNMI would consist of
a network of institutes where researchers, companies, and entrepreneurs can come together to
develop new manufacturing technologies with broad applications. Each institute would have
a unique technology focus. These institutes will help support an ecosystem of manufacturing
activity in local areas. The Manufacturing Innovation Institutes would support manufacturing
technology commercialization by helping to bridge the gap from the laboratory to the market
and address core gaps in scaling manufacturing process technologies.42
Though the NNMI program has not been authorized or funded, four NNMI-like institutes have
been awarded, one is being competed, and a funding commitment has been made by the President
for four more. These centers are being led by DOD and DOE, with additional funding and/or
support being provided by NIST, NASA, NSF, and other agencies.
Reorganization of STEM Education Programs
In FY2014, the Obama Administration proposed a major overhaul of the federal science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education portfolio. That plan would have
affected about 50% of the federal STEM education effort and involved the transfer of STEM
education budget authority between federal agencies.
Although many legislators expressed conceptual support for reorganization as a means to improve
the portfolio, the joint explanatory statement that accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), rejected the proposal overall. It stated that the proposal “contained no
clearly defined implementation plan, had no buy-in from the education community, and failed to
sufficiently recognize or support a number of proven, successful programs.” Some FY2014
appropriations reports accepted some changes on a case-by-case basis. In a March 2014 progress
report the Administration stated that the number of federal STEM education programs had been
reduced by 40% between FY2012 (228 programs) and FY2014 (138 programs).
For FY2015, the Obama Administration proposes what it describes as a “fresh” reorganization of
the federal STEM education portfolio. Unlike the FY2014 proposal, which sought to transfer
funding between agencies, the FY2015 proposal would consolidate funding within agencies.
41 For additional information on the NNMI, see CRS Report R42625, The Obama Administration’s Proposal to
Establish a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, by John F. Sargent Jr.
42 DOC, FY2014 Budget in Brief, February 2012, p. 123, http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY13BIB/
fy2013bib_final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
16
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
According to the Office of Management and Budget, the FY2015 reorganization would
consolidate or eliminate 31 programs at 9 agencies, affecting $145 million in FY2014 budget
authority. The FY2015 budget request aims to further reduce STEM education programs to 111
from their FY2014 level of 138. For additional information, see CRS Insight IN10011, The
Administration’s Proposed STEM Education Reorganization: Where Are We Now?, by Heather B.
Gonzalez; CRS In Focus IF00013, The President’s FY2015 Budget and STEM Education (In
Focus), by Heather B. Gonzalez; and CRS Report R42642, Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) Education: A Primer, by Heather B. Gonzalez and Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
FY2015 Appropriations Status
The remainder of this report provides a more in-depth analysis of R&D in 12 federal departments
and agencies that, in aggregate, receive more than 98% of federal R&D funding. Annual
appropriations for these agencies are provided through 9 of the 12 regular appropriations bills.
For each agency covered in this report, Table 8 shows the corresponding regular appropriations
bill that provides funding for the agency, including its R&D activities.
Congress completed appropriations action for most federal agencies through enactment of the
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, which was passed by the House
on December 11th and by the Senate on December 13th, and signed into law on December 16,
2014. The measure provides FY2015 appropriations for agencies covered by 11 of the regular
appropriations bills, and provides for further continuing Homeland Security appropriations
through February 27, 2015, in Division L of the act.
Previously, Congress has not completed action on any of the 12 regular appropriations bills for
FY2015. The House Committee on Appropriations had reported all but the Labor-HHS
appropriations bill and the House had passed seven of the regular appropriations bills that provide
R&D funding. The Senate Committee on Appropriations had reported six of the regular
appropriations bills that provide R&D funding; the full Senate had not passed any of the regular
appropriations bills.
On September 19, 2014, President Obama signed into law the Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2015 (P.L. 113-164). The act provided continuing FY2015 appropriations to federal
agencies for continuing projects and activities at the rate and under the authority and conditions
provided in the applicable conditions of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76),
less a 0.0554% rescission, until December 11, 2014, or until enactment of regular appropriations
legislation. H.J.Res. 130 (P.L. 113-202) extended the provisions of P.L. 113-164 through
December 13, 2014. H.J.Res. 131 (P.L. 113-203) further extended the provisions of P.L. 113-164
through December 17, 2014.
This report will be updated as the implications for agency R&D funding under the Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2015, are assessed.
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://crs.gov/Pages/clis.aspx?cliid=73.
Also, the status of each appropriations bill is available on the CRS webpage, Status Table of
Appropriations, available at http://crs.gov/Pages/AppropriationsStatusTable.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
17
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Table 8. Alignment of Agency R&D Funding and Regular Appropriations Bills
Department/Agency
Regular Appropriations Bill
Department of Defense
Department of Defense Appropriations Act
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act
National Institutes of Health
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
Department of Energy
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act
National Science Foundation
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act
Department of Commerce
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
Appropriations Act
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act
Department of Agriculture
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
Department of the Interior
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act
Department of Transportation
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act
Department of Veterans Affairs
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act
Source: CRS website, FY2014 Status Table of Appropriations, available at http://crs.gov/Pages/
AppropriationsStatusTable.aspx?source=QuickLinks.
Department of Defense43
Congress supports research and development in the Department of Defense (DOD) primarily
through its Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) appropriation. The
appropriation supports the development of the nation’s future military hardware and software and
the technology base upon which those products rely.
Nearly all of what DOD spends on RDT&E is appropriated in Title IV of the defense
appropriation bill. (See Table 9.) 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 and
the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program. Prior to FY2015, RDT&E funds were
also requested as part of the National Defense Sealift Fund.44 The Defense Health Program
supports the delivery of health care to DOD personnel and their families. Program funds are
43 This section was written by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
44 The Administration requested no funding the National Defense Sealift Fund in FY2015, but transferred funding for
those activities to other programs.
Congressional Research Service
18
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
requested through the Operations and Maintenance appropriations request. The program’s
RDT&E funds support congressionally directed research in such areas as breast, prostate, and
ovarian cancer and other medical conditions. Congress appropriates funds for this program in
Title VI (Other Department of Defense Programs) of the defense appropriations bill. The
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program supports activities to destroy the U.S.
inventory of lethal chemical agents and munitions to avoid future risks and costs associated with
storage. Funds for this program are requested through the Defensewide Procurement
appropriations request. Congress appropriates funds for this program also in Title VI. The
National Defense Sealift Fund supported the procurement, operation and maintenance, and
research and development of the nation’s naval reserve fleet and a U.S. flagged merchant fleet
that can serve in time of need. The Administration requested the RDT&E funding for this effort
be transferred to the Navy’s Shipbuilding and Conversion RDT&E program.
The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF) also contains RDT&E monies.
However, the fund does not contain an RDT&E line item as do the programs mentioned above.
The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office, which administers the fund, tracks (but
does not report) the amount of funding allocated to RDT&E. The JIEDDF funding is not included
in the table below.
RDT&E funds also have been requested and appropriated as part of DOD’s separate funding to
support efforts in what the Bush Administration had termed the Global War on Terror (GWOT),
and what the Obama Administration refers to as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
Typically, the RDT&E funds appropriated for GWOT/OCO activities go to specified Program
Elements (PEs) in Title IV. However, they are requested and accounted for separately. The Bush
Administration requested these funds in separate GWOT emergency supplemental requests. The
Obama Administration, while continuing to identify these funds uniquely as OCO requests, has
included these funds as part of the regular budget, not in emergency supplementals. However, the
Obama Administration has asked for additional OCO funds in supplemental requests, if the initial
OCO funding is not enough to get through the fiscal year. The OCO budget has been declining as
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are reduced.
In addition, GWOT/OCO-related requests/appropriations often include money for a number of
transfer funds. These have included in the past the Iraqi Freedom Fund (IFF), the Iraqi Security
Forces Fund, the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Capability Fund. Another transfer fund is the Mine Resistant and Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund
(MRAPVF). Congress typically makes a single appropriation into each of these funds, and
authorizes the Secretary to make transfers to other accounts, including RDT&E, at his discretion.
For FY2015, the Obama Administration requested $63.534 billion for DOD’s baseline Title IV
RDT&E. This is $569 million above what was enacted for FY2014. The Administration has not
yet released an OCO budget for FY2015, although it indicates that it will request an additional
$79 billion for OCO activities. How much of that would be directed at RDT&E is not yet known.
In addition to the baseline Title IV RDT&E request, the Administration requested $655 million in
RDT&E through the Defense Health Program and $596 million in RDT&E through the Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction program for FY2015. The Administration requested no
RDT&E funding through the National Defense Sealift Fund for FY2015. RDT&E funding for
these activities would be transferred to other Navy accounts.
Congressional Research Service
19
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
The House approved its version of the defense appropriations bill (H.R. 4870) on June 20. It
provided $63.363 billion for Title IV RDT&E, $171 million below what was requested, but $398
million above FY2014 funding. It fully funded the request for the Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction RDT&E ($596 million) and increased RDT&E in the Defense Health
Program to $1.278 billion (this includes $32 million added by amendments approved on the
House floor). The House accepted the Administration’s request to transfer funds from the
National Defense Sealift Fund to baseline Title IV Navy program elements. Major changes made
by the House to the budget request included $200 million added to the Air Force account for the
development of liquid-fueled rocket engines; $100 million added to the Air Force account to
recapitalize a program to develop a new combat rescue helicopter; $172 million added to the
Defensewide account for the Israeli Cooperative Program; and $250 million added the
Defensewide account to continue support for the Rapid Innovation Program.45 The House
increased funding for development of a new liquid rocket engine based on its concern about
having to rely on Russian-made engines to launch national security payloads into space. General
Provision 8106 of the House bill called for a general reduction ($545 million) of the total amount
appropriated by the bill, citing more favorable currency exchange rates. Although not stated in the
provision, general reductions of this sort typically are made proportionately across all program
elements. The House-approved figures cited above and below do not factor in this general
reduction.
RDT&E funding can be analyzed in different ways. Each of the military departments request and
receive their own RDT&E funding. So, too, do various DOD agencies (e.g., the Missile Defense
Agency and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) collectively aggregated within the
Defensewide account. RDT&E funding also can be characterized by budget activity (i.e., the type
of RDT&E supported). Those budget activities designated as 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 (basic research,
applied research, and advanced technology development, respectively) constitute what is called
DOD’s Science and Technology Program (S&T) and represent the more research-oriented part of
the RDT&E program. Budget activities 6.4 and 6.5 focus on the development of specific weapon
systems or components (e.g., the Joint Strike Fighter or missile defense systems), for which an
operational need has been determined and an acquisition program established. Budget activity 6.6
provides management support, including support for test and evaluation facilities. Budget activity
6.7 supports system improvements in existing operational systems.
Many congressional policy makers are particularly interested in S&T funding since these funds
support the development of new technologies and the underlying science. Some in the defense
community see ensuring adequate support for S&T activities as imperative to maintaining U.S.
military superiority. The knowledge generated at this stage of development can also contribute to
advances in commercial technologies.
The FY2015 Title IV baseline S&T funding request was $11.515 billion, $494 million below
what was enacted in FY2014. The House approved $11.935 billion for the S&T accounts, more
than what was requested but less than FY2014 levels. This does not include $69 million in
undistributed cuts made to the DARPA account. While the DARPA budget is largely an S&T
activity, it does have two program elements that are not.
45 The Rapid Innovation Program is designed to help further mature technologies developed with Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) funds so they can be incorporated more
quickly into system acquisition programs.
Congressional Research Service
20
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Within the S&T program, basic research (6.1) receives special attention, particularly by the
nation’s universities. DOD is not a large supporter of basic research, when compared to NIH or
NSF. However, over half of DOD’s basic research budget is spent at universities and represents
the major contribution of funds in some areas of science and technology (such as electrical
engineering and material science). The Administration requested $2.018 billion for basic research
for FY2015. This is $147 million less than what the Administration requested in FY2014, and
$149 million less than what was enacted. The House bill provided $2.026 million for basic
research, not including potential reductions associated with DARPA’s undistributed $69 million
reduction.
Table 9. Department of Defense RDT&E
(in millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
House Approveda
Enacted
Request
Budget Account
Base
OCO
Base
OCOb Base OCO
Army 7,123
14
6,594
6,720
Navy 14,946
34
16,266
15,878
Air Force
23,572
9
23,740
23,439
Defensewide 17,078
78
16,766
17,078c
Dir. Test & Eval.
246
167
248
Total Title IV—By Accountd 62,965
135
63,534
63,363
Budget Activity
6.1 Basic Research
2,167
2,018
2,026
6.2 Applied Research
4,641
4,457
4,530
6.3 Advanced Dev.
5,201
5,040
5,379
6.4 Advanced Component Dev. and
Prototypes 11,629
7
12,334
12,247
6.5 Systems Dev. And Demo
11,517
7
11,087
11,150
6.6 Management Supporte 4,309
4,216
4,261
6.7 Op. Systems Devf.
23,502
122
24,382
23,837
Total Title IV—by Budget Activityd 62,965
135
63,534
63,430g
Title V—Revolving and Management
Funds
National Defense Sealift Fund
45
0h
0h
Title VI—Other Defense Programs
Defense Health Program
1,552
655
1,278i
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction
634
596
596
Opportunity, Growth, and Security
Initiative
2,100j
Grand Totald 65,196
135
66,885
63,292c
Congressional Research Service
21
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Source: CRS, adapted from the Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2015 RDT&E Programs (R-1),
March 2014 and relevant FY2015 Budget Justification (R-2) documents. House of Representatives, Department
of Defense Appropriations Bil , 2015, H.Rept. 113-474, to accompany H.R. 4870.
a. Figures in this column do not reflect General Provision 8106 in H.R. 4870, which reduced the House’s total
DOD appropriation by $545 million.
b. FY2015 OCO request not yet available.
c. Includes a $69 million undistributed reduction to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) program.
d. Figures may not add due to rounding.
e. Includes funding for Director of Test and Evaluation.
f.
Includes funding for classified programs.
g. Does not include DARPA’s $69 mil ion undistributed reduction.
h. Transferred to other Navy RDT&E accounts.
i.
Includes $32 million added by amendments on the House floor.
j.
See fact sheet, The 2015 Budget: Science, Technology, and Innovation for Opportunity and Growth. White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy. March 2014, pg. 4. Available at, http://www.whitehouse.gov/
administration/eop/ostp/rdbudgets.
Department of Homeland Security46
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has identified five core missions: to prevent
terrorism and enhance security, to secure and manage the borders, to enforce and administer
immigration laws, to safeguard and secure cyberspace, and to ensure resilience to disasters. New
technology resulting from research and development can contribute to all these goals. The
Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) has primary responsibility for establishing,
administering, and coordinating DHS R&D activities. The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
(DNDO) is responsible for R&D relating to nuclear and radiological threats. Other components,
such as the U.S. Coast Guard, conduct R&D relating to their specific missions.
The President has requested $1.394 billion in FY2015 for R&D and related programs in the
Department of Homeland Security. This is an 8.5% decrease from $1.524 billion in FY2014. The
total includes $1.072 billion for the S&T Directorate, $304 million for the Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office, and $18 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) in
the U.S. Coast Guard. The House bill (H.R. 4903 as reported) would provide $1.430 billion,
including $1.107 billion for the S&T Directorate, $312 million for DNDO, and $11 million for
Coast Guard RDT&E. The Senate bill (S. 2534 as reported) would provide $1.396 billion,
including $1.071 billion for the S&T Directorate, $306 million for DNDO, and $18 million for
Coast Guard RDT&E. (See Table 10.)
The S&T Directorate is the primary DHS R&D organization.47 Led by the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, it performs R&D in several laboratories of its own and funds R&D
46 This section was written by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
47 For more information, see CRS Report R43064, The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress, by Dana
A. Shea.
Congressional Research Service
22
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
performed by the DOE national laboratories, industry, universities, and others. It also conducts
testing and other technology-related activities in support of acquisitions by other DHS
components. The Administration’s request of $1.072 billion for the S&T Directorate in FY2015 is
12.2% less than the FY2014 appropriation of $1.220 billion. The decrease results largely from the
request in Laboratory Facilities for $300 million, versus $404 million in FY2014, for construction
of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF). Within the request for Research,
Development, and Innovation, border security R&D would increase by $7 million; Apex projects
would receive the same funding as in FY2014; and the other four thrust areas would all decrease.
The proposed reduction of $9 million for University Programs would decrease the annual funding
rate for existing university centers of excellence and might also reduce the number of centers
supported.
The House-reported bill would provide $1.107 billion for the S&T Directorate in FY2015.48 In
previous years, the House committee report criticized the Research, Development, and Innovation
(RD&I) budget item for being too all-encompassing and not specifying funding levels for specific
thrust areas. For FY2015, the House report recommends $28 million more than the request for
RD&I and states that “to provide the new Under Secretary for S&T flexibility to shift resources ...
the Committee provides the funds for RD&I without breakouts for specific thrust areas.” The
report states that the committee is pleased with the results of Apex projects (one of the RD&I
thrust areas) and urges the S&T Directorate to expand the Apex concept into other areas of its
work. In Laboratory Facilities, the report recommends the requested $300 million for NBAF
construction. The recommended funding for University Programs is $10 million more than
requested. The report states that this level of support would allow the continuation of all existing
university centers of excellence as well as a new center that is expected to be awarded in FY2015.
It directs DHS to define and report on key metrics used to make center awards.
The Senate-reported bill would provide $1.071 million for the S&T Directorate in FY2015.49 As
in the House, the Senate committee in previous years criticized the consolidation of RD&I into a
single budget item. For FY2015, the Senate report states that “in order to provide additional
flexibility ... the Committee does not break out the RD&I budget in thrust areas.” Within RD&I,
the report expresses support for the Apex concept and encourages the S&T Directorate to invest
more of its resources in that effort. In Laboratory Facilities, the recommended amount for NBAF
construction is $300 million, as requested. In University Programs, the report recommends $9
million more than the Administration’s request and explains that the increase is for university
centers of excellence, including support for the existing centers and the new center to be awarded
in FY2015.
The NBAF is a planned replacement for the current Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Site
preparation has been completed, and construction of a central utility plant is under way. DHS
expects to award a contract for construction of the main laboratory in FY2015. According to
DHS, the FY2015 budget request, together with previously appropriated federal and state funds
and additional anticipated funds from the state of Kansas, would fully fund the NBAF
construction contract. Despite receiving $404 million for NBAF construction in FY2014, DHS
does not intend to begin construction until full funding for the project is appropriated. The
estimated total project cost for NBAF is $1.250 billion, up from $1.230 billion in the FY2014
budget. DHS expects NBAF construction and commissioning to be completed in the third quarter
48 Not including a rescission of $14 million from prior-year balances in the R&D, Acquisition, and Operations account.
49 Not including a rescission of $14 million from prior-year balances in the R&D, Acquisition, and Operations account.
Congressional Research Service
23
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
(Q3) of FY2021, one year later than the estimate of Q3 FY2020 provided in the FY2014 budget.
The previous estimate for NBAF, given in the FY2012 budget, was a total project cost of $725
million with a completion date of Q1 FY2016.
DNDO is the primary DHS organization for combating the threat of nuclear attack. It is
responsible for nuclear detection research, development, testing, evaluation, acquisition, and
operational support. The Administration has requested $304 million for DNDO in FY2015, an
increase of 6.7% from the FY2014 appropriation of $285 million. In the Systems Acquisition
account, funding for the Securing the Cities program would decrease by $10 million, while
funding for Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems would increase by $37 million to
support the procurement of handheld radioisotope identification devices (RIIDs) for U.S.
Customs and Border Protection.
The House-reported bill would provide $312 million for DNDO. The report recommends $7
million more than the request for Securing the Cities and states that this would “support ongoing
efforts in current ... cities and the risk-based expansion to new cities.” The report recommends the
requested increase for Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems.
The Senate-reported bill would provide $306 million for DNDO. Like the House report, the
Senate report recommends $7 million more than the Administration’s request for the Securing the
Cities program. The Senate report recommends $2 million less than the request for Human
Portable Radiation Detection Systems (HPRDS), and it directs DNDO to provide a multiyear
procurement forecast and deployment schedule for these funds.
In September 2012, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that although the
S&T Directorate, DNDO, and the Coast Guard are the only DHS components that report R&D
activities to the Office of Management and Budget, several other DHS components also fund
R&D and activities related to R&D.50 The GAO report found that DHS lacks department-wide
policies to define R&D and guide reporting of R&D activities, and, as a result, DHS does not
know the total amount its components invest in R&D. The report recommended that DHS
develop policies and guidance for defining, reporting, and coordinating R&D activities across the
department, and that DHS establish a mechanism to track R&D projects. In March 2013, the
explanatory statement for the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013
(P.L. 113-6), directed the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, to establish a review process for all R&D and related work within
DHS.51 In April 2013, citing its September 2012 report, GAO listed DHS R&D as an area of
concern in its annual report on fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative federal programs.52 In
January 2014, the joint explanatory statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L.
113-76), directed DHS to implement and report on new policies for R&D prioritization, and to
review and, in accordance with GAO’s recommendations, to implement policies and guidance for
defining and overseeing R&D department-wide.53 In July 2014, GAO reported that DHS had
updated its guidance to include a definition of R&D and was conducting R&D portfolio reviews
50 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Department of Homeland Security: Oversight and Coordination of
Research and Development Should Be Strengthened, GAO-12-837, September 12, 2012.
51 Congressional Record, March 11, 2013, p. S1547.
52 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap,
and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, GAO-13-279SP, April 2013.
53 Congressional Record, January 15, 2014, p. H927.
Congressional Research Service
24
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
across the department but had not yet developed policy guidance for DHS-wide R&D oversight,
coordination, and tracking.54
Table 10. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
FY2015
FY2015
Enacted
Request
H. Cmte.
S. Cmte.
Directorate of Science and Technology
$1,220
$1,072
$1,107
$1,071
Management and Administration
129
130
127
130
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
1,091
942
980a 942a
Research, Development, and Innovation
462
434
462
426
Laboratory
Facilities
548 435 435 435
Acquisition and Operations Support
42
42
42
42
University
Programs
40 31 41 40
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
285
304
312
306
Management and Administration
37
37
36
37
Research, Development, and Operations
205
199
201
196
Systems
Architecture
21 18 18 17
Systems
Development
21 22 22 21
Transformational
R&D
71 70 70 69
Assessments
39 38 38 38
Operations
Support
30 32 32 31
National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center
23
20
22
20
Systems
Acquisition
43 68 75 73
Radiation Portal Monitors Program
7
5
5
5
Securing the Cities
22
12
19
19
Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems
14
51
51
49
U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E
19
18
11
18
DHS,
Total
1,524 1,394 1,430 1,396
Sources: FY2014 enacted and FY2015 request from DHS FY2015 congressional budget justification,
http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-budget. FY2015 House committee from H.R. 4903 as reported and H.Rept. 113-481.
FY2015 Senate committee from S. 2534 as reported and S.Rept. 113-198.
Note: Totals may differ from sum of components due to rounding.
a. Does not reflect a rescission of $14 million from prior-year balances.
54 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Department of Homeland Security: Continued Actions Needed to
Strengthen Oversight and Coordination of Research and Development, GAO-14-813T, July 31, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
25
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
National Institutes of Health55
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. An agency in the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the NIH mission is “to seek fundamental
knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge
to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.”56
The President’s FY2015 budget has requested a program level (explained on following page) total
of $30.362 billion for the National Institutes of Health, an increase of $211 million (0.7%) over
the FY2014 level of $30.151 billion (see Table 11). Under the President’s proposed Opportunity,
Growth, and Security Initiative, NIH would also receive an additional $970 million, increasing
the NIH budget to a total program level of $31.3 billion in FY2015. These funds would provide
added resources for the BRAIN Initiative, improve the sharing and analysis of complex
biomedical data sets, expand research on Alzheimer’s disease and vaccine development, further
accelerate efforts to identify and develop new therapeutic drug targets, and support other
innovative projects.57 (For more information about the OGSI, see earlier discussion at
“Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative.”)
NIH Organization and Sources of Funding. NIH supports and conducts a wide range of basic
and clinical research, research training, and health information dissemination across all fields of
biomedical and behavioral sciences. About 83% of NIH’s budget goes out to the extramural
research community in the form of grants, contracts, and other awards. This funding supports
research performed by more than 300,000 non-federal scientists and technical personnel who
work at more than 2,500 universities, hospitals, medical schools, and other research institutions
around the country and abroad.58 The agency’s organization consists of the Office of the NIH
Director and 27 institutes and centers. The Office of the Director (OD) sets overall policy for NIH
and coordinates the programs and activities of all NIH components, particularly in areas of
research that involve multiple institutes. The institutes and centers (collectively called 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 11, Congress provides separate appropriations to 24 of the 27 ICs, to OD, and to an
intramural Buildings and Facilities account. The other three centers, which perform centralized
support services, are funded through assessments on the IC appropriations.
Funding for NIH comes primarily from the annual Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (Labor/HHS) appropriations bill, with an
additional amount for Superfund-related activities from the appropriations bill for the Department
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (Interior/Environment). Those two bills
55 This section was written by Judith A. Johnson, 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 Judith A. Johnson.
56 National Institutes of Health, About the National Institutes of Health, at http://www.nih.gov/about/mission.htm.
57 Department of Health and Human Services, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget in Brief, Washington, DC, March 4, 2014, p.
39, http://www.hhs.gov/budget/fy2015/fy-2015-budget-in-brief.pdf.
58 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
26
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
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 also receives $8.2 million annually for the National
Library of Medicine from a transfer within PHS. The total funding available for NIH activities,
taking account of add-ons and transfers, is known as the program level.
Except for the mandatory diabetes funding, Congress does not usually specify amounts for
particular diseases or research areas. Similarly, NIH does not expressly budget by disease
category.59 Some bills may propose authorizations for designated research purposes, but funding
generally remains subject to discretionary appropriations and the NIH peer review process.
NIH and other HHS agencies and programs that are authorized under the PHS Act are subject to a
budget assessment called the PHS Program Evaluation Set-Aside, also called the evaluation tap.
Section 241 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. §238j) authorizes the Secretary to use a portion of eligible
appropriations to study the effectiveness of federal health programs and to identify ways to
improve them. Congress sets the percentage level of the tap in the annual Labor/HHS
appropriations act, and also directs 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, becomes the largest “donor” of program evaluation funds, and is a relatively minor
recipient. For FY2015, the President’s Budget again proposes increasing the set-aside from 2.5%
to 3.0%.60 By convention, budget tables such as Table 2 do not subtract the amount of the
evaluation tap from the agencies’ appropriations.61
President’s FY2015 Budget Request. Most of the institutes and centers would receive
essentially flat funding compared to FY2014 with very few exceptions, such as a $50 million
(9%) increase for the Common Fund, and a $25 million (4%) increase for the National Center for
Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS).
Basic Research and Big Data. About 54% of the proposed budget is targeted for basic research
on the causes of disease onset and progression. The multi-agency Brain Research through
Application of Innovative Neurotechnologies initiative develops and applies new tools for the
study of complex brain functions. This collaboration with the National Science Foundation and
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency plans on spending a total of $200 million in
FY2015. The NIH portion of about $100 million is an increase of $60 million over FY2014.
Insights into brain circuitry and activity gained via the BRAIN initiative are expected to help
reveal the underlying problems in numerous brain disorders and may provide therapeutic or
prevention approaches for conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, autism, epilepsy,
schizophrenia, depression, chronic pain, addiction, post-traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic
59 See NIH website, “Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC),”
http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx.
60 Section 205 of the FY2012 Labor/HHS appropriations act capped the set-aside at 2.5%, which drew over $700
million from the NIH budget. The same percentage was assessed in FY2013 under the continuing appropriations act.
The FY2014 President’s Budget proposed increasing the PHS set-aside to 3.0%. The Senate committee rejected the
increase, largely because of its effect on NIH, estimating that it would have taken an extra $147 million from NIH. (See
S.Rept. 113-71 on S. 1284, p. 41 and p. 83.) The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), set the
assessment at 2.5%.
61 For further information on the PHS Evaluation Set-Aside, see CRS Report R43304, Public Health Service Agencies:
Overview and Funding, coordinated by C. Stephen Redhead.
Congressional Research Service
27
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
brain injury. Continued support in FY2015 of the Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K) initiative will
improve the handling, sharing, analysis, and protection of large complex biomedical datasets of
information, such as high-resolution medical images and DNA sequencing data from many
individuals.
Precision Medicine. In the FY2012 appropriations act, Congress approved an NIH reorganization
that consolidated various programs into NCATS. The center focuses on improved methods to test
possible new therapies and encourage their commercialization and dissemination into clinical
practice. Part of this focus is what NIH calls precision medicine, tailoring therapy to the
individual characteristics of the patient but also avoiding needless treatment and costs for those
who will not benefit. Within NCATS, the Cures Acceleration Network (CAN) would receive $30
million under the President’s FY2015 request, a $20 million increase over FY2014, to speed the
development of “high need cures” by removing barriers between research discovery and clinical
testing. NIH will continue to carry out a new collaboration—the Accelerating Medicines
Partnership (AMP)—with biopharmaceutical firms and non-profit organizations aimed at
promising biological targets in three disease areas: Alzheimer’s; type 2 diabetes; and the
autoimmune disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus.
Research Training and Research Workforce. NIH estimates it will require $767 million to
support 15,715 individuals in its major research training program, the Ruth L. Kirschstein
National Research Service Awards, with a 2% stipend increase in FY2015 for predoctoral and
postdoctoral trainees. The request is $14 million (2%) above the FY2014 level. NIH plans to
continue with a special focus on promoting diversity and understanding barriers to career
advancement of people traditionally underrepresented in the research workforce. It is building a
consortium of under-resourced institutions and creating a mentoring network to assist students
interested in pursuing a biomedical research career.
The following are selected other program changes and areas of emphasis in NIH accounts.
Alzheimer’s Disease Research. To continue implementing the research components of the
National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), NIH estimates it will spend $566 million on
AD research in FY2015. NIH has recently set up the AD Genetics Warehouse to identify both
genetic risk and protective factors. The Neuroimaging Initiative is analyzing brain scans, genetic
profiles, and biomarkers in an effort to detect early stage AD. Over 35 NIH-supported clinical
trials are being conducted to test more than 40 compounds as possible prevention or treatment
agents against AD and other forms of cognitive decline.
HIV/AIDS. NIH estimates it will spend about $3 billion on HIV/AIDS research in FY2015.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. For FY2015, the
Administration proposes a modified version of its government-wide reorganization of STEM
education, which, among other things, would reform undergraduate education and consolidate the
administration of fellowships “to better meet national STEM goals.” For HHS, the proposal
would eliminate two programs for a total savings of $2 million in FY2015.62 For additional
information on the proposed STEM reorganization, see “Reorganization of STEM Education
Programs.”
62 The Budget for FY2015, Discretionary Cuts, Consolidations and Savings, p. 157, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/ccs.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
28
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Office of the Director/Common Fund. The FY2015 request for OD includes an increase in
funding for the Common Fund. The Common Fund supports research in emerging areas of
scientific opportunity, public health challenges, or knowledge gaps that might benefit from
collaboration between two or more institutes or centers. The request for the Common Fund is
$583 million, $50 million (9%) higher than the FY2014 level, including $30 million for projects
modelled after the research flexibilities utilized by DARPA.
Research Project Grants. The main funding mechanism for supporting extramural research is
research project grants (RPGs), which are competitive, peer-reviewed, and largely investigator-
initiated. The FY2015 budget requests total funding for RPGs of $16.197 billion, representing
about 53% of NIH’s proposed budget. The amount is an increase of $120 million (0.7%) over the
FY2014 level. The request would support an estimated 34,197 RPG awards, 16 less than in
FY2014. Within that total, 9,326 would be competing RPGs, 329 (4%) more than in FY2014.
(Competing awards are new grants plus competing renewals of existing grants.) The average
amount of a competing RPG in FY2014 is estimated to be about $456,000, up from about
$421,000 in FY2012. Funding provided under the President’s proposed Opportunity, Growth, and
Security Initiative would be used to support 650 additional new grants in FY2015.
Table 11. National Institutes of Health Funding
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
Enacted
Request
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
$4,923
$4,931
National Heart, Lung, & Blood Institute (NHLBI)
2,983
2,988
Dental/Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
397
397
Diabetes/Digestive/Kidney (NIDDK)a 1,742
1,743
Neurological Disorders/Stroke (NINDS)
1,586
1,608
Al ergy/Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
4,393
4,423
General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
2,362
2,369
Child Health/Human Development (NICHD)
1,281
1,283
National Eye Institute (NEI)
674
675
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
665
665
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
1,169
1,171
Arthritis/Musculoskeletal/Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
519
520
Deafness/Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
403
404
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
1,417
1,440
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
1,016
1,023
Alcohol Abuse/Alcoholism (NIAAA)
445
446
National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
140
140
Nat’l Human Genome Research Inst (NHGRI)
497
498
Biomedical Imaging/Bioengineering (NIBIB)
326
329
Minority Health/Health Disparities (NIMHD)
268
268
Congressional Research Service
29
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
FY2014
FY2015
Enacted
Request
Complementary/Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)
124
125
Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)
632
657
Fogarty International Center (FIC)
67
68
National Library of Medicine (NLM)
367
373
Office of Director (OD)
1,400
1,452
Buildings & Facilities (B&F)
129
129
Subtotal, Labor/HHS Appropriation
29,926
30,126
Superfund (Interior appropriation to NIEHS)b 77
77
Total, NIH discretionary budget authority
30,003
30,203
Pre-appropriated type 1 diabetes fundsc 139
150
PHS Evaluation Tap fundingd 8
8
Total, NIH program level
30,151
30,362
Source: NIH, FY2015 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Vol. I, Overview, table on “Budget
Request by Institute/Center,” p. ST-2, at http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY15/FY2015_Overview.pdf.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
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 c).
b. This is a separate account in the Interior/Environment appropriations for National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) research activities related to Superfund.
c. Mandatory funds available to NIDDK for type 1 diabetes research under PHS Act §330B (provided by P.L.
111-309 and P.L. 112-240). Funds have been appropriated through FY2014 and are proposed for
reauthorization in FY2015. The FY2013 amount was reduced by $7.65 million (5%) due to the March 1,
2013, sequestration. The FY2014 amount was reduced by $11 mil ion (7.2%) due to the FY2014
sequestration.
d. Additional funds for NLM from PHS Evaluation Set-Aside (§241 of PHS Act).
Department of Energy63
The Department of Energy (DOE) was established in 1977 by the Department of Energy
Organization Act (P.L. 95-91), which combined energy-related programs from a variety of other
agencies with defense-related nuclear programs that dated back to the Manhattan Project. Today,
DOE conducts basic scientific research in areas ranging from nuclear physics to the biological
and environmental sciences, basic and applied R&D relating to energy production and use, and
R&D on nuclear weapons, nuclear nonproliferation, and defense nuclear reactors. The department
has a system of 17 national laboratories around the country, mostly operated by contractors, that
together account for about 40% of all DOE expenditures.
63 This section was written by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
30
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
The Administration has requested $13.129 billion in FY2015 for Department of Energy R&D and
related activities, including programs in three major categories: science, national security, and
energy. This request is 5.6% more than the FY2014 appropriation of $12.436 billion. The House-
passed bill (H.R. 4923) would provide $12.539 billion. The Senate subcommittee bill would
provide $12.553 billion.64 (See Table 12 for details.)
The request for the DOE Office of Science is $5.111 billion, an increase of 0.9% from the
FY2014 appropriation of $5.066 billion. There is no authorized funding level for the Office of
Science in FY2015; the most recent authorization act (the America COMPETES Reauthorization
Act of 2010, P.L. 111-358) authorized appropriations through FY2013. The FY2015 budget does
not mention the Obama Administration’s previous goal of doubling the combined funding of the
Office of Science and two other agencies. (For more information on the doubling goal and how it
has evolved, see “Efforts to Double Certain R&D Accounts.”) The original target, announced by
the Bush Administration in 2006, was to achieve the doubling in the decade from FY2006 to
FY2016. The FY2015 request for the Office of Science is 41% more than its FY2006 baseline.
The House bill and the Senate subcommittee bill would each be 40% above the baseline.
The Office of Science includes six major research programs. The request for the largest program,
Basic Energy Sciences (BES), is $1.807 billion, an increase of 5.5%. Major proposed changes in
the BES program include the initiation of a new activity in computational materials science ($24
million); an increase of $18 million for Nanoscale Science Research Centers; an increase of $63
million, as previously planned, for continued construction of the Linac Coherent Light Source II
(LCLS-II); and a shift from construction funding to research funding for the National
Synchrotron Light Source II (NSLS-II) as the new facility begins operations. The request also
includes $24 million for continuation of the Fuels from Sunlight Hub beyond its current five-year
award term. The House bill would provide a total of $1.702 billion for BES. The House report
recommends $8 million for computational materials science, $11 million less than the request for
LCLS-II construction, $10 million less than the request for NSLS-II operations, and no funds for
the Fuels from Sunlight Hub. The Senate subcommittee bill would provide the requested amount
for BES, including $18 million for computational materials science. The Senate subcommittee
report recommends funding for the Fuels from Sunlight Hub only if DOE completes a review of
the hub and determines to extend it; otherwise, DOE is to spend that $24 million on other
photochemistry and biochemistry research.
The request for High Energy Physics is $744 million, a decrease of 6.6%. Major proposed
changes include a reduction of $24 million for experiments at the intensity frontier, especially
NOvA, which will complete fabrication in FY2014; a decrease of $10 million, as previously
planned, for continued construction of the Muon to Electron Conversion Experiment (Mu2e); and
the elimination of construction funding ($16 million in FY2014) for the Long Baseline Neutrino
Experiment (LBNE). The House bill would provide $775 million. The House report recommends
$15 million more than the request for intensity frontier experiments, the requested amount for
Mu2e, and $22 million for LBNE. The Senate subcommittee bill would provide $774 million,
including the requested amount for Mu2e and $22 million for LBNE.
64 The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Senate Committee on Appropriations approved this bill
on June 17, 2014. A full committee markup scheduled for June 19, 2014, was cancelled. References in this section to
the Senate subcommittee bill and report refer to the subcommittee-approved bill and draft report posted on the
committee website on July 24, 2014. See http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/fy-2015-ew-subcommittee-
reported-bill-and-draft-report.
Congressional Research Service
31
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
The request for Biological and Environmental Research is $628 million, an increase of 3.0%.
This program consists of two roughly equal parts: Biological Systems Science and Climate and
Environmental Sciences. Within the second of these, the request includes $29 million for a new
activity in Climate Model Development and Validation. The House bill would provide $540
million. The House report states that “the Committee continues to support the Biological Systems
Science subprogram” but does not mention Climate and Environmental Sciences. The House
report recommends no funding for Climate Model Development and Validation. The Senate
subcommittee bill would provide approximately the requested amount, divided between the two
subprograms according to the request, and including the requested funds for Climate Model
Development and Validation.
The request for Advanced Scientific Computing Research is $541 million, an increase of 13.2%.
The proposed increase includes an additional $10 million for mathematical, computational, and
computer sciences research; an additional $25 million for operations and upgrades at the
Leadership Computing Facilities; and an additional $20 million for computing technology
research, system design, and prototype evaluation. The House bill would provide the requested
amount. The Senate subcommittee bill would provide $557 million; the report recommends
directing the additional $16 million to increase operating time at the National Energy Research
Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
The request for Fusion Energy Sciences is $416 million, a decrease of 17.6%. The request
includes $18 million for operations and research at the Alcator C-Mod tokamak, as a transition
plan is developed for the facility. In the FY2013 and FY2014 budget cycles, DOE plans to close
this facility encountered congressional opposition. Construction funding for the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) would decrease from $200 million to $150 million,
while total funding for research and operations at domestic facilities would decrease from $305
million to $266 million. In 2008, the cost for the U.S. share of ITER, a multi-year international
construction project, was estimated to be between $1.45 billion and $2.2 billion. Schedule delays,
design and scope changes, and other factors have delayed formal approval of a revised cost
estimate. According to DOE, the current best estimate of the total U.S. cost for ITER construction
(which is 9.09% of the total international cost) is between $4 billion and $6.5 billion. In June
2014, the Government Accountability Office found that the cost of ITER has increased, its
schedule has slipped, the international project schedule is “not reliable,” and DOE can “only
partially” influence the international project’s performance.65 The House bill would provide $540
million for Fusion Energy Sciences, including $225 million for ITER and $266 million for the
domestic program; $22 million of the latter amount would be directed to Alcator C-Mod. The
Senate subcommittee bill would provide $341 million, of which $75 million would be for ITER.
The Senate subcommittee report states that “the Committee does not believe ITER is affordable
and funding for ITER would crowd out other science investments where the United States has
maintained leadership.” It directs DOE to work with the Department of State to withdraw from
the ITER project. The recommended $75 million for ITER would allow for the completion of
existing contracts and support the U.S. ITER office during the termination process.
The request for DOE national security R&D is $4.220 billion, a 9.2% increase from $3.864
billion in FY2014. Most of the requested increase is in the Naval Reactors program. Naval
Reactors construction funding would increase from $24 million to $210 million as construction
65 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Fusion Energy: Actions Needed to Finalize Cost and Schedule Estimates for
U.S. Contributions to an International Experimental Reactor, GAO-14-499, June 5, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
32
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
begins on the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization project. Congress declined to fund this
project in FY2014, and DOE is developing a new schedule and funding profile. In the Weapons
Activities account, the Administration request would increase funding for nuclear weapons
science and advanced simulation and computing and would slightly reduce funding (by 0.2%) for
research on inertial confinement fusion. In the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account, the
requested 23.0% decrease in R&D funding is largely the consequence of a DOE reprogramming
of funds from other activities in FY2014. Relative to the amount originally enacted by Congress
for FY2014, the request for nonproliferation R&D is a decrease of 9.5%. Both proliferation
detection R&D and nuclear detonation detection R&D would decrease, with reductions and
delays in multiple topic areas. The House bill would provide a total of $4.102 billion. The House
report recommends half the requested amount for the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization
project, smaller increases than requested for weapons science and advanced simulation and
computing, and nearly the FY2014 amount for nonproliferation R&D. The Senate subcommittee
bill would provide a total of $4.022 billion. The Senate subcommittee report recommends less
than requested for weapons science but more for advanced simulation and computing. It
recommends no funding for the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization project.
The request for DOE energy R&D is $3.797 billion, up 8.3% from $3.506 billion in FY2014. The
request would increase funding for R&D in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE) by 20.5%, with increases requested for most EERE programs. Within EERE,
Advanced Manufacturing would receive $305 million, an increase of $125 million. The Advanced
Manufacturing request includes an increase of $109 million for R&D facilities, which would
support the establishment of an additional Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institutes
(consistent with the previously discussed “National Network for Manufacturing Innovation”).
Also in EERE, R&D on vehicle technologies would increase by $69 million. The Energy
Efficient Buildings Hub, which the Senate Committee on Appropriations directed DOE to
terminate in its FY2014 report, has been renamed the Pennsylvania State University Consortium
for Building Energy Innovation and would receive flat funding under the request. In Fossil
Energy R&D, the proposed elimination of R&D on oil technologies ($15 million in FY2014) and
the proposed reduction of $115 million for coal R&D (including carbon capture and storage)
would be partly offset by $25 million for a new demonstration activity in natural gas carbon
capture and storage and an increase of $14 million for natural gas technologies. In the Advanced
Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E), R&D on transportation systems would increase by
$47 million.
In the energy category, the House bill would provide $3.366 billion. Within this total, it would
provide $528 million less than the request for EERE. The report recommends more than the
request for hydrogen, wind energy, geothermal energy, and advanced manufacturing, and less
than the request in all other topic areas, with particularly large reductions in solar energy and
bioenergy. For fossil fuels, the House bill would increase coal R&D by $20 million rather than
reducing it, provide $13 million for oil R&D rather than eliminating it, increase natural gas R&D
by $2 million rather than $14 million, and reject the proposed demonstration of natural gas carbon
capture and storage.
In the energy category, the Senate subcommittee bill would provide $3.445 billion. Its
recommendation for EERE, $1.795 billion, includes more than the request for hydrogen and
hydropower, the requested amount for bioenergy, and less than the request for other topics,
especially advanced manufacturing, vehicle technologies, solar energy, and building technologies.
The recommended total for fossil energy R&D is the same as the request. The recommendation
for nuclear energy is $86 million less than the request. Within this total, the report recommends
Congressional Research Service
33
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
$97 million less for small modular reactor licensing technical support, $46 million less for reactor
concepts R&D and demonstration, and $41 million more for fuel cycle R&D.
Table 12. Department of Energy R&D and Related Activities
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
FY2015
FY2015
Enacted
Request
House
S. Subcte.
Science $5,066
$5,111
$5,071
$5,086
Basic Energy Sciences
1,712
1,807
1,702
1,807
High Energy Physics
797
744
775
774
Biological and Environmental Research
610
628
540
628
Nuclear
Physics
569
594
600
602
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
478
541
541
557
Fusion Energy Sciences
505
416
540
341
Other
396
382
373
378
National Security
3,864
4,220
4,102
4,022
Weapons
Activitiesa 2,278
2,467
2,421
2,408
Naval
Reactors
1,095
1,377
1,215
1,208
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D
469
361
453
393
Defense Environmental Cleanup Tech. Dev.
22
16
13
13
Energy 3,506
3,797
3,366
3,445
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energyb 1,670
2,012
1,538
1,795
Fossil Energy R&D
562
476
593
476
Nuclear
Energy
888
863
826
777
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability R&D
106
121
110
117
Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy
280
325
300
280
DOE, Total
12,436
13,129
12,539
12,553
Source: FY2014 enacted and FY2015 request from DOE’s FY2015 congressional budget justification,
http://energy.gov/cfo/downloads/fy-2015-budget-justification. FY2015 House from H.R. 4923 as passed by the
House and H.Rept. 113-486. FY2015 Senate subcommittee from the subcommittee approved bill and draft
subcommittee report posted on the Senate Committee on Appropriations website on July 24, 2014.
Notes: FY2014 enacted amounts reflect DOE’s al ocation of a $7 mil ion reduction for contractor foreign travel
expenses, as directed by P.L. 113-76, Section 317. Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to
rounding.
a. Including Stockpile Services R&D Support, Stockpile Services R&D Certification and Safety, Science,
Engineering except Enhanced Surety and Enhanced Surveillance, Ignition and High Yield, Advanced
Simulation and Computing, and a prorated share of Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities. Additional
R&D activities may take place in the subprograms of Directed Stockpile Work that are devoted to specific
weapon systems, but these funds are not included in the table because detailed funding schedules for those
subprograms are classified.
b. Excluding Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.
Congressional Research Service
34
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
National Science Foundation66
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.”67 The NSF is a
primary source of federal support for U.S. university research, especially in certain fields such as
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.
For FY2015 the Administration seeks $7.255 billion in funding for the NSF. This amount is $83
million (about 1%) more than the FY2014 estimate of $7.172 billion. The requested increase
would be split more or less evenly between Agency Operations and Award Management (AOAM)
and Education and Human Resources (EHR). The Research and Related Activities (RRA)
account, which constitutes a majority of NSF’s funding, would remain essentially constant. (See
Table 13.) Congress had not enacted specific FY2015 appropriations authorizations for NSF
when the administration released its FY2015 budget request.68
H.R. 4660, as passed by the House, would provide $7.394 billion to NSF in FY2015. This amount
is $222 million (3.1%) more than the FY2014 estimate and $139 million (1.9%) more than the
FY2015 request. The House would provide a larger-than-requested increase (over the FY2014
estimate) to RRA, as well as increases (although not to requested levels) for EHR and AOAM.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends the request for NSF in FY2015. However,
like the House, the Senate Committee on Appropriations also recommends an increase over both
the requested level, and the FY2014 estimate, for RRA. To accomplish this, while holding the
total NSF allocation at the FY2015 requested level, Senate appropriators recommend reducing
AOAM by about $30 million and increasing RRA by about the same amount.
In its budget documents NSF indicates that its FY2015 priorities include four programs that were
also foundation priorities in FY2013 and FY2014: Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and
Smart Systems (CEMMSS, $213 million); Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century
Science, Engineering, and Education (CIF21, $125 million); Science, Engineering, and Education
for Sustainability (SEES, $139 million); and Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC, $100
million). The Administration added Cognitive Science and Neuroscience ($29 million request) to
this list for FY2015.69 Of these five programs, the Administration seeks an increase over FY2014
estimated levels only for Cognitive Science and Neuroscience. The House report recommends
$6.0 million (20.7%) more than the request for Cognitive Science and Neuroscience in FY2015.
Other priorities and highlights in the FY2015 budget request include advanced manufacturing;
clean energy; Innovation Corps (I-Corps); National Robotics Initiative (NRI); Research at the
66 This section was written by Heather B. Gonzalez, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
67 The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-507). For more information about the NSF, see CRS Report
R43585, The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues, by Heather B. Gonzalez.
68 NSF relies on its organic act for budget authority in FY2015.
69 The FY2012 CJS conference report encouraged NSF to establish neuroscience as a crosscutting theme. See, H.Rept.
112-284.
Congressional Research Service
35
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Interface of Biological, Mathematical, and Physical Sciences (BioMaPS); U.S. activities in the
Antarctic; Graduate Research Fellowships (GRF); NSF Research Traineeships (NRT); Improving
Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE); and Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU).
Between FY2006 and FY2013, overall increases in the NSF budget were at least partially driven
by the “doubling path” policy for physical sciences and engineering research. (See “Efforts to
Double Certain R&D Accounts.”) However, actual funding of these accounts did not generally
reach authorized levels. It is unclear if the President or Congress will seek to continue this policy
in FY2015.
Congress typically appropriates to NSF at the major account level. NSF’s major accounts are
RRA, EHR, and AOAM (mentioned in previous paragraphs), as well as Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC); the National Science Board (NSB); and the
Office of Inspector General (IG).70
RRA is the largest account and the primary source of research funding at the NSF. The
Administration seeks $5.807 billion in funding for RRA in FY2015, which is about the same as
the FY2014 estimate. The House would provide $5.974 billion to RRA in FY2015, or about $165
million (close to 3%) more than the FY2015 request and FY2014 estimate. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations recommends $5.839 billion for RRA in FY2015, or about $30
million (0.5%) more than the FY2015 request and FY2014 estimate.
The Administration’s request for RRA makes few major changes from FY2014. Six of eight RRA
subaccounts would shift (up or down) by less than 2%. Two accounts, Social, Behavioral and
Economic Sciences (SBE) and the U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC), would increase
by more substantial amounts: 6.0% and 8.1%, respectively. SBE would receive the largest
increase in dollar terms. The Administration seeks a $15 million increase over the FY2014
estimate for SBE in FY2015. Most of the additional funding ($11 million) would support the
work of the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), which among other
things, publishes the widely cited, bi-annual sourcebook for science and engineering statistics,
Science and Engineering Indicators.71 An amendment (H.Amdt. 734) adopted during House floor
debate over H.R. 4660 seeks to hold SBE funding at the FY2014 estimated level.72 A second
amendment (H.Amdt. 762) adopted during House floor debate over H.R. 4660 would prohibit
NSF from using FY2015 funding to examine climate effects on tea quality and socioeconomic
responses under award number 1313775.73
The FY2015 Administration request for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR) program within RRA is $160 million, $2 million more than the FY2014
estimate. The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations both recommend the request for
EPSCoR in FY2015. The House report (H.Rept. 113-448) also recommends $165 million and $48
70 Funds from major NSF accounts may be merged at the program level and in many cases NSF’s education, facilities,
and research activities are deeply integrated as a matter of practice.
71 For example, see National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2014, NSB 14-01, 2014,
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/.
72 See Representative Lamar Smith, et al., “Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2015,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 160, no. 82, (May 29, 2014), pp. H4957-4959.
73 The practical effect of this amendment is unclear. As a standard grant issued in FY2013, funding for this award may
have been obligated and expended already. More information about this award is available at http://www.nsf.gov/
awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1313775&HistoricalAwards=false.
Congressional Research Service
36
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
million, respectively, in specific allocations for Advanced Manufacturing and the International
Ocean Discovery Program. The Senate report (S.Rept. 113-118) recommends $159 million for
cybersecurity research and at least $15 million for research in biomanufacturing.
Among other provisions, the House report recommends prohibiting NSF from implementing any
final divestment of astronomical infrastructure tied to the 2012 Astronomical Science Portfolio
Review (hereinafter, “Portfolio Review”) without first reporting to the House Appropriations
Committee and ensuring that changes are undertaken in accordance with relevant reprogramming
requirements.74 The Senate report states that the committee expects NSF to sustain support for the
scientific facilities funded by the Astronomical Sciences division; including the National Radio
Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), for which the committee recommends no less than the FY2014
estimated funding level of $43 million. (The Portfolio Review recommended divestment of
certain NRAO facilities.)
In FY2015 the Administration proposes what it calls a “fresh” reorganization and consolidation of
the federal STEM education effort. (See “Reorganization of STEM Education Programs.”)
Consistent with this plan, the NSF FY2015 budget justification states that NSF would continue to
collaborate with the Department of Education and Smithsonian Institution as “lead agencies” in
the implementation of the National Science and Technology Council’s strategic plan for STEM
education, while partnering with federal science mission agencies.75 The FY2015 NSF budget
request also consolidates three NSF undergraduate education programs into the Improving
Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) program.76 In FY2014, NSF proposed reorganizing this
same set of programs into the Catalyzing and Advancing Undergraduate STEM Education
(CAUSE) program. H.Rept. 113-171, which accompanied H.R. 2787 (Commerce, Justice,
Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014) when it was reported by the House
Committee on Appropriations, directed NSF not to establish the CAUSE program. However,
H.Rept. 113-448 appears to adopt the IUSE consolidation in FY2015.
The FY2015 request for EHR ($890 million) continues that directorate’s focus on funding for
R&D activities. Between FY2008 and FY2013, the portion of the EHR account that supported
research and development in STEM education and learning increased from 11% to 35%. Since
then, that percentage has held steady at about 35% (FY2014 estimate and FY2015 request). The
character of EHR’s R&D funding has also shifted, moving from about 90% basic research to
about 40%.
The House would provide $876 million to EHR in FY2015, $14 million (1.5%) less than the $890
million request and $30 million (3.5%) more than the FY2014 estimate of $847 million. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends the requested level for EHR in FY2015.
Within EHR the House report recommends a $66 million specific allocation for Advanced
Technological Education (ATE) and directs NSF to use FY2015 appropriations to begin
74 More information about the 2012 Astronomical Sciences Portfolio Review is available at http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/
ast_portfolio_review.jsp. In December 2013, NSF issued a “Dear Colleague Letter” (NSF 14-022) providing
information about the status of the foundation’s response to the Portfolio Review. NSF 14-022 is available at
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14022/nsf14022.jsp.
75 EOP, NSTC, Committee on STEM Education, Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Education: 5-Year Strategic Plan, May 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
stem_stratplan_2013.pdf.
76 These programs are the STEM Talent Expansion Program (STEP), Widening Implementation and Demonstration of
Evidence-based Reforms (WIDER), and Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM (TUES).
Congressional Research Service
37
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
development of a website to disseminate various STEM education-related materials. The Senate
report recommends the following specific allocations: $64 million for ATE, $61 million for the
Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program, $45 million for Cybercorps: Scholarships for
Service, $55 million for Advancing Informal STEM Learning, and $57 million for STEM-C
Partnerships.
Both the House and Senate reports recommend the same amount (e.g., the request or slightly
more) for three of NSF’s existing minority-serving institution programs, including Historically
Black Colleges and Universities—Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP, $32 million), Louis
Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP, $46 million), and Tribal Colleges and
Universities Program (TCUP, $13.5 million). Further, both reports seek to direct NSF to provide
for Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs). The House report recommends that NSF demonstrate
that it provided $30 million in HSI-targeted opportunities across NSF programs in FY2015, while
the Senate report recommends a specific allocation of $5 million for an HSI-specific program
within EHR. The Senate report also expresses several concerns about HBCUs, including their low
participation rate in NSF’s I-Corps program and relatively modest success at winning research
grants from RRA programs. The Senate report includes recommendations designed to address
these concerns.
Widely tracked EHR sub-accounts include the Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) and the
Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship or IGERT (now called the NSF
Research Traineeship or NRT). The FY2015 request for the GRF is $333 million, about 11% over
the FY2014 estimate. NSF seeks to increase the GRF stipend from $32,000 to $34,000 in
FY2015. The NSF budget request includes $58 million for the NRT in FY2015, an increase of 6%
over the FY2014 estimate. NSF proposes a new track within NRT, to provide funding for research
in graduate student training and professional development.
Other accounts that fund R&D at the NSF include the MREFC account, which supports large
construction projects and scientific instruments. The FY2015 MREFC request is for $201 million.
This amount is about equal to the FY2014 estimated level. Both the House and Senate Committee
on Appropriations recommend the requested level for MREFC in FY2015.
NSF indicates that FY2015 MREFC funding would provide the second-to-last year of support for
NEON and would provide ongoing support for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) and
Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope (DKIST).77 Historically, the MREFC account typically
supported between four and six projects at a time. The FY2015 request for three projects is lower
than the historical trend, which could indicate that some potentially scientifically valuable
projects are being delayed or overlooked. On the other hand, as can be seen in the FY2015 BIO
and GEO requests, when these large projects come online their operations costs must be
shouldered by research accounts. In a constrained budget environment, this dynamic can
precipitate difficult choices between funding for research and funding research facilities and
equipment.
The Administration seeks $338 million, $4 million, and $14 million (respectively) for AOAM,
NSB, and OIG in FY2015. These amounts are 13.5%, 1.6%, and 1.6% more (respectively) than
the FY2014 estimates for these accounts. The AOAM increase is part of a multi-year plan to
relocate NSF headquarters. The House would provide $325 million for AOAM in FY2015. The
77 The Advanced Technology Solar Telescope was renamed the Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope in December, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
38
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends $307 million. Both the House and Senate
Committee on Appropriations recommend the requested levels for NSB and OIG in FY2015.
The FY2015 NSF budget request includes funding for three multi-agency initiatives: National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI, $410 million), Networking and Information Technology
Research and Development (NITRD, $1.158 billion), and U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP, $318 million). The request for NNI is about the same as the FY2014 estimate; the
NITRD request is similarly equivalent; and the request for USGCRP is about $4 million (1%)
more than the FY2014 estimate.
The Administration also seeks $552 million in FY2015 funding for the NSF as part of the
Opportunity Growth and Security Initiative. Without specifying program funding levels, the NSF
FY2015 congressional budget justification notes that (among other things) OGSI funding would
support an estimated 1,000 additional standard awards and would provide additional traineeship
opportunities to approximately 3,000 graduate students over the next five years through the NRT
program. (For more information on the OGSI, see earlier discussion at “Opportunity, Growth, and
Security Initiative.”)
Table 13. NSF Funding by Major Account
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2015
FY2014
FY2015
House
Senate Cmte.
Account
Estimate
Request
(H.R. 4660)
(S. 2437)
Research and Related Activities
5,808.9 5,807.5 5,973.6 5,838.7
Biological Sciences
721.3
708.5
n/s
n/s
Computer and Information Science
and Engineering
894.0 893.4 n/s n/s
Engineering 851.1
858.2
n/s
n/s
Geosciences 1,303.0
1,304.4
n/s
n/s
Mathematical and Physical Sciences
1,299.8
1,295.6
n/s
n/s
Social, Behavioral, and Economic
Sciences
256.9 272.2 n/s0 n/s
International and Integrative
Activities
481.6 473.9 n/s n/s
U.S. Arctic Research Commission
1.3
1.4
n/s
n/s
Education and Human Resources
846.5
889.8
876.0
889.8
Major Research Equipment and
Facilities Construction
200.0 200.8 200.8 200.8
Agency Operations and Award
Management
298.0 338.2 325.0 307.0
National Science Board
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
Office of the Inspector General
14.2
14.4
14.4
14.4
NSF,
Total
7,171.9 7,255.0 7,394.2 7,255.0
Source: Data in the columns titled, “FY2014 Estimate” and “FY2015 Request” are from the FY2015 NSF Budget
Request to Congress. Data in the column titled “House (Full)” are from H.R. 4660, as passed by the House. Data in
Congressional Research Service
39
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
the column titled, “Senate (Committee)” are from S. 2437, as reported by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations.
Notes: The term “n/s” means “not specified.” Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to
rounding.
H.Amdt. 734 to H.R. 4660 seeks to hold funding for SBE at the FY2014 level ($256.9 million). See Representative
Lamar Smith, et al., “Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015,” remarks in
the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 160, no. 82, (May 29, 2014), pp. H4957-4959.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration78
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 as a facility for R&D and other purposes.
The Administration has requested $16.258 billion for NASA R&D in FY2015. This amount is
1.1% less than the $16.455 billion NASA received for R&D in FY2014. In addition to the base
request, the proposed Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative includes $874 million for
NASA R&D. (For more information on the OGSI, see earlier discussion at “Opportunity, Growth,
and Security Initiative.”) The bill passed by the House (H.R. 4660) would provide $16.702
billion. The bill reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations (S. 2437) would provide
$16.725 billion. For a breakdown of these amounts, see Table 14. There is no authorized level for
NASA funding in FY2015. The most recent authorization act (the NASA Authorization Act of
2010, P.L. 111-267) authorized appropriations through FY2013. Bills that would authorize
FY2015 appropriations for NASA include H.R. 2687, H.R. 2616, and S. 1317.79
The FY2015 request for Science is $4.972 billion, a decrease of 3.5%. The House and Senate bills
would provide $5.193 billion and $5.200 billion, respectively. In Planetary Science, the request
includes $15 million for continued study of a potential future mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa.
Congress provided $69.7 million in FY2013 and $80 million in FY2014 for formulation of a
Europa mission, which was a high priority of the 2011 National Research Council (NRC) decadal
survey of planetary science.80 The NRC expressed reservations, however, at the mission’s
estimated a cost of $4.7 billion, and in April 2014, NASA issued a request for information
seeking Europa mission concepts costing less than $1 billion.81 The House-passed bill for
FY2015 would provide $100 million for “a mission that meets the science goals outlined for the
Jupiter Europa mission in the most recent planetary science decadal survey,” plus an additional
$18 million for assessment and development of related technologies. The House report states that
“the Committee has not seen any credible evidence” that a $1 billion cost is feasible and directs
78 This section was written by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
79 Another NASA authorization bill, H.R. 4412, does not include language authorizing FY2015 appropriations.
80 National Research Council, Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022 (National
Academies Press, 2011). Available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13117.
81 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Europa Mission Concepts Costing Less than $1 Billion,”
solicitation NNH14ZDA008L, April 28, 2014. Available at https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/.
Congressional Research Service
40
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
NASA “not to use further project resources in pursuit of such an unlikely outcome.” The Senate
report directed NASA to use the Space Launch System as the baseline launch vehicle for planning
a Europa mission in order to maximize the scientific return. The heavy lift capability of this
rocket suggests support for a larger-scale Europa mission.
In Astrophysics, also funded in the Science account, the request includes $12.3 million for the
Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA). SOFIA reached full operational
capability in February 2014, and previous budgets envisioned 20 years of operations at a cost of
about $80 million per year.82 According to NASA’s congressional budget justification, however,
“because SOFIA development has taken much longer than originally envisioned ... the
observatory will no longer provide the kind of scientific impact and synergies with other missions
as once planned.” NASA intends to place the SOFIA aircraft in storage unless international
partners can support the U.S. share of its operating costs. The House report rejects NASA’s
proposal to terminate SOFIA, recommends $70 million for the project, and directs NASA to
“continue seeking third-party partners whose additional funding support would restore SOFIA’s
budget to its full operational level.” The Senate report also disagrees with the proposal to
terminate SOFIA; it recommends $87 million.
The OGSI proposal includes an additional $187.3 million for Science, above the Administration’s
base request. Although the House and Senate bills would provide comparable amounts above the
request, their increases do not appear to correspond closely to the content of the OGSI. For
example, the House report does not mention the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3 (OCO-3), which
would receive $29.3 million under the OGSI, or the Pre-Aerosols, Carbon, and Ecosystems
(PACE) mission, which would receive an additional $50 million. While the Senate report
recommends $25 million for PACE, it also includes funds for Jason-3 and DSCOVR, two Earth
science satellites that the Administration proposes to fund through the National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) budget rather than NASA’s.
The FY2015 request for Aeronautics is $551 million, a decrease of 2.6%. NASA aeronautics
research would be reorganized to align with a new strategic vision announced in August 2013.83
Following this realignment, most individual projects would continue, but funding for rotorcraft
research would decrease by $7.9 million. The OGSI proposal includes an additional $43.9 million
for Aeronautics and would restore the proposed reduction in rotorcraft funding. The House-
passed bill would provide $666 million. The House report accepts the proposed restructuring and
directs NASA to allocate the recommended funding increase proportionally across the new
programs. It does not mention rotorcraft. The Senate bill would provide $551 million. Like the
House report, the Senate report supports the proposed reorganization, but it expresses
disappointment with the requested reduction for rotorcraft research.
The FY2015 request for Space Technology is $706 million, an increase of 22.5%. Support for the
proposed Asteroid Redirect Mission, including the accelerated development of high-power solar
electric propulsion technology for future spacecraft, would increase from $38 million to $93
million. The OGSI proposal includes an additional $100 million for Space Technology. The
House-passed bill would provide $627 million. Noting several specific examples, the House
82 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Inspector General, SOFIA: NASA’s Stratospheric
Observatory for Infrared Astronomy, IG-14-022, July 9, 2014.
83 See National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “NASA Introduces New Blueprint for Transforming Global
Aviation,” August 14, 2013, http://www.nasa.gov/aero/strategic_vision/.
Congressional Research Service
41
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
report encourages the Space Technology Mission Directorate to prioritize technologies that have
“the broadest applicability across [its] customer base.” Separately, the report finds it unclear
whether Congress will commit to the Asteroid Redirect Mission and directs NASA to spend funds
on that mission only in areas that “are also applicable to other current NASA programs, clearly
extensible to other potential future exploration missions ... or have broad applicability to other
future non-exploration activities.” The Senate bill would provide $580 million. The Senate report
directs NASA to prioritize ongoing activities, recommends continued funding for the
development of satellite servicing technology, and directs NASA to increase its focus on Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) awards to companies with fewer than 50 employees.
The FY2015 request for Exploration is $3.976 billion, a decrease of 3.3%. This account funds
development of the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and the Space Launch System
(SLS) heavy-lift rocket, which were mandated by the 2010 authorization act for human
exploration beyond Earth orbit. The account also funds development of a commercial crew
transportation capability for future U.S. astronaut access to the International Space Station. The
request of $2.784 billion for Orion, the SLS, and related ground systems (known collectively as
Exploration Systems Development) is a decrease of 10.6%, while the request of $848 million for
commercial crew is an increase of 21.8%. The OGSI proposal includes an additional $100 million
for SLS and Orion and an additional $250 million for commercial crew. As in past years, many in
Congress have seen the Exploration budget request as evidence of a difference in human
spaceflight priorities between Congress and the Administration, and this perceived difference has
been controversial. The House-passed bill would provide $4.167 billion for Exploration,
including $3.055 billion for Exploration Systems Development and $785 million for commercial
crew. The House report expresses frustration with the “arbitrarily reduced funding levels for SLS”
and the increased request for commercial crew. It states that the recommended funding for
commercial crew is intended to support only one provider (some analysts advocate competition
among multiple providers). The Senate bill would provide $4.368 billion for Exploration,
including $3.251 billion for Exploration Systems Development and $805 million for commercial
crew. The Senate report states that the request for Orion and the SLS has “again fallen below
what is necessary” and “far short of requirements.” For commercial crew, the Senate report would
require certified cost and pricing data for commercial crew contracts.84 Advocates of this
language describe it as promoting transparency. Others, noting that it is drawn from federal cost-
plus contracting, argue that it is not suitable for the fixed-price commercial approach that NASA
is using for the commercial crew program.
The Administration’s request of $3.051 billion for the International Space Station (ISS) is a 3.2%
increase. The ISS account includes the cost of commercial cargo flights for ISS resupply. The
request would eliminate one previously planned ISS cargo flight in FY2015. The OGSI proposal
includes an additional $101 million for the ISS and would restore the eliminated flight. The
House-passed bill would provide $3.040 billion for the ISS.85 The Senate report recommends
$3.013 billion.
84 This is a reference to requirements in Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.403-4.
85 The ISS amount is specified in report language, not the bill itself. The bill itself specifies only the amount for Space
Operations, which includes funding for other activities in addition to the ISS. A floor amendment in the House reduced
funding for Space Operations by $7 million without indicating how that change might affect funding for the ISS. As a
result, the amount ultimately provided for the ISS by the House bill might be somewhat less than $3.040 billion.
Congressional Research Service
42
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Table 14. NASA R&D
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2015
FY2014
FY2015
FY2015
House
Senate Cmte.
Enacted
Request
OGSI
(H.R. 4660)
(S. 2437)
Science $5,151.2
$4,972.0
$187.3
$5,193.0
$5,200.0
Earth
Science
1,826.0
1,770.3
—
1,750.0
1,831.9
Planetary
Science
1,345.0
1,280.3
—
1,450.0
1,301.7
Astrophysics
668.0
607.3
—
680.0
707.8
James Webb Space Telescope
658.2
645.4
—
645.0
645.4
Heliophysics
654.0
668.9
—
668.0
671.2
Education
—
—
—
—
42.0a
Aeronautics 566.0
551.1
43.9
666.0
551.1
Space Technology
576.0
705.5
100.0
627.0
580.2
Exploration 4,113.2
3,976.0
350.0
4,167.0
4,367.7
Exploration Systems Development
3,115.2
2,784.4
100.0
3,055.0
3,251.3
Commercial
Spaceflight
696.0
848.0
250.0
785.0
805.0
Exploration
R&D
302.0
343.4
0.0
327.0
311.4
International Space Station
2,964.1b
3,050.8
100.6
3,040.0 3,012.8
Subtotal R&D
13,370.5
13,255.4
781.8
13,693.0
13,711.8
Non-R&D Programsc 968.0
980.5
10.0
978.0
963.5
Cross-Agency Support
2,793.0
2,778.6
0.0
2,779.00 2,778.6
Associated with R&De 2,604.4
2,587.2
0.0
2,592.5
2,596.2
Construction & Environmental C&R
515.0
446.1
93.7
446.0
446.1
Associated with R&De 480.2
415.4
92.5
416.1
416.8
NASA, Total (R&D)
16,455.2
16,258.0
874.3
16,701.6
16,724.8
NASA, Total
17,646.5
17,460.6
885.5
17,896.0
17,900.0
Sources: FY2014 enacted from P.L. 113-76 and joint explanatory statement, Congressional Record, January 15,
2014, Book II, at pp. H515-H517. FY2015 request and OGSI from NASA’s FY2015 congressional budget
justification, http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/, and other NASA budget documents. FY2015 House from H.R.
4660 as passed by the House and H.Rept. 113-448. FY2015 Senate Committee from S. 2437 as reported and
S.Rept. 113-181.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
a. Included in Astrophysics in the request and the House bill. This item is separate from the Education
account, which is included in Non-R&D Programs, lower in the table.
b. From NASA’s operating plan. Not specified in P.L. 113-76 or the joint explanatory statement.
c. Space Operations other than International Space Station, Education, and Inspector General.
d. Called Safety, Security, and Mission Services in the House bill.
e. Al ocation between R&D and non-R&D is estimated by CRS in proportion to the underlying program
amounts in order to al ow calculation of a total for R&D. The Cross-Agency Support and Construction and
Environmental Compliance and Remediation accounts consist mostly of indirect costs for other programs,
assessed in proportion to their direct costs.
Congressional Research Service
43
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology86
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is an agency of the Department of
Commerce with a mandate to increase the competitiveness of U.S. companies through appropriate
support for industrial development of precompetitive, generic technologies and the diffusion of
government-developed technological advances to users in all segments of the American economy.
NIST research also provides the measurement, calibration, and quality assurance methods and
techniques that underpin U.S. commerce, technological progress, product reliability,
manufacturing processes, and public safety. NIST is also responsible for developing, maintaining,
and retaining custody of the national standards of measurement; providing the means and
methods for making measurements consistent with those standards; and ensuring the
compatibility of U.S. national measurement standards with those of other nations.
The President’s FY2015 budget requests $900.0 million for NIST, an increase of $50.0 million
(5.9%) over the FY2014 enacted appropriation. (See Table 15.) Included in this figure is $680
million for R&D in the Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, $29
million (4.5%) above FY2014 funding. According to NIST, priority areas targeted for budget
increases within STRS include R&D investments in forensic science ($3.5 million), cyber-
physical systems ($7.5 million),87 advanced materials ($5.0 million), synthetic biology ($7.0
million), and a lab-to-market initiative ($6.0 million).88 The House-passed bill (H.R. 4660) would
provide $855.8 million for NIST, including $670.5 million for the STRS account. The bill
reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations (S. 2437) would provide $900.0 million for
NIST, including $685 million for STRS account.
The FY2015 budget requests $161 million for the Industrial Technology Services (ITS) account,
including $141.0 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program (up $13.0
million, 10.2% from FY2014). Also included in ITS is $15.0 million for the Advanced
Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech) program, which was funded at the same level in
FY2014, and $5.0 million for coordination of manufacturing innovation institutes, including the
nine launched or committed to launching by the Department of Defense, Department of Energy,
and Department of Agriculture, as well as those envisioned as part of the President’s proposed
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (discussed further below).89 The House-passed
bill would provide $130.0 million for ITS; the House report (H.Rept. 113-448) states that the
entire amount is for the MEP program. H.Rept. 113-448 directs NIST to use the reprogramming
procedures specified in the bill if it intends to use a portion of these funds, as it has in previous
years, for its contributions to interagency support for manufacturing innovation institutes. The
Senate Committee-reported bill recommends $156.0 million for ITS, with the accompanying
86 This section was written by John F. Sargent, Jr., Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
87 In this context, cyber-physical systems refers to interconnected machines and devices designed to create adaptive and
predictive systems that respond in real time to improve performance.
88 Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, “National Institute of Standards and
Technology/National Technical Information Service, Fiscal Year 2-15 Budget Submission to Congress,” March 2014,
http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY15CJ/NISTandNTISFY2015CJFinal508Compliant.pdf.
89 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
44
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Senate report (S.Rept. 113-181) specifying $141 million for MEP and $15.0 million for AmTech.
S.Rept. 113-181 directs NIST to fund its support for manufacturing institutes’ coordination
activities through AmTech.
The President’s budget also includes $59.0 million for the NIST Construction of Research
Facilities account, up $3 million (5.4%) over FY2014.90 The House-passed bill would provide
$55.3 million for CRF; the Senate Committee-reported bill recommends $59.0 million.
As well as the appropriations included in the base budget proposal, the President has proposed
additional NIST funding as part of his Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative. In particular,
the OGSI includes $2.4 billion for the establishment of the National Network for Manufacturing
Innovation, a network of up to 45 institutes with unique foci that
will support manufacturing technology commercialization by allowing new manufacturing
processes and technologies to progress more smoothly from basic research to
implementation in manufacturing, in addition to providing a much-needed environment and
support for work-force development in advanced manufacturing.91
The OGSI also includes $115 million that would fully fund NIST’s requested FY2014 initiatives
in advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity, forensic science, and disaster resilience; accelerate
renovation of scientific facilities at the NIST laboratories in Boulder, Colorado; expand research
and testing capabilities in advanced communications, including spectrum sharing and next-
generation communication technologies; enhance research programs in quantum science; support
robust cryptography capabilities for NIST’s cybersecurity programs; support a data science and
information program for the development of standards and validation tools for accessing,
processing, distilling, storing, and protecting data; and strengthen forensics science research and
collaborative efforts with stakeholders.92 (For more information on the OGSI, see the earlier
discussion at “Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative.”)
NIST’s extramural programs (currently the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and AMTech),
which are directed toward increased private-sector commercialization, have been a source of
contention. Some Members of Congress have expressed skepticism about a technology policy
based on providing federal funds to industry for the development of what are termed “pre-
competitive generic technologies.” This skepticism, coupled with pressures to balance the federal
budget, has led to proposals for the elimination of NIST extramural activities. In 2007, similar
concerns led to the Advanced Technology Program being terminated and replaced by the
Technology Innovation Program, which operated until Congress withdrew its funding in FY2012.
Increases in spending for NIST laboratories that perform research focused on the mission
responsibilities of the agency have tended to remain small. As part of the American
Competitiveness Initiative, announced in 2006, the Bush Administration stated its intention to
double funding over 10 years for “innovation-enabling research” done, in part, at NIST through
its “core” programs (defined as the STRS account and the construction budget). In April 2009,
President Obama indicated his decision to double the budget of key science agencies, including
NIST, over the next 10 years. In President Obama’s FY2011 budget the timeframe for doubling
90 Ibid.
91 Ibid.
92 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
45
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
slipped to 11 years; his FY2012 budget was silent on a timeframe for doubling. There is no
mention of doubling or a timeframe in the FY2015 budget request. For more information on the
doubling effort, see “Efforts to Double Certain R&D Accounts” above.
Table 15. NIST
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2015
FY2014
FY2015
House
Senate Cmte.
Enacted
Request
(H.R. 4660)
(S. 2437)
Base Budget
Scientific and Technical
Research and Services
$651.0
$680.0
670.5
685.0
Industrial Technology Services
143.0
161.0
130.0
156.0
Manufacturing Extension
Partnership 128.0
141.0
130.0
141.0
Advanced Manufacturing
Technology Consortia
15.0
15.0
0
15.0
Manufacturing Innovation
Institutes Coordination
—
5.0
0
N/A
Construction
56.0 59.0 55.3 59.0
NIST, Total (Base Budget)
850.0
900.0
855.8
900.0
Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative
National Network for Manufacturing
Innovation
—
2,400.0 N/A
N/A
Other NIST Research Activities
—
115.0 N/A
N/A
NIST, Total (OGSI)
— 2,515.0
N/A
N/A
Sources: NIST website (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/approps-summary2015.cfm), P.L. 113-76 and
Explanatory Statement, Administration’s FY2015 Budget Request, H.R. 4660, H.Rept. 113-448, S. 2437, and
S.Rept. 113-181.
Note: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
46
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration93
The Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration conducts
scientific research in areas such as ecosystems, climate, global climate change, weather, and
oceans; supplies information on the oceans and atmosphere; and manages coastal and marine
organisms and environments. NOAA was created in 1970 by Reorganization Plan No. 4.94 The
reorganization was intended to unify elements of the nation’s environmental activities and to
provide a systematic approach for monitoring, analyzing, and protecting the environment.
NOAA’s R&D efforts support the four long-term goals of NOAA’s Next Generation Strategic
Plan: (1) climate adaptation and mitigation, (2) a weather-ready nation,95 (3) healthy oceans, and
(4) resilient coastal communities and economies.96 The focus of NOAA’s R&D efforts include
climate; weather and air quality; and ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. NOAA’s R&D
funding supports intramural activities of the agency and extramural activities of private
individuals and organizations under grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements. NOAA has
developed a research and development plan to guide NOAA’s R&D activities for the next five
years.97 NOAA describes the plan as a framework under which NOAA and the public can monitor
and evaluate the agency’s progress and learn from past experience.
For FY2015, President Obama has requested $688.7 million in R&D funding for NOAA, a 3.4%
increase in funding from the FY2014 enacted level of $666.0 million. R&D accounts for 12.5%
of NOAA’s total FY2015 discretionary budget request of $5.491 billion. The R&D request
consists of $468.1 million for research (68.0%), $65.8 million for development (9.5%), and
$154.8 million for R&D equipment (22.5%).98
NOAA’s administrative structure has five line offices that reflect its diverse mission: the National
Ocean Service (NOS); National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); National Environmental
Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS); National Weather Service (NWS); and Office
of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). In addition to NOAA’s five line offices, Program
Support (PS), a cross-cutting budget activity, includes the Office of Marine and Aviation
Operations (OMAO).
The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research is the primary center for R&D within NOAA.
In FY2014, OAR accounted for 58.2% of NOAA’s R&D funding. The President’s FY2015
request would provide OAR with $424.8 million in R&D funding, which is 61.7% of total R&D
funding requested by NOAA and 91.9% of OAR’s total budget request of $462.2 million. Table
93 This section was written by Harold F. Upton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
94 “Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970,” 35 Federal Register 15627-15630, October 6, 1970; see also
http://www.lib.noaa.gov/noaainfo/heritage/ReorganizationPlan4.html.
95 According to NOAA a weather-ready nation is envisioned as a society that is prepared for and responds to weather-
related events.
96 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration FY2014
Budget Summary, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, April 2013,
http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/fy14_bluebook/FINALnoaaBlueBook_2014_Web_Full.pdf.
97 NOAA, Research and Development at NOAA, Five-Year Research and Development Plan 2013-2017, Washington,
DC, 2014, http://nrc.noaa.gov/CouncilProducts/ResearchPlans/5YearRDPlan/NOAA5YRPHome/Preface/
Purpose.aspx.
98 Courtney Barry, NOAA Budget Office, email, March 31, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
47
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
16 provides R&D funding levels by line office for FY2014 and the FY2015 request.99 The
appropriations bills and accompanying committee reports do not specify the R&D funding levels
for NOAA, but total agency and OAR funding have been provided in Table 15 for context.
The President’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative includes $1 billion for a Climate
Resilience Fund that would support activities across multiple agencies. NOAA would receive
$180 million from the OGSI for expanded weather, climate, and oceans observations and
research. NOAA would also receive $25 million from the Climate Resilience Fund for oceanic
and atmospheric research grants to improve understanding of the effects of climate change on
various sectors, and $50 million to improve coastal resilience by awarding competitive grants to
state, local, and tribal governments and nonprofit organizations.100 A significant portion of these
efforts would likely support or supplement ongoing R&D activities.
Table 16. NOAA R&D
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2014
FY2015
FY2014
Senate
Enacted
Request
House
Committee
National Ocean Service
$73.1
$75.0
National Marine Fisheries Service
67.0
61.4
National Weather Service
33.0
19.0
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and
26.0 26.0
Information Service
Office of Marine and Aviation Operationsa 79.1 82.4
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
387.8
424.8
Total, R&D
666.0
688.6
OAR Total, R&D and Non-R&D
426.8
462.2
379.8
430.0
NOAA Total, R&D and Non-R&D
5,314.6
5,488.7
5,337.1
5,420.0
Source: Courtney Barry, NOAA Budget Office, email to CRS concerning NOAA R&D, March 31, 2014
Notes:
a. R&D for the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations is for equipment in support of R&D activities.
99 Ibid.
100 NOAA, Budget Estimates Fiscal Year 2015, Congressional Submission, Washington, DC, March 2014, p. x,
http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/docs/NOAA_FY15_CJ_508%20compliant.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
48
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Department of Agriculture101
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was created in 1862 in part to conduct and support
agricultural research in an expanding and agriculturally dependent country. USDA houses
intramural research at federal facilities with government-employed scientists, and supports
external research at universities and other facilities through competitive grants and formula-based
funding. The breadth of contemporary USDA research spans traditional agricultural production
techniques, organic and sustainable agriculture, bioenergy, nutrition needs and composition, food
safety, animal and plant health, pest and disease management, economic decision making, and
other social sciences affecting consumers, farmers, and rural communities.
Four agencies carry out USDA’s research and education activities. The department groups these
agencies into the Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area. The agencies are the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA),
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), and Economic Research Service (ERS).102
Both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations reported their respective FY2015
Agriculture appropriations bills in May 2014 (H.R. 4800 and S. 2389). In each chamber, floor
action began in June 2014, but in both chambers proceedings stopped before the bills were
completed or brought to a final vote. In the House, most of H.R. 4800 was read procedurally on
the floor and several amendments were adopted before the bill was left unfinished. In the Senate,
agriculture was Division C of a minibus appropriation (S.Amdt. 3244 to H.R. 4660), but action
stopped over disagreements about procedures for amendments.103
For the USDA REE mission area, the House-reported bill would provide $2.804 billion, $165
million more than FY2014. The Senate-reported bill would provide $2.696 billion, $109 million
less than the House bill, but still an increase from FY2014 and consistent with the
Administration’s base request (see Table 17). The Administration also requested an additional
$277 million for a subset of REE activities under the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative
(OGSI). With the exception of a buildings and facilities appropriation that was included in the
House-reported bill, neither the House nor Senate bill funds the OGSI.
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is USDA’s in-house basic and applied research
agency. It operates approximately 90 laboratories nationwide with about 7,400 employees. ARS
also operates the National Agricultural Library, one of the Department’s primary information
repositories for food, agriculture, and natural resource sciences. ARS laboratories focus on
efficient food and fiber production, development of new products and uses for agricultural
commodities, development of effective controls for pest management, and support of USDA
regulatory and technical assistance programs.
101 This section was written by Jim Monke, Specialist in Agricultural Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
102 For more background on agricultural research, see CRS Report R40819, USDA’s Research, Education, and
Economics (REE) Mission Area: Issues and Background.
103 For more background on agricultural appropriations, see CRS Report R43669, Agriculture and Related Agencies:
FY2015 Appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
49
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
The House-reported bill would provide $1.120 billion for ARS salaries and expenses and $155
million for ARS buildings and facilities construction. The House-reported amount for salaries and
expenses is about even with the FY2014 amount, though it reflects an effective reduction of about
$7 million after adjusting for an administrative change in rental payment accounting. The $155
million for buildings and facilities was requested in the OGSI to construct a new bio-containment
lab at the Poultry Research Facility in Athens, GA. The Senate bill would provide $1.140 billion
for salaries and expenses, about $19 million more than the House bill, and nothing for buildings
and facilities construction.
Both the House and Senate report language reject the Administration’s request to close six ARS
research centers and to redirect research programs at other laboratories. Neither the House nor
Senate bill funds the Administration’s OGSI proposal for five high-priority ARS research areas.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA; formerly the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service)104 provides federal funding for research, education,
and extension projects conducted in partnership with the State Agricultural Experiment Stations,
the State Cooperative Extension System, land grant universities, colleges, and other research and
education institutions, as well as individual researchers. These partnerships include the 1862 land-
grant institutions, 1890 historically black colleges and universities, 1994 tribal land-grant
colleges, and Hispanic-serving institutions.105 Federal funds are distributed to enhance capacity at
universities and institutions by statutory formula funding, competitive awards, and grants.
The House-reported bill would provide $1.274 billion for NIFA, $3 million less than the FY2014
appropriation but effectively about $9 million less because of an accounting change to rental
payments. The Senate bill would provide about $19 million more than the House bill, which
represents a small increase over FY2014, even after the rental expense adjustment. The President
requested $1.336 billion, an increase of $59 million from FY2014 and more than either the House
or Senate bill provides.
The Administration proposed to establish three new “Innovation Institutes” that would focus on
emerging agricultural research challenges. The institutes would provide $75 million per year to
leverage private funding. Neither bill funds the institute model, although the research topics
(pollinator health, bio-manufacturing, and anti-microbial resistance) are addressed in other
program funding.
The department’s flagship competitive research grants program, the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative (AFRI) with about one-fourth of NIFA’s budget, would receive $325 million
(up 2.7% from FY2014) in each of the House and Senate bills and the Administration’s request.
As part of the Administration’s proposal for a government-wide reorganization of STEM
programs, NIFA would defund its Higher Education Challenge Grants, Graduate and
Postgraduate Fellowship Grants, the Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Program, Women
and Minorities in STEM Program, Agriculture in the Classroom, and Secondary and
Postsecondary Challenge Grants. (For more information on the proposed reorganization, see
“Reorganization of STEM Education Programs” above.) With the exception of the Agriculture in
104 The 2008 farm bill restructured and renamed this agricultural research agency.
105 The numbers 1862, 1890, and 1994 in this context refer to the years that laws were enacted creating these
classifications of colleges and universities, not to the number of institutions.
Congressional Research Service
50
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
the Classroom program that the House bill would defund, neither the House nor Senate bill
follows the Administration’s proposed reorganization (both bills continue these programs).
In addition to the base request of $1.336 billion for NIFA, the Administration proposes an
additional $80 million for NIFA through the OGSI. Most of this extra amount was to provide
increased support for additional AFRI competitive research grants ($60 million). The rest would
establish a new competitive research grant program to complement formula-funded NIFA grants.
Neither the House nor Senate bill addresses this request.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) conducts the Census of Agriculture and
provides official statistics on agricultural production and indicators of the economic and
environmental status of the farm sector. The House-reported bill would provide $169 million for
NASS, an increase of $8.2 million over FY2014, all of which is needed to cover the $9.2 million
additional cost of the administrative change in rental payments. The Senate-reported bill would
provide $178 million, nearly $9 million more than the House proposal and at the level of the
Administration’s request.
The Administration’s requested level would restore selected surveys that were reduced or
eliminated in recent years for budgetary reasons. These include a variety of fruit and vegetable
surveys and a chemical use survey. NASS would expand the use of geospatial information and
conduct surveys related to pollinator health. The request also included funding to begin planning
for the 2017 Census of Agriculture.
The Economic Research Service (ERS) supports economic and social science information
analysis on agriculture, rural development, food, commodity markets, and the environment. It
collects and disseminates data concerning USDA programs and policies to various stakeholders.
The House-reported bill would provide $86 million, an increase of nearly $8 million over
FY2014 and equal to the additional cost of the administrative change in rental payments. The
Senate-reported bill would provide slightly less than the House bill.
Congressional Research Service
51
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Table 17. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
Administration Request
House-
Senate-
Enacted
reported
reported
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 113-76
Base Budget
OGSI
H.R. 4800
S. 2389
Ag. Research Service: Salaries & expenses
$1,122.5
$1,104.4
$47.2
1,120.3
1,139.7
Buildings and facilities
— —
155.0 155.0 —
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
1,277.1
1,335.5
80.0
1,273.8
1,292.4
Research and Education
772.6
837.7
80.0
774.5
787.5
AFRI
316.4 325.0 60.0 325.0 325.0
Hatch
Act
243.7 243.7 15.0 243.7 243.7
Evans-Allen
52.5 52.5 5.0 52.5 52.5
McIntire-Stennis 34.0
34.0
—
34.0
34.0
Innovation
Institutes
— 75.0 — — —
Other 126.0
107.6
—
119.3
132.4
Extension 469.2
469.0
—
467.3
472.7
Smith-Lever (b) & (c)
300.0
300.0
—
300.0
300.0
Smith-Lever (d)
85.5
85.7
—
85.7
85.5
Other 83.7
83.2
—
81.6
87.2
Integrated Activities
35.3
28.8
—
32.0
32.2
National Agricultural Statistics Service
161.2
179.0
—
169.4 178.2
Economic Research Service
78.1
83.4
—
85.8 85.4
USDA,
Total
2,638.8 2,702.4 277.2 2,804.2 2,695.6
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the committee reports for S. 2389 and H.R. 4800; the joint explanatory
statement for P.L. 113-76; and the USDA FY2015 Budget Explanatory Notes, March 2014.
Congressional Research Service
52
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Department of the Interior106
The Department of the Interior (DOI) seeks to protect and manage the nation’s natural resources
and cultural heritage, and provides scientific and other information about those resources. DOI’s
responsibilities include, among other things, mapping, geological, hydrological, and biological
science; migratory bird and wildlife conservation; endangered species preservation; surface-
mined lands protection and restoration; and historic preservation.107
In March 2014, DOI provided detailed information to CRS on R&D funding levels proposed by
the President for each of its agencies and for broad program areas; these data were used for much
of the analysis in this section.108 The Administration has requested $888.7 million in DOI R&D
funding for FY2015, $60.4 million (7.3%) above its FY2014 enacted level of $828.4 million.
(See Table 18.) According to DOI,
Activities supported by this [R&D] funding range from scientific observations of the earth,
streams, and wildlife populations, to applied research in the field to better address the
impacts of a changing climate on Interior’s lands and address species specific problems such
as white nose syndrome in bats.109
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) accounts for most of DOI’s R&D ($649.5 million in
FY2014, 78.4% of total DOI R&D). USGS is also the most R&D-intensive agency in DOI, with
approximately two-thirds of its FY2015 request devoted to R&D activities.
In the President’s FY2015 budget, 6.2% of the requested R&D would be for basic research, 81%
for applied research, and 12.7% for development. The USGS is the only DOI agency that
conducts basic research.110
With respect to the appropriations process, funding for DOI R&D is generally included in line
items that also include non-R&D funding. Therefore it is not possible to know precisely how
much of the funding provided for in appropriations bills will be allocated to R&D unless funding
is provided at the precise level of the request. In general, R&D funding levels are known only
after DOI agencies allocate their appropriations to specific activities and report those figures.
Information on congressional appropriations actions related to research and development is
included in this section to the extent available.
106 This section was written by John F. Sargent, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
107 Department of the Interior, Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2014-2018, http://www.doi.gov/pmb/ppp/upload/DOI-
Strategic-Plan-for-FY-2014-2018-POSTED-ON-WEBSITE.pdf.
108 Email correspondence between the DOI budget office and CRS, March 7, 2014.
109 Department of the Interior, Fiscal Year 2015: The Interior Budget in Brief, March 2014, p. DH-35,
http://www.doi.gov/budget/appropriations/2015/highlights/upload/2015_Highlights_Book.pdf.
110 CRS analysis of unpublished information provided by the DOI budget office via email communication with CRS,
March 7, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
53
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
U.S. Geological Survey
All USGS funding is provided through a single account, Surveys, Investigations, and Research
(SIR). USGS R&D is conducted under seven SIR activity/program areas: Ecosystems; Climate
and Land Use Change; Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health; Natural Hazards; Water
Resources; Core Science Systems; and Science Support.
The President’s total FY2015 budget request for USGS (SIR account) is $1.073 billion. It
includes $685.1 million for R&D, an increase of $35.6 million (5.5%) over the FY2014 level of
$649.5 million. The largest R&D increase in the FY2015 USGS budget is for Climate Variability
(up $18.4 million, 34.3%), which is a part of the Climate Change and Land Use activity area (up
$17.8 million, 18.6%). Other activity/program areas receiving additional funding in the request
include Ecosystems (up $9.2 million, 6.0%) and Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health (up
$7.6 million, 8.3%). Water Resources and Core Science Systems would receive smaller increases.
Natural Hazards and Science Support funding would be reduced.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommends $1.036 billion for the SIR account in
FY2015, $3.7 million more than in FY2014 and $37.6 million less than the request. The
committee-recommended level includes $153.2 million for Ecosystems; $133.4 million for
Climate and Land Use Change; $91.6 million for Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health;
$133.2 million for Natural Hazards; $209.3 for Water Resources; $106.2 million for Core Science
Systems; $105.6 million for Science Support; and $103.3 million for Facilities.111
Other DOI Agencies
Other DOI agencies also receive funding for R&D:
• The FY2015 request for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management includes
$50.2 million for applied research, an increase of $2.4 million (5.0%).
• The FY2015 request for the Fish and Wildlife Service includes $49.9 million for
applied research, an increase of $19.5 million (63.8%). The House
Appropriations Committee recommends $5.1 million for science, $12.1 million
below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $5.1 million above the budget
request. The committee also “encourages the Service to reconsider its approach
and to propose future increases for science within the budgets of existing
programs that need the science, such as fisheries, refuges, migratory birds, and
endangered species, if such science is a priority for the programs.”
• The FY2015 request for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
includes $27.1 million for applied research, essentially unchanged. The House
Appropriations Committee recommends $14.9 million for oil spill research, equal
to FY2014 and the FY2015 request.
• The FY2015 request for the National Park Service includes $27.0 million for
applied research and development, an increase of $0.2 million (0.7%).
111 H.Rept. 113-551.
Congressional Research Service
54
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
• The FY2015 request for the Bureau of Land Management includes $22.4 million
for applied research and development, an increase of $3.2 million (16.4%).
• The FY2015 request for the Bureau of Reclamation includes $12.7 million for
applied research and development, a decrease of $3.9 million (23.5%).
• The FY2015 request for Wildland Fire Management includes $6.0 million in
FY2015 for applied research, the same as in FY2014.
• The FY2015 request for the Bureau of Indian Affairs includes $5.0 million for
applied research, the same as in FY2014.
• The FY2015 request for the Office of Surface Mining includes $3.4 million for
applied research; this office received no R&D funding in FY2014.112
Table 18 summarizes R&D funding for DOI agencies.
Table 18. Department of the Interior R&D
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2014
FY2015
H. Cmte.
Enacted
Request
H.R. 5171
U.S. Geological Survey
$649.5
$685.1
a
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
47.8
50.2
a
Fish and Wildlife Service
30.5
49.9
a
Bureau of Safety and Environmental
a
Enforcement 27.1
27.1
National Park Service
26.8
27.0
a
Bureau of Land Management
19.2
22.4
a
Bureau of Reclamation
16.6
12.7
a
Wildland Fire Management
6.0
6.0
a
Bureau of Indian Affairs
5.0
5.0
a
Office of Surface Mining
— 3.4
a
DOI, Total
828.4
888.7
a
Source: Unpublished data provided to CRS by the DOI Budget Office.
Note: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
a. Determination of total agency R&D funding is not possible at this time due to its inclusion in agency
account(s) that also include non-R&D funding.
112 Email correspondence between the DOI budget office and CRS, March 7, 2014; H.Rept. 113-551.
Congressional Research Service
55
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Environmental Protection Agency113
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal regulatory agency responsible for
carrying out a number of environmental pollution control laws, funds a broad range of R&D
activities to provide scientific tools and knowledge to support decisions relating to preventing,
regulating, and abating environmental pollution. Beginning in FY2006, EPA has been funded
through the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. Funding for EPA
R&D is generally included in line items that also include non-R&D activities; therefore, it is not
possible to identify precisely how much of the funding provided for in appropriations bills will be
allocated to EPA R&D specifically (see discussion later in this section). The agency’s Science and
Technology (S&T) account funds much of EPA’s scientific research activities, including R&D
and other related scientific evaluations conducted by universities, foundations, and other non-
federal entities that receive EPA grants, as well as R&D conducted by the agency at its own
laboratories and facilities. The S&T account is funded by a “base” appropriation and a transfer
from the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) account. The transferred funds are
dedicated to research on more effective methods to clean up contaminated sites.
H.R. 5171, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2015, as reported by the House Committee on Appropriations, included $735.4 million for
FY2015 for EPA’s S&T account, including transfers from the Hazardous Substance Superfund
account ($18.9 million). The total amount is $47.2 million (6.0%) less than the President’s
FY2015 budget request of $782.6 million for EPA’s S&T account, including transfers and $43.0
million (5.5%) below the $778.4 million included for FY2014 in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76, Title II of Division G) enacted January 17, 2014. The proposed amount
for the S&T account (including transfers) represented about 10% of the agency total $7.48 billion,
roughly the same ratio as the FY2015 requested.
In testimony before Congress, the EPA Administrator reported that the proposed Opportunity,
Growth, and Security Initiative (see “Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative”) would
include $1.0 billion for a Climate Resilience Fund for research and data collection across multiple
federal departments and agencies to “better understand and prepare for the impacts of a changing
climate.”114 For EPA efforts addressing impacts of climate change, the fund would provide $10.0
million for protecting and enhancing coastal wetlands and $5.0 million to support urban forest
enhancement and protection. This funding is separate from the base request for the S&T account
and other EPA appropriations accounts.
As indicated in Table 19, the FY2015 total base (prior to transfers) included in the House
Committee reported bill (H.R. 5171) for the S&T account was $716.6 million, $47.2 million
(6.2%) less than the requested total base for the S&T account of $763.8 million, $42.6 million
113 This section was written by Robert Esworthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
114 See Administrator McCarthy testimony during Compressional hearings on EPA’s Fiscal Year 2015 Budget: April 2,
2014, before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Power and Subcommittee on
Environment and Economy, http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/fiscal-year-2015-epa-budget; and March 26,
2014, before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_id=bffc28f9-f780-7d6d-66c5-1b8d66ce2ce8&CFID=121355238&
CFTOKEN=49508863.
Congressional Research Service
56
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
(5.6%) below the FY2014 level of $759.2 million. The $18.9 million FY2015 proposed transfer
from the Superfund account the same as requested but less than the $19.2 million transferred in
FY2014. As indicated in EPA’s FY2015 congressional budget justification115 and reflected in the
table, the FY2015 base amount for the S&T account proposed in H.R. 5171 as reported includes
mostly decreases for individual EPA research program and activity line items below the account
level compared to the FY2015 request and FY2014 enacted amounts. The two largest proposed
decreases below the FY2015 request in dollar terms in H.R. 5171 as reported within the S&T
account are for “Research: Air and Climate Change,” and “Research: Safe and Sustainable Water
Resources.” As indicated in Table 1, the proposed amount included in the House Committee-
reported bill for each of these sub-account program activities is $11.6 million below the requested
levels.
H.R. 5171 as reported included $4.2 million for “Research: National Priorities” for FY2015, the
same as in FY2014 enacted, for competitively awarded research grants to fund “high-priority
water quality and availability research by not-for-profit organizations.”116 As in previous requests,
the President’s FY2015 budget request did not include funding for these “national priorities.”117
The FY2015 request proposed eliminating $0.2 million within the S&T account appropriated in
FY2014 to support radon testing. Proposed elimination of this funding was also included in the
FY2014 budget request.118 The House Committee did not specify funding for the radon within the
S&T account in the reported bill or the accompanying report (H.Rept. 113-551). Also as in the
FY2014 request, the FY2015 budget proposed eliminating the indoor radon (categorical) state
grants ($8.1 million) in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account.119 The House
Committee rejected the proposed elimination of the radon categorical grants within the STAG
account for FY2015, and proposed restoring the funding at FY2014 levels.120
The EPA S&T account incorporates elements of the former EPA Research and Development
account, as well as portions of the former Salaries and Expenses and Program Operations
accounts, which were in place until FY1996.121 Although the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) reports historical and projected budget authority (BA) for R&D at EPA (and other federal
agencies),122 OMB documents do not describe how these amounts explicitly relate to the
requested and appropriated funding amounts for the many specific EPA program activities.
Typically, the R&D BA amounts reported by OMB have been considerably less than amounts
115 U.S. EPA, Fiscal Year 2015 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations: Science
and Technology, pp. 77-188, http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/
fy_15_congressional_justification.pdf.
116 See H.Rept. 113-551, p 58.
117 Ibid.
118 See EPA’s FY2015 Congressional Justification (footnote 115), pp.101-102.
119 See EPA’s FY2015 Congressional Justification (footnote 115), pp. ix, 769-770.
120 See H.Rept. 113-551, p 72.
121 In recent years, EPA’s annual appropriations have been requested, considered, and enacted according to eight
statutory appropriations accounts established by Congress during the FY1996 appropriations process. Because of the
differences in the scope of the activities included in these accounts, apt comparisons before and after FY1996 are
difficult.
122 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reports R&D budget authority (BA) amounts in its Analytical
Perspectives accompanying the annual President’s budget request. See OMB, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget of the United
States: Analytical Perspectives—Special Topics/Research and Development, pp. 309-315, http://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/topics.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
57
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
requested and appropriated for the S&T account as a whole. This may be an indication that not all
of the EPA S&T account funding is allocated to R&D. (The amounts reported by OMB are
included in Table 19 for purposes of comparison.)
R&D at EPA headquarters and laboratories around the country, as well as external R&D, is
managed primarily by EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD). A large portion of the
S&T account funds EPA R&D activities managed by ORD, including the agency’s research
laboratories and research grants. The account also provides funding for the agency’s applied
science and technology activities conducted through its program offices (e.g., the Office of
Water). Many of the programs implemented by other offices within EPA have a research
component, but the research component is not often the primary focus of the program.
Table 19. Environmental Protection Agency S&T Account
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
Enacted
FY2015
H.R. 5171
(P.L. 113-76)
Request
As Reported
Science and Technology Appropriations Account
Clean Air and Climate
$120.4
$118.5
$112.7
Clean Air Al owance Trading Program
8.6
8.4
NR
Climate Protection Program
8.3
8.0
8.0
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
7.0
7.0
NR
Federal Vehicle & Fuel Standards & Certification
96.5
95.0
NR
Enforcement 14.1
14.1
13.1
Homeland Security
38.4
39.4
38.3
Indoor Air and Radiation
6.4
6.1
6.1
Indoor Air: Radon
0.2
0.0
NR
Radiation: Protection
2.1
2.0
NR
Radiation: Response Preparedness
3.8
3.7
NR
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
0.3
0.4
NR
IT/Data Management/Security
3.5
3.1
3.1
Operations & Administration
70.4
75.8
70.4
Pesticide Licensing
6.2
6.2
6.2
Research: Air, Climate, and Energy
95.0
101.9
90.3
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
130.8 136.5 130.8
Human Health Risk Assessment
40.0
37.9
NR
Research: Computational toxicology
21.4
28.6
28.6
Research: Endocrine disruptor
16.3
15.7
16.9
Research: Other Activities
53.2
54.3
NR
Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
111.0
114.2
102.6
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
155.0
144.1
135.1
Congressional Research Service
58
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
FY2014
FY2015
Enacted
FY2015
H.R. 5171
(P.L. 113-76)
Request
As Reported
Water: Human Health Protection (Drinking Water Programs)
3.6
3.7
3.7
Research: National [Congressional] Priorities (Water Quality and
Availability)
4.2 0.0 4.2
Subtotal S&T Account Base Appropriations
759.2
763.8
716.6
Transfer in from Hazardous Substance Superfund Account
19.2
18.8
18.8
EPA, Total (Science and Technology)
778.4
782.6
735.4
EPA, R&D Budget Authority Reported by OMB
560.0
560.0
N/A
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. Unless otherwise specified the amounts presented in
the tables are as reported in the House Committee Report (H.Rept. 113-551) accompanying H.R. 5171 as
reported. In those instances where the FY2015 House Committee Report (H.Rept. 113-551) did not specify
funding amounts (NR= not reported) for these sub-program activities, amounts for FY2014 enacted and FY2015
requested presented in the table are as reported in EPA’s FY2015 Congressional Justification,
http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/fy2015; EPA’s total funding amounts match those reported in the committee
report. OMB amounts of R&D budget authority are as reported in OMB, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget of the United
States: Analytical Perspectives—Special Topics/Research and Development, pp. 309-315,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/topics.pdf. Totals may differ from the
sum of the components due to rounding.
Department of Transportation123
The Department of Transportation (DOT) seeks to ensure a fast, safe, efficient, accessible, and
convenient transportation system. DOT’s goals include improving public health and safety by
reducing transportation-related fatalities and injuries; ensuring the United States maintains critical
transportation infrastructure in a state of good repair; promoting transportation policies and
investments that bring lasting and equitable economic benefits; fostering livable communities by
integrating transportation policies, plans, and investments with housing and economic
development policies; and advancing environmentally sustainable policies and investments that
reduce carbon and other harmful emissions from transportation sources.
President Obama has requested $896.3 million for Department of Transportation R&D in
FY2015, an increase of $21.9 million (2.5%) from the FY2014 enacted level. (See Table 20.)
Two DOT agencies—the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA)—account for more than three-fourths of the department’s R&D funding
(76.9% in the FY2015 request).124
With respect to the appropriations process, funding for DOT R&D is generally included in line
items that also include non-R&D funding. Therefore it is not possible to know precisely how
much of the funding provided for in appropriations bills will be allocated to R&D unless funding
123 This section was written by John F. Sargent, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
124 The R&D funding figures in this section come from unpublished data provided by the DOT to CRS; DOT agencies’
congressional budget justifications; the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s March 4, 2014, press release, The
FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget: Science, Technology, and Innovation for Opportunity and Growth; and
House and Senate bills and reports.
Congressional Research Service
59
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
is provided at the precise level of the request. In general, R&D funding levels are known only
after DOT agencies allocate their appropriations to specific activities and report those figures.
The section will provide appropriations information on House and Senate actions where bills and
accompanying reports provide such detail.
Federal Highway Administration
The Federal Highway Administration would receive $406.8 million in R&D funding in FY2015
under the President’s request, an increase of $38.0 million (10.3%) from the FY2014 enacted
level.125 Of these funds, $130.0 million would support highway R&D, up $20.9 million (19.1%);
$94.5 million would support Intelligent Transportation Systems R&D, up $15.1 million (19.0%);
$165.9 would be for State Planning and Research, up $2.0 million (1.2%); and $16.4 million
would be for administrative expenses.
Federal Aviation Administration
The Federal Aviation Administration is requesting $282.1 million for R&D and R&D facilities in
FY2015, a decrease of $38.3 million (11.9%) from the FY2014 enacted level. The FY2015
request includes $256.9 million for research and development, a decrease of $46.5 million
(15.3%), and $25.2 million for R&D facilities, an increase of $8.2 million (48.5%).
Of these funds, $156.8 million are included in the FAA’s Research, Engineering, and
Development (RE&D) account (down $2.0 million, 1.3%). All RE&D account funding is research
and development. The RE&D account supports research in NextGen-specific areas such as wake
turbulence, human factors, and clean aircraft technologies, as well as in fire safety, propulsion
systems, advanced materials, aircraft icing, and continued airworthiness. The House-passed bill
(H.R. 4745) would provide $156.8 million for the RE&D account in FY2015; the bill reported by
the Senate Committee on Appropriations (S. 2438) would also provide $156.8 million.
Within the RE&D account, the request includes $94.5 million for safety research, up $7.2 million
(8.3%) from FY2014; $22.3 million for research in support of economic competitiveness, down
$2.0 million (8.4%); $34.4 million for research supporting environmental sustainability, down
$7.1 million (17.2%); and $5.5 million for mission support, down $0.1 million (1.7%). The House
report (H.Rept. 113-464) recommends $91.0 million for safety research, $22.3 million for
research in support of economic competitiveness, $38.0 for research supporting environmental
sustainability, and $5.6 million for mission support. The Senate report (S.Rept. 113-182)
recommends $92.5 million for safety research, $22.3 million for research in support of economic
competitiveness, $36.4 for research supporting environmental sustainability, and $5.4 million for
mission support.
Included in the RE&D funding discussed above, the request for FY2015 includes $47.5 million in
funding for NextGen RE&D research activities, down $10.8 million (18.5%) from the FY2014
enacted level.126 H.Rept. 113-464 recommends $51.3 million for NextGen RE&D activities,
125 FHWA, Budget Estimates Fiscal Year 2015: Federal Highway Administration, http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/
files/docs/FHWA-FY2015-Budget-Estimates.pdf.
126 FAA, Budget Estimates Fiscal Year 2015: Federal Aviation Administration, http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/
docs/FAA-FY2015-Budget-Estimates.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
60
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
including increases above the requested levels for alternative fuels ($0.3 million) and aircraft
technologies, fuels, and metrics ($3.5 million); S.Rept. 113-182 recommends $49.8 million for
NextGen RE&D activities.
Within the Administration and Research Program account, the FAA requested $15 million for the
Airport Cooperative Research Program for FY2015, equal to the FY2014 level, and $29.8 million
for airport technology research, up $0.3 million from FY2014. Both the House-passed and the
Senate Committee-reported bills would provide the requested levels for the Airport Cooperative
Research Program and airport technology research for FY2015.
The FAA Facilities and Equipment account includes funding for R&D as well.
Other DOT Agencies
A number of other DOT agencies fund research and development.
• The FY2015 request includes $75.1 million in R&D funding for the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, up $9.9 million (15.2%). It is not
possible to parse the R&D from other NHTSA funding in the House and Senate
appropriations bills. The House Committee on Appropriations supports the
requested increases for vehicle electronics and emerging technology research,
and encourages heavy duty vehicle safety research for fleets and owner-
operators, and research to advance predictive engineering for plastics and
polymer-based composites in the automotive field. The Senate Committee
supports research on fuel efficiency improving technologies, emerging alternative
fuel systems, and motorcoach safety regulatory activities including the
prevention and mitigation of fires.
• The FY2015 request for Federal Railroad Administration R&D total $61.9
million, an increase of $21.9 million (54.7%) over FY2014. The request includes
$35.1 million in FRA’s Railroad Research and Development account, slightly
below the FY2014 level of $35.3 million. The House-passed bill would provide
$35.3 million for the Railroad R&D account for FY2015; the Senate Committee-
passed bill would provide $40.7 million.
• The FY2015 request includes $28.2 million for Federal Transit Administration
R&D, down by a third from its $42.2 million level in FY2014. The House-passed
bill would provide $15.0 million for the FTA Transit Research account in
FY2015, down $28.0 million from the FY2014 level of $43.0 million; the Senate
Committee-passed bill would provide $33.0 million.
• The FY2015 request includes $21.1 million in R&D funding for the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, up $4.8 million (29.3%) from
FY2014. It is not possible to parse the R&D from other PHMSA funding in the
House and Senate appropriations bills.
• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration R&D would fall by $1.5 million
(19.4%) to $6.1 million in FY2015, down from $7.5 million in FY2014. It is not
Congressional Research Service
61
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
possible to parse the R&D from other FMCSA funding in the House and Senate
appropriations bills.127
The DOT FY2015 request also includes $15.0 million for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Research and Technology, up $1.0 million (7.2%) from FY2014.128 As requested by DOT in its
FY2014 request, Congress eliminated the Research and Innovative Technology Administration
(RITA), and moved its programs and related funding to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Research and Technology in the Office of the Secretary under the provisions of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76). The House-passed bill would provide $12.6 million for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology for FY2015; the Senate
Committee-reported bill would provide $13.5 million.
Table 20 summarizes R&D funding for the DOT agencies.
Table 20. Department of Transportation R&D
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2015
FY2014
FY2015
House-passed
S. Cmte.
Enacted
Request
(H.R. 4745)
(S. 2438)
Federal Highway Administration
$368.8
$406.8
a
a
Federal Aviation Administration
320.4
282.1
a
a
National Highway Traffic Safety
a
a
Administration 65.1
75.1
Federal Railroad Administration
40.0
61.9
a
a
Federal Transit Administration
42.2
28.2
a
a
Pipeline & Hazardous Materials
a
a
Safety Administration
16.3
21.1
Office of the Secretary
14.0
15.0
a
a
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
a
a
Administration 7.5
6.1
DOT, Total
874.4
896.3
a
a
Source: DOT FY2015 department and agency budget justification; email communication between CRS and the
Department of Transportation, March 27, 2014.
Notes: Figures include R&D and R&D facilities. Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to
rounding.
a. Determination of total agency R&D funding is not possible at this time due to its inclusion in agency
accounts that also include non-R&D funding.
127 Email communication between CRS and the Department of Transportation, March 27, 2014; H.R. 4745; H.Rept.
113-464; S. 2438; and S.Rept. 113-182.
128 Email communication between CRS and the Department of Transportation, March 27, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
62
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Department of Veterans Affairs129
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) operates programs to provide America’s veterans with
medical care, benefits, social support, and memorials.130 VA provides a broad range of primary
care, specialized care, and related medical and social support services. VA seeks to advance
medical R&D in areas that most directly address the diseases and conditions that affect veterans
and eligible beneficiaries.
Funding for VA R&D is generally included in line items that also include non-R&D funding.
Therefore it is not possible to know precisely how much of the funding provided for in
appropriations bills will be allocated to R&D unless funding is provided at the precise level of the
request. In general, R&D funding levels are known only after the VA allocates its appropriations
to specific activities and reports those figures. The R&D funding figures in this section come
from the VA’s 2015 Congressional Submission and the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s
The FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget: Science, Technology, and Innovation for
Opportunity and Growth.131
The President has proposed $1.178 billion for VA R&D in FY2015, up 0.3% from FY2014. VA
research focuses on biomedical topics of special relevance to wounded soldiers, including clinical
and translational research.132 The VA has requested $589.0 million for its Medical and Prosthetic
Research account and an equal amount for VA research as part of its Medical Care appropriation.
The Medical and Prosthetic Research account supports medical, rehabilitative, and health services
research. VA medical research includes basic and clinical studies that advance knowledge leading
to improvements in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases and disabilities.
Rehabilitation research focuses on rehabilitation engineering problems in the fields of prosthetics,
orthotics, adaptive equipment for vehicles, sensory aids, and related areas. Health services
research focuses on improving the effectiveness and economy of the delivery of health
services.133
According to the VA, FY2015 research will emphasize addressing the critical needs of veterans of
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and Operation New Dawn
(OND), while continuing to address the health care needs of all veterans. A primary focus of
FY2015 research will be the ability to extract knowledge from large, complex collections of
digital data, including the storage, retrieval, and analysis of biological data. To store and manage
129 This section was written by John F. Sargent, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
130 VA administers compensation benefits, pension benefits, fiduciary services, education benefits, vocational
rehabilitation and employment services, transition services, and home loan and life insurance programs. VA also
operates the largest national cemetery system for veterans, eligible beneficiaries, and their families.
131 EOP, OSTP, “The FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget: Science, Technology, and Innovation for
Opportunity and Growth,” press release, March 4, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
2015%20Budget%20Release.pdf.
132 EOP, OSTP, “The FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget: Science, Technology, and Innovation for
Opportunity and Growth,” press release, March 4, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
2015%20Budget%20Release.pdf.
133 S.Rept. 113-174.
Congressional Research Service
63
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
the data, the VA Million Veteran Program (MVP) is building one of the world’s largest medical
databases, GenISIS, to support MVP and VA genomic-medicine studies.134
Table 21 summarizes R&D program funding for VA, in total, and for certain efforts, including
OEF/OIF/OND-focused research, Prosthetics, Women’s Health, Gulf War Veterans Illness
programs, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and other neurodegenerative disorders, and
Genomic Medicine.
Table 21. Department of Veterans Affairs R&D
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2015
FY2014
FY2015
House
S. Cmte.
Enacted
Request
(H.R. 4486)
(H.R. 4486)
VA, Total
$1,174
$1,178
a
a
Selected VA Research Efforts
a
a
OEF/OIF/OND
a
Pain 18.9
19.2
a
a
Post-deployment Mental Health
55.4
56.3
a
a
Sensory Loss
17.7
17.9
a
a
Spinal Cord Injury
28.8
29.2
a
a
Traumatic Brain Injury and Other
a
a
Neurotrauma 35.0
35.5
Prosthetics 12.7
12.9
a
a
Women’s Health
16.6
16.8
a
a
Gulf War Veterans Illness
15.0
15.0
a
a
ALS and Other Neurodegenerative
a
a
Disorders 37.2
37.8
Genomic Medicine, including MVP
51.5
52.2
a
a
Source: Department of Veterans Affairs, 2015 Congressional Submission, p. Highlights-33, http://www.va.gov/
budget/docs/summary/Fy2015-VolumeI-Summary.pdf.
Notes: Italicized lines do not add to total.
a. Determination of total R&D funding is not possible at this time due to its inclusion in VA accounts that also
include non-R&D funding.
134 VA describes MVP as, “a national, voluntary research program funded entirely by the Department of Veterans
Affairs Office of Research & Development ... to study how genes affect health ... by safely collecting blood samples
and health information from one million Veteran volunteers. Data collected from MVP will be stored anonymously for
research on diseases like diabetes and cancer, and military-related illnesses, such as post-traumatic stress disorder.”
Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Research and Development, website, http://www.research.va.gov/MVP.
Congressional Research Service
64
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Appendix. Acronyms and Abbreviations
Glossary
ACE
Air, Climate, and Energy
ACI
American Competitiveness Initiative
AD
Alzheimer’s Disease
AFRI
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
AMP
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership
AMTech
Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia
AOAM
Agency Operations and Award Management
ARPA-E
Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy
ARS
Agricultural Research Service
B&F
Buildings & Facilities
BD2K
Big Data to Knowledge
BES
Basic Energy Sciences
BIO
Directorate for Biological Sciences
BioMaPS
Research at the Interface of Biological, Mathematical, and Physical Sciences
BRAIN
Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies
CAN
Cures Acceleration Network
CAUSE
Catalyzing and Advancing Undergraduate STEM Education
CEMMSS
Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems
CIF21
Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science, Engineering, and Education
CRF
Construction of Research Facilities
DARPA
Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency
DHS
Department of Homeland Security
DKIST
Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope
DOC
Department of Commerce
DOD
Department of Defense
DOE
Department of Energy
DOI
Department of the Interior
DOT
Department of Transportation
EERE
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
EHR
Education and Human Resources
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
EPM
Environmental Program and Management
EPSCoR
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
ERS
Economic Research Service
FAA
Federal Aviation Administration
Congressional Research Service
65
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
FDA
Food and Drug Administration
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
FIC
Fogarty International Center
GAO
Government Accountability Office
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GEO
Directorate for Geosciences
GRF
Graduate Research Fel owship
GRO
Greater Research Opportunities
GWOT
Global War on Terror
HHS
Department of Health and Human Services
ICER
Integrative and Collaborative Education and Research
ICs
Institutes and Centers
IFF
Iraqi Freedom Fund
IG
Inspector General
IGERT
Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship
ISS
International Space Station
ITER
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
ITS
Industrial Technology Services
IUSE
Improving Undergraduate STEM Education
JIEDDF
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
LBNE
Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment
LCLS-II
Linac Coherent Light Source II
LSST
Large Synoptic Survey Telescope
MEP
Manufacturing Extension Partnership
MGI
Materials Genome Initiative
MPCV
Multipurpose Crew Vehicle
MREFC
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction
Mu2e
Muon to Electron Conversion Experiment
MRAPVF
Mine Resistant and Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASS
National Agricultural Statistics Service
NBAF
National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility
NCATS
National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
NCCAM
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
NCI
National Cancer Institute
NCSES
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
NEI
National Eye Institute
NEON
National Ecological Observatory Network
Congressional Research Service
66
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
NESDIS
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
NHGRI
National Human Genome Research Institute
NHLBI
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
NIA
National Institute on Aging
NIAAA
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
NIAID
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
NIAMS
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
NIBIB
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
NICHD
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
NIDA
National Institute on Drug Abuse
NIDCD
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
NIDCR
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research
NIDDK
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
NIEHS
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
NIFA
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
NIGMS
National Institute of General Medical Sciences
NIH
National Institutes of Health
NIMH
National Institute of Mental Health
NIMHD
National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities
NINDS
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
NINR
National Institute of Nursing Research
NIST
National Institute of Standards and Technology
NITRD
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
NLM
National Library of Medicine
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service
NNI
National Nanotechnology Initiative
NNMI
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOS
National Ocean Service
NRC
National Research Council
NRI
National Robotics Initiative
NRT
NSF Research Traineeships
NSB
National Science Board
NSLS-II
National Synchrotron Light Source II
NSTC
National Science and Technology Council
NWS
National Weather Service
OAR
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
OCO
Overseas Contingency Operations
Congressional Research Service
67
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
OCO-3
Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3
OGSI
Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative
OMAO
Office of Marine and Aviation Operations
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
OOI
Ocean Observatories Initiative
ORD
Office of Research and Development
OSTP
Office of Science and Technology Policy
PHS
Public Health Service
R&D
Research and Development
R&E
Research and Experimentation
RDT&E
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
RE&D
Research, Engineering, and Development
REE
Research, Education, and Economics
REU
Research Experiences for Undergraduates
RIID
Radioisotope Identification Device
RITA
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
RPG
Research Project Grant
RRA
Research and Related Activities
S&T
Science and Technology
SaTC
Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace
SBE
Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences
SEES
Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability
SIR
Surveys, Investigations, and Research
SLS
Space Launch System
SOFIA
Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy
SSW
Safe and Sustainable Water
STAG
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
STAR
Science to Achieve Results
STEM
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
STRS
Scientific and Technical Research and Services
USARC
U.S. Arctic Research Commission
USDA
Department of Agriculture
USGCRP
U.S. Global Change Research Program
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
VA
Veterans Administration
Congressional Research Service
68
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2015
Author Contact Information
John F. Sargent Jr., Coordinator
Jim Monke
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
jsargent@crs.loc.gov, 7-9147
jmonke@crs.loc.gov, 7-9664
Robert Esworthy
Daniel Morgan
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
resworthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-7236
dmorgan@crs.loc.gov, 7-5849
Heather B. Gonzalez
John D. Moteff
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
hgonzalez@crs.loc.gov, 7-1895
jmoteff@crs.loc.gov, 7-1435
Judith A. Johnson
Harold F. Upton
Specialist in Biomedical Policy
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
jajohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-7077
hupton@crs.loc.gov, 7-2264
Congressional Research Service
69