Federal Research and Development Funding:
FY2016
John F. Sargent Jr., Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
March 18, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43944
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Summary
President Obama’s budget request for FY2016 includes $145.694 billion for R&D in FY2016, an
increase of $7.625 billion (5.5%) over the estimated FY2015 R&D funding level of $138.069
billion. 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. Budget caps
may limit overall R&D funding and may require movement of resources across disciplines,
programs, or agencies to address priorities.
Funding for R&D is concentrated in a few departments and agencies. Under President Obama’s
FY2016 budget request, seven federal agencies would receive 95.6% of total federal R&D
funding, with the Department of Defense (DOD, 49.5%) and the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS, 21.3%) accounting for more than 70% of all federal R&D funding. The
largest increases in agency R&D funding in the President’s request would go to the Department
of Defense (DOD, up $4.670 billion, 6.9%), Department of Energy (DOE, up $861 million,
7.3%), and the Department of Commerce (DOC, up $601 million, 39.4%).
Legislation targeted the R&D budgets of the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
National Science Foundation, and DOE Office of Science seeking to double them from their
FY2006 levels. The America COMPETES Act aimed to double funding over 7 years, and the
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 over 11 years. The President’s FY2016
budget requests increases for these accounts, like the FY2015 and FY2014 requests. It departs
from earlier Obama and Bush Administration budgets that explicitly stated the doubling goal.
Enacted funding for FY2015 for these accounts represents a compound annual growth rate of
3.25% since FY2006, a rate that would result in doubling in 22 years.
The President’s FY2016 request continues support for three multi-agency R&D initiatives—the
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the Networking and Information Technology Research
and Development (NITRD) program, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).
The request also continues support for the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative
Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative, the Materials Genome Initiative, and the National
Robotics Initiative. The President has proposed FY2016 discretionary funding for seven new
manufacturing institutes as part of his proposed National Network for Manufacturing Innovation
(NNMI), in addition to the nine that have already been planned, competed, or awarded. The
President also proposes $1.9 billion in mandatory funding for the establishment of 29 additional
institutes between FY2017 and FY2024. In addition, the FY2016 budget proposes a new
multiagency R&D initiative, the Precision Medicine Initiative which seeks to build on research
and discoveries that allow medical treatments to be tailored to an individual’s unique
characteristics (e.g., a patient’s genes) or the genetic profile of an individual’s tumor.
In 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: FY2016
Contents
Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 1
The President’s FY2016 Budget Request ........................................................................................ 3
Federal R&D Funding Perspectives ................................................................................................ 4
Federal R&D by Agency ........................................................................................................... 4
Federal R&D by Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment ............................................... 6
Federal Role in U.S. R&D by Character of Work ..................................................................... 6
Federal R&D by Agency and Character of Work Combined .................................................... 7
Defense-Related and Nondefense-Related R&D....................................................................... 8
Multiagency R&D Initiatives ........................................................................................................... 8
Efforts to Double Certain R&D Accounts ................................................................................. 8
National Nanotechnology Initiative ......................................................................................... 12
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program .................... 12
U.S. Global Change Research Program ................................................................................... 13
BRAIN Initiative ..................................................................................................................... 13
Precision Medicine Initiative ................................................................................................... 14
Materials Genome Initiative .................................................................................................... 14
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership ..................................................................................... 15
National Robotics Initiative .............................................................................................. 16
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation ............................................................. 16
Reorganization of STEM Education Programs ....................................................................... 17
FY2016 Appropriations Status ....................................................................................................... 18
Department of Defense .................................................................................................................. 20
Department of Homeland Security ................................................................................................ 23
Department of Health and Human Services ................................................................................... 26
National Institutes of Health .................................................................................................... 26
Department of Energy .................................................................................................................... 31
National Science Foundation ......................................................................................................... 34
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ........................................................................... 38
Department of Commerce .............................................................................................................. 41
National Institute of Standards and Technology ...................................................................... 42
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ................................................................ 44
Department of Agriculture ............................................................................................................. 47
Agricultural Research Service ................................................................................................. 47
National Institute of Food and Agriculture .............................................................................. 48
National Agricultural Statistics Service ................................................................................... 49
Economic Research Service .................................................................................................... 49
Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................. 50
U.S. Geological Survey ........................................................................................................... 51
Other DOI Components ........................................................................................................... 51
Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 53
Department of Transportation ........................................................................................................ 56
Federal Highway Administration............................................................................................. 57
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Federal Aviation Administration .............................................................................................. 57
Other DOT Components .......................................................................................................... 57
Department of Veterans Affairs...................................................................................................... 59
Figures
Figure 1. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling: Appropriations, Authorizations,
and Requests versus Selected Doubling Rates ........................................................................... 11
Tables
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2014-FY2016 ..................... 5
Table 2. Federal R&D Funding by Character of Work and Facilities and Equipment,
FY2014-FY2016 ........................................................................................................................... 6
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2014-FY2016 ................................................................................................ 7
Table 4. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling, FY2006-FY2016 ....................................... 9
Table 5. National Nanotechnology Initiative Funding, FY2014-FY2016 ..................................... 12
Table 6. Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program
Funding, FY2014-FY2016 ......................................................................................................... 13
Table 7. Alignment of Agency R&D Funding and Regular Appropriations Bills ......................... 19
Table 8. Department of Defense RDT&E ...................................................................................... 22
Table 9. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs ..................................... 25
Table 10. National Institutes of Health Funding ............................................................................ 30
Table 11. Department of Energy R&D and Related Activities ...................................................... 33
Table 12. NSF Funding by Major Account .................................................................................... 38
Table 13. NASA R&D ................................................................................................................... 40
Table 14. NIST Appropriations ...................................................................................................... 43
Table 15. NOAA R&D ................................................................................................................... 46
Table 16. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D............................................................................ 49
Table 17. Department of the Interior R&D .................................................................................... 52
Table 18. Environmental Protection Agency Science &Technology (S&T) Account ................... 55
Table 19. Department of Transportation R&D and R&D Facilities............................................... 58
Table 20. Department of Veterans Affairs R&D ............................................................................ 60
Table 21. Department of Veterans Affairs R&D by Designated Research Area ............................ 60
Appendixes
Appendix. Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................... 61
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 65
Congressional Research Service
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Overview
The 114th Congress continues to take a strong interest in the health of the U.S. research and
development (R&D) enterprise and in providing support for federal R&D activities. The federal
government has played an important role in supporting R&D efforts that have led to scientific
breakthroughs and new technologies, from jet aircraft and the Internet to communications
satellites, shale gas extraction, and defenses against disease. However, widespread concerns about
the federal debt and recent and projected federal budget deficits are driving difficult decisions
about the prioritization of R&D, both in the context of the entire federal budget and among
competing needs within the federal R&D portfolio.
The U.S. government supports a broad range of scientific and engineering R&D. Its purposes
include specific concerns such as addressing national defense, health, safety, the environment,
and energy security; advancing knowledge generally; developing the scientific and engineering
workforce; and strengthening U.S. innovation and competitiveness in the global economy. Most
of the R&D funded by the federal government is performed in support of the unique missions of
individual funding agencies.
The federal R&D budget is an aggregation of the R&D components of each federal agency. There
is no single, centralized source of funds that is allocated to individual agencies. Agency R&D
budgets are developed internally as part of each agency’s overall budget development process and
may be included either in accounts that are entirely devoted to R&D or in accounts that include
funding for non-R&D activities. These budgets are subjected to review, revision, and approval by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and become part of the President’s annual budget
submission to Congress. The federal R&D budget is then calculated by aggregating the R&D
components of each federal agency.
Congress plays a central role in defining the nation’s R&D priorities as it makes decisions about
the level and allocation of R&D funding—overall, within agencies, and for specific programs.
Some Members of Congress have expressed concerns about the level of federal spending (for
R&D as for other purposes) in light of the current federal deficit and debt. As Congress acts to
complete the FY2016 appropriations process, it faces two overarching issues: the extent to which
federal R&D investments can grow in the face of increased pressure on discretionary spending
and the prioritization and allocation of the available funding. Budget caps may limit overall R&D
funding and may require movement of resources across disciplines, programs, or agencies to
address priorities. Moving funding between programs/accounts/agencies can become more
complex and difficult because the funding for different programs/accounts/agencies is often
provided through different appropriations bills.
Structurally, this report begins with a discussion of the overall level of the President’s FY2016
R&D request, followed by analyses of the R&D funding request from a variety of perspectives
and for selected multiagency R&D initiatives. The report concludes with discussion and analysis
of the R&D budget requests of selected federal departments and agencies that, collectively,
account for more than 98% of total federal R&D funding. Selected terms associated with federal
R&D funding are defined in the text box on the next page. Appendix provides a list of acronyms
and abbreviations.
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Definitions Associated with Federal Research and Development Funding
Two key sources of definitions associated with federal research and development funding are the White House Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) and the National Science Foundation.
Office of Management and Budget. The Office of Management and Budget provides the 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.
Basic Research. The objective of basic research is to gain more comprehensive knowledge or understanding of
the subject under study without specific applications in mind. Although basic research may not have specific
applications as its goal, it can be directed in fields of present or potential interest. This is often the case with basic
research performed by industry or mission-driven federal agencies.
Applied Research. The objective of applied research is to gain knowledge or understanding to meet a specific,
recognized need. In industry, applied research includes investigations to discover new scientific knowledge that
has specific commercial objectives with respect to products, processes, or services.
Development. Development is the systematic use of the knowledge or understanding gained from research
directed toward the production of useful materials, devices, systems, or methods, including the design and
development of prototypes and processes.
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
The President’s FY2016 Budget Request
On February 2, 2015, President Obama released his proposed FY2016 budget. This report
provides government-wide, multi-agency, and individual agency analyses of the President’s
FY2016 request as it relates to R&D and related activities. The President’s budget proposes
$145.694 billion for R&D in FY2016, an increase of $7.625 billion (5.5%) over the estimated
FY2015 R&D funding level of $138.069 billion.1 Adjusted for anticipated inflation of
approximately 1.6%, the President’s FY2016 R&D request represents a real increase of 3.9%
from the FY2015 estimated level.2
Increasing federal funding for physical science and engineering research was a primary science
and technology policy effort pursued by Congress, President George W. Bush, and President
Obama in his first four years in office. Referred to frequently as the “doubling effort,” Congress
and Presidents Obama and Bush sought to increase support for the physical sciences and
engineering by doubling funding for accounts at three federal agencies with a strong R&D
emphasis in these disciplines: the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, the National
Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Commerce (DOC) National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) core laboratory research and construction of research facilities
(collectively referred to as the “targeted accounts”). The doubling goal was expressed in President
Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative, in budget requests from President Obama before
FY2014, and implicitly in the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) and the America
COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358). The America COMPETES Act and the
reauthorization act set appropriations authorization levels consistent with a doubling pace of 7
years and 11 years, respectively.3 In aggregate, appropriations provided to these accounts fell
short of the levels authorized in P.L. 110-69 and P.L. 111-358.
In his FY2015 budget, the President requested a 1.2% increase in aggregate funding for the
targeted accounts, a pace that would require more than 58 years to double. Though not explicitly
mentioning the doubling goal or timeframe, in his FY2016 budget, the President is requesting a
5.7% increase in aggregate funding for the targeted accounts over the FY2015 level, a pace that
would result in doubling in about 12 years. See “Efforts to Double Certain R&D Accounts” below
for more details.
1 Funding levels included in this document are in current dollars unless otherwise noted. Inflation diminishes the
purchasing power of federal R&D funds, so an increase that falls short of the inflation rate may reduce real purchasing
power. Final FY2015 funding for the Department of Homeland Security had not been enacted at the time of the
President’s proposed FY2016 budget. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget used the President’s FY2015
budget request for DHS in estimates of FY2015 funding.
2 As calculated by CRS using the GDP (chained) price index for FY2015 and FY2016 in Table 10.1, Gross Domestic
Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2020, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year
2016, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/hist10z1.xls.
3 As used in this report, the term “doubling pace” means the number of years required for funding for the targeted
accounts to double, relative to the FY2006 baseline year, if the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) were to
continue. For example, the doubling pace of the America COMPETES Act is based on the 10.3% CAGR from FY2006
to FY2010, the last year of authorizations under the act. At 10.3% annual growth, funding for the targeted accounts
would double in approximately 7 years. Similarly, the CAGR for the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of
2010, which authorized appropriations through FY2013, was 6.3%, a rate that would take approximately 11 years to
double.
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
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 When
President Obama set forth the goal in 2009, total U.S. R&D expenditures were approximately
2.90% of GDP. In 2012, R&D as a percentage of GDP was 2.89%, with the federal government
contributing 0.86% (down from 0.91% in 2009) and non-federal sources contributing 2.02% (up
from 1.98% in 2009).5 Achieving the 3% goal would likely require a substantial increase in
government and corporate R&D spending. In 2012, achieving the 3% goal would have required
approximately $18 billion in additional R&D funding above the actual U.S. R&D funding level of
$452.6 billion.
Analysis of federal R&D funding is complicated by several factors, such as inconsistency among
agencies in the reporting of R&D and the inclusion of R&D activities in accounts with non-R&D
activities. As a result, figures reported by OMB and the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP), including those shown in Table 1, may differ from the agency budget
analyses that appear later in this report.
Federal R&D Funding Perspectives
Federal R&D funding can be analyzed from a variety of perspectives that provide different
insights. The following sections examine the data by agency, by the character of the work
supported, by a combination of these two perspectives, and by whether R&D is defense-related or
not.
Federal R&D by Agency
Congress makes decisions about federal R&D funding through the authorization and
appropriations process primarily from the perspective of individual agencies and programs. Table
1 provides data on R&D by agency for FY2014 (actual), FY2015 (estimate), and FY2016
(request).6
Under President Obama’s FY2016 budget request, seven federal agencies would receive more
than 95% of total federal R&D funding: the Department of Defense (DOD), 49.5%; Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) (primarily the National Institutes of Health (NIH)), 21.3%;
Department of Energy (DOE), 8.6%; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
8.4%; National Science Foundation (NSF), 4.3%; Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2.0%; and
Department of Commerce (DOC), 1.5%. This report provides an analysis of the R&D budget
4 The research and experimentation tax credit is frequently referred to as the research and development tax credit or
R&D tax credit, through the credit does not apply to development expenditures. For additional information about the
R&E tax credit, see CRS Report RL31181, Research Tax Credit: Current Law and Policy Issues for the 114th
Congress, by Gary Guenther.
5 National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, National Patterns of R&D
Resources (annual series).
6 EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2016, February 2015,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/ap_19_research.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
requests for these agencies, as well as for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
Department of the Interior (DOI), Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In total, these 12 agencies accounted
for more than 98% of current and requested federal R&D funding.
The largest agency R&D increases in the President’s FY2016 request (as measured in dollars),
compared with FY2015, are for DOD, $4.670 billion (6.9%); DOE, $861 million (7.3%); DOC,
$601 million (39.4%); HHS, $565 million (1.9%); USDA, $438 million (17.9%); and NSF, $310
million (5.2%). DHS would see a decrease of $463 million (44.9%).
Table 1. Federal Research and Development Funding by Agency, FY2014-FY2016
(budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change,
FY2015-FY2016
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Department/Agency
Actual
Estimate
Request
Dollar Percent
Department of Defense
$66,018
$67,451
$72,121
$4,670 6.9%
Department of Health and Human
Services 30,685
30,475
31,040
565
1.9%
Department of Energy
11,996
11,736
12,597
861 7.3%
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration 11,906
12,145
12,238
93
0.8%
National Science Foundation
5,827
5,999
6,309
310 5.2%
Department of Agriculture
2,380
2,446
2,884
438 17.9%
Department of Commerce
1,556
1,526
2,127
601 39.4%
Department of Veterans Affairs
1,101
1,090
1,147
57 5.2%
Department of Transportation
853
900
1,115
215 23.9%
Department of the Interior
840
904
985
81 9.0%
Department of Homeland Security
1,032
1,032a
569
-463 -44.9%
Environmental Protection Agency
539
523
559
36 6.9%
Other 1,602
1,842
2,003
161 8.7%
Total 136,335
138,069
145,694
7,625 5.5%
Source: EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2016, February
2015, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/ap_19_research.pdf.
Note: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding. Amounts in this table may differ from
amounts reported in the agency chapters of this report due to a variety of factors, including R&D funding in
accounts that also include funding for non-R&D activities.
a. Because DHS appropriations had not been enacted at the time the President’s FY2016 budget request was
released, the Administration’s figure for FY2015 DHS R&D funding was based on the FY2014 appropriations
not the FY2015 appropriation that was subsequently enacted.
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Federal R&D by Character of Work, Facilities, and Equipment
Federal R&D funding can also be examined by the character of work it supports—basic research,
applied research, or development—and by funding provided for construction of R&D facilities
and acquisition of major R&D equipment. (See Table 2.) President Obama’s FY2016 request
includes $32.728 billion for basic research, up $831 million (2.6%) from FY2015; $34.146 billion
for applied research, up $1.235 million (3.8%); $75.976 billion for development, up $5.294
million (7.5%); and $2.844 billion for facilities and equipment, up $265 million (10.3%).
Table 2. Federal R&D Funding by Character of Work and Facilities and Equipment,
FY2014-FY2016
(budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change,
FY2015-FY2016
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Actual
Estimate
Request
Dollar Percent
Basic research
$32,187
$31,897
$32,728
$ 831
2.6%
Applied research
32,546
32,911
34,146
1,235
3.8%
Development 68,985
70,682
75,976
5,294
7.5%
Facilities and Equipment 2,617
2,579
2,844
265
10.3%
Total 136,335
138,069
145,694
7,625
5.5%
Source: EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2016, February
2015, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/ap_19_research.pdf.
Note: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
Federal Role in U.S. R&D by Character of Work
A primary policy foundation for public investments in basic research and for incentives (e.g., tax
credits) for the private sector to conduct research is the view, widely held by economists, that the
private sector will, left on its own, underinvest in basic research from a societal perspective. The
usual argument for this view is that the social returns (i.e., the benefits to society at large) exceed
the private returns (i.e., the benefits accruing to the private investor, such as increased revenues or
higher stock value). Other factors that may inhibit corporate investment in basic research include
long time horizons for commercial applications (diminishing the potential returns due to the time
value of money), high levels of technical risk/uncertainty, shareholder demands for shorter-term
returns, and asymmetric and imperfect information.
The federal government is the nation’s largest supporter of basic research, funding 52.6% of U.S.
basic research in 2012.7 Industry funded 21.3% of U.S. basic research in 2012, with state
governments, universities, and other non-profit organizations funding the remaining 26.0%.8
7 National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2013, National Patterns of
R&D Resources: 2011–12 Data Update, NSF 14-304, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf14304/. More recent data are not
yet available.
8 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
In contrast to basic research, industry is the primary funder of applied research in the United
States, accounting for an estimated 54.0% in 2012, while the federal government accounted for an
estimated 36.2%.9
Industry also provides the vast majority of funding for development. Industry accounted for
76.4% of development in 2012, while the federal government provided 22.1%.10
Federal R&D by Agency and Character of Work Combined
Combining these perspectives, federal R&D funding can be viewed in terms of each agency’s
contribution to basic research, applied research, development, and facilities and equipment. (See
Table 3.) The overall federal R&D budget reflects a wide range of national priorities, including
supporting advances in spaceflight, developing new and affordable sources of energy, and
understanding and deterring terrorist groups. These priorities and the mission of each individual
agency contribute to the composition of that agency’s R&D spending (i.e., the allocation among
basic research, applied research, development, and facilities and equipment). In the President’s
FY2016 budget request, the Department of Health and Human Services, primarily NIH, would
account for nearly half (48.8%) of all federal funding for basic research. HHS would also be the
largest federal funder of applied research, accounting for about 43.5% of all federally funded
applied research in the President’s FY2016 budget request. DOD is the primary federal funder of
development, accounting for 85.6% of total federal development funding in the President’s
FY2016 budget request.11
Table 3. Top R&D Funding Agencies by Character of Work, Facilities,
and Equipment, FY2014-FY2016
(budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
Change, FY2015-FY2016
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Actual
Enacted
Request
Dollar Percent
Basic Research
Dept. of Health and Human Services
15,862
15,482
15,966
484
3.1%
National Science Foundation
4,752
4,834
5,062
228
4.7%
Dept. of Energy
4,095
4,120
4,245
125
3.0%
Applied Research
Dept. of Health and Human Services
14,621
14,791
14,864
73
0.5%
Dept. of Defense
4,664
4,775
4,819
44
0.9%
Dept. of Energy
4,550
4,363
4,683
320
7.3%
Development
Dept. of Defense
58,986
60,366
65,036
4,670
7.7%
NASA 6,004
6,481
6,423
-58
-0.9%
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2015, Table 21-1.
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Change, FY2015-FY2016
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Actual
Enacted
Request
Dollar Percent
Dept. of Energy
2,559
2,322
2,621
299
12.9%
Facilities and Equipment
Dept. of Energy
792
931
1,048
117
12.6%
National Science Foundation
397
437
445
8
1.8%
Dept. of Commerce
213
233
402
169
72.5%
Source: EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2016, February
2015, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/ap_19_research.pdf.
Note: The top three funding agencies in each category, based on the FY2016 request, are listed.
Defense-Related and Nondefense-Related R&D
Federal R&D funding can also be characterized as defense-related or nondefense-related.
Defense-related R&D is provided for primarily by the Department of Defense, but also includes
some activities at the Department of Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Defense-
related R&D has fluctuated between 50% and 70% of total federal R&D funding for more than
three decades. Defense-related R&D grew from 52.7% of total federal R&D funding in FY2001
to 60.5% in FY2008, then declined over several years to 56.8% in 2012.12 The President’s
FY2016 budget includes $76.9 billion in defense-related R&D funding (about 52.8% of the total
R&D request) and $68.8 billion for non-defense R&D (about 47.2% of the total R&D request).13
Multiagency R&D Initiatives
Although this report focuses primarily on the R&D activities of individual agencies, President
Obama’s FY2016 budget request supports several multiagency R&D initiatives.
Efforts to Double Certain R&D Accounts14
In 2006, President Bush announced the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) which, in part,
sought to increase federal funding for physical sciences and engineering research by doubling
funding over 10 years (by FY2016 from their FY2006 levels) for targeted accounts at NSF, DOE,
and DOC. The targeted accounts include all NSF accounts, the DOE Office of Science, and the
NIST Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) and construction of research
facilities (CRF) accounts.
12 CRS analysis of National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2014, NSB 14-01, 2014, Appendix
table 4-33, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/.
13 John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, “The 2016 Budget: Investing in America’s Future,” presentation at the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, February 2015.
14 For more information, see CRS Report R41951, An Analysis of Efforts to Double Federal Funding for Physical
Sciences and Engineering Research, by John F. Sargent Jr.
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
In 2007, Congress authorized substantial increases for these targeted accounts under the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69), which set the combined authorization levels for these accounts
for FY2008 to FY2010 at a seven-year doubling pace from the FY2006 baseline. However,
funding provided for these agencies in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161),
the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2010 (P.L. 111-117), fell below these targets.15 (See Table 4.)
Table 4. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling, FY2006-FY2016
(budget authority, in millions of current dollars)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actuala
ARRA
Actual
NSF $5,646
$5,884
$6,084
$6,469
$2,402
$6,972
DOE/Office of Science
3,632
3,837
4,083
4,807
1,633
4,964
NIST/STRS 395
434
441
472
220
515
NIST/CRF 174
59
161
172
360
147
Total 9,846
10,214
10,768
11,920
4,615
12,598
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Request
NSF $6,913b $7,033 $6,884 $7,172 $7,344 $7,724
DOE/Office of Science
4,843
4,874
4,681
5,071
5,071
5,340
NIST/STRS 497
567
580
651
651
755
NIST/CRF 70
55
56
56
59
59
Total 12,323
12,529
12,201
12,950
13,125
13,877
Sources: NIST budget requests, FY2008-FY2016, available at http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/budget/
index.cfm; DOE budget requests, FY2008-FY2016, available at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/crorgcf30.htm; NSF
budget requests, FY2008-FY2016, available at http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget; and the President’s FY2016
budget, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Appendix.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
a. The FY2009 agency funding levels do not include funding provided by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5).
b. Includes $54 million transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard for icebreaking services (per P.L. 112-10).
In 2010, Congress passed the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358)
which, among other things, authorized appropriations for the targeted accounts for FY2011 to
FY2013.16 The aggregate authorization levels for the targeted accounts in this act were consistent
15 In 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) provided $5.202 billion in supplemental
funding for several of the targeted accounts. This increased aggregate funding for the accounts above the target levels
in that year.
16 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.
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
with an 11-year doubling path. Congress has not authorized appropriations for the targeted
accounts beyond FY2013.17
Aggregate FY2013 funding subsequently appropriated for the targeted accounts was
approximately $12.201 billion, $2.904 billion less than authorized in the act. This funding level
set a pace to double over more than 22 years from the FY2006 level—more than triple the length
of time originally envisioned in the 2007 America COMPETES Act and about twice as long as
the doubling period established by the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. Using
the FY2006 as the base year funding level, FY2014 appropriations set a 20-year doubling pace
while FY2015 appropriations set a 22-year pace.
Budget constraints appear to have put the future of the doubling path in question. In his FY2010
Plan for Science and Innovation, President Obama stated that he, like President Bush, would seek
to double funding for basic research over 10 years (FY2006 to FY2016) in the targeted
accounts.18 In his FY2011 budget documents, President Obama extended the period over which
he intended to double funding for the targeted accounts to 11 years (FY2006 to FY2017).19 The
FY2013 budget request reiterated President Obama’s intention to double funding for the targeted
accounts from their FY2006 levels but did not specify the length of time over which the doubling
was to take place. President Obama’s FY2014 budget expressed a commitment to increasing
funding for the targeted accounts, but did not commit to doubling. The President’s FY2015
budget contained no explicit statement of commitment to increasing funding for the targeted
accounts. For FY2016, President Obama is requesting $13.877 billion in aggregate funding for
the targeted accounts, an increase of $752 million (5.7%) above the estimated FY2015 aggregate
funding level of $13.125 billion. If enacted, this funding level would set a doubling pace of about
20 years over the FY2006 level.
Figure 1 shows total funding for the targeted accounts as a percentage of their FY2006 funding
level, and illustrates how actual (FY2006-FY2015), requested (FY2007-FY2016), and authorized
appropriations (FY2008-FY2013) compare to different doubling rates using FY2006 as the base
year. The thick black line at the top of the chart is at 200%, the doubling level. The data used in
Figure 1 are in current dollars, not constant dollars; the effect of inflation on the purchasing
power of these funds is not taken into consideration.
Some analysts have raised questions about the efficacy and unintended consequences of the
doubling policy. Among the questions: What is the basis for asserting that a doubling of funding
is the correct target for increases (as opposed to, say, an increase of 30%, 80%, or 120%)? What
is the basis for setting the time period for doubling (e.g., 7 years, 11 years)? Is the optimal
approach to double funding for specific agencies? If so, should the doubling for the selected
agencies be done in aggregate or individually? Are the chosen agencies the right agencies?
Should specific programs or appropriations accounts be targeted rather than entire agencies?
What are the adjustment costs of a post-doubling slowdown in funding increases?
17 For additional information on reauthorization efforts, see CRS Report R43880, The America COMPETES Acts: An
Overview, 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
10
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
In an effort to understand the potential consequence of the doubling effort, a 2009 National
Bureau of Economic Research paper analyzed the effects of the NIH doubling (which took place
from 1988 to 2003) and subsequent funding slowdown on the U.S. biomedical research
enterprise. Among its conclusions, the authors found that “future increases in research spending
should be seen in terms of increasing the stock of sustainable activity rather than in attaining
some arbitrary target (i.e., doubling) in a short period.”20 Similar views were expressed by
participants at a roundtable held by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in 2014.21
Figure 1. Funding for Accounts Targeted for Doubling:
Appropriations, Authorizations, and Requests versus Selected Doubling Rates
Sources: Prepared by CRS based on data from the Office of Management and Budget and agency budget
justifications for FY2008 to FY2016 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: FY2016
National Nanotechnology Initiative22
Launched by President Clinton in his FY2001 budget request, the National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) is a multiagency R&D initiative to advance understanding and control of matter
at the nanoscale, where the physical, chemical, and biological properties of materials differ in
fundamental and useful ways from the properties of individual atoms or bulk matter.23 Federal
nanotechnology efforts are coordinated by the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET).
The President’s request for NNI R&D funding for FY2016 is $1.495 billion. This is $7.5 million
(0.5%) above the FY2015 funding level of $1.495 billion. (See Table 5.)
Table 5. National Nanotechnology Initiative Funding, FY2014-FY2016
(budget authority, in millions of current dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change, FY2015-FY2016
Actual
Estimate
Request
Dollar Percent
$1,574.3 $1,487.8 $1,495.3 $7.5
0.5%
Source: Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Committee, National Science and Technology Council,
The White House, Supplement to the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2016, The National Nanotechnology Initiative:
Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry, March 11, 2015.
Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Program24
Established by the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194), the Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program is the primary mechanism
by which the federal government coordinates its unclassified networking and information
technology R&D investments in areas such as supercomputing, high-speed networking,
cybersecurity, software engineering, and information management.
President Obama is requesting $4.091 billion in FY2016 for the NITRD program. (See Table 6.)
This is $123.5 million (3.1%) above the FY2015 funding level. The largest agency increases in
NITRD funding under the Administration’s FY2016 request are for the DOE ($65.1 million,
10.3%) and NSF ($31.0 million, 2.6%). The President’s budget would reduce NITRD funding at
DOD by $10.0 million (1.4%), DHS by $6.1 million (7.7%), and the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality (part of HHS) by $5.3 million (18.8%).25
22 For additional information on the NNI, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative:
Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by 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 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.
25 EOP, NSTC, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Networking and Information Technology Research and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Table 6. Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
Program Funding, FY2014-FY2016
(budget authority, in millions of current dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Change, FY2015-FY2016
Actual
Estimate
Request
Dollar Percent
$3,885.6 $3,967.1 $4,090.6 $123.5 3.1%
Source: EOP, NSTC, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Networking and Information Technology
Research and Development, Supplement to the President’s FY2016 Budget for Fiscal Year 2016, The Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development Program, pp. 6-7, February 2015, https://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/
2016supplement/FY2016NITRDSupplement.pdf.
U.S. Global Change Research Program26
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) coordinates and integrates federal
research and applications to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and
natural processes of global change. The program seeks to advance global climate change science
and to “build a knowledge base that informs human responses to climate and global change
through coordinated and integrated Federal programs of research, education, communication, and
decision support.”27 Thirteen departments and agencies participate in the USGCRP.
The President’s request for USGCRP funding for FY2016 and USGCRP funding data for FY2014
(actual) and FY2015 (estimate) were not available at the time of publication of this report.
BRAIN Initiative
In April 2013, President Obama launched the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative
Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, asserting that
There is this enormous mystery waiting to be unlocked, and the BRAIN Initiative will
change that by giving scientists the tools they need to get a dynamic picture of the brain in
action and better understand how we think and how we learn and how we remember. And
that knowledge could be—will be—transformative.28
Among the agencies participating in the BRAIN Initiative are the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA), NIH, NSF, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The
(...continued)
Development, Supplement to the President’s FY2016 Budget for Fiscal Year 2016, The Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development Program, pp. 6-7, February 2015, https://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/
2016supplement/FY2016NITRDSupplement.pdf.
26 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.
27 U.S. Global Change Research Program website, http://www.globalchange.gov/about/mission-vision-strategic-plan.
28 The White House, “Remarks by the President on the BRAIN Initiative and American Innovation,” speech transcript,
April 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/04/02/president-obama-speaks-brain-initiative-
and-american-innovation#transcript.
Congressional Research Service
13
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
research supported under this initiative seeks to facilitate a better understanding of “how the brain
records, processes, uses, stores, and retrieves vast quantities of information, and shed light on the
complex links between brain function and behavior,”29 and to help improve the prevention,
diagnosis, and treatment of brain diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.
According to OSTP, federal investments in the BRAIN initiative totaled approximately $100
million in FY2014 and $200 million in FY2015. The President’s FY2016 budget request includes
more than $300 million for the effort, including $135 million in funding for NIH, $95 million
from DARPA, and $72 million from NSF.30 In addition, the Intelligence Advanced Research
Projects Activity (IARPA) and the FDA are expected to make contributions to the BRAIN
Initiative in FY2016.31
Precision Medicine Initiative
In his January 2015 State of the Union address, President Obama announced the Precision
Medicine Initiative (PMI), a new undertaking among HHS agencies, proposing $215 million in
FY2016 funding. The PMI seeks to build on research and discoveries that allow medical
treatments to be tailored to an individual’s unique characteristics (e.g., a patient’s genes) or the
genetic profile of an individual’s tumor.
The President’s FY2016 request for the PMI includes $130 million for NIH, $70 million for the
National Cancer Institute (NCI), $10 million for FDA, and $5 million for the Office of the
National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). NIH funding would support the
development of a voluntary national research cohort of a million or more people to provide
insights into health and disease. NCI funding would support the identification of genetic drivers
in cancer and the application of that knowledge in the development of cancer treatments. FDA
funding would support the development of databases to support the regulatory structure needed to
advance innovation in precision medicine. ONC funding would support the development of
interoperability standards and requirements to address privacy and enable secure exchange of data
across systems. 32
Materials Genome Initiative
Announced in June 2011 by President Obama, the Materials Genome Initiative (MGI) is a 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
29 The White House, “Fact Sheet: BRAIN Initiative,” press release, April 2, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-
press-office/2013/04/02/fact-sheet-brain-initiative.
30 EOP, OSTP, “Obama Administration Proposes Doubling Support for The Brain Initiative,” press release, March
2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY%202015%20BRAIN.pdf.
31 EOP, OSTP, “Obama Administration Proposes Over $300 Million in Funding for The BRAIN Initiative,” fact sheet,
February 2015, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
brain_initiative_fy16_fact_sheet_ostp.pdf.
32 The White House, “Fact Sheet: President Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative,” press release, January 30, 2015,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/30/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-precision-medicine-initiative.
Congressional Research Service
14
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
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
minerals that are in short supply or have at-risk supply chains; the design, development, and use
of materials that could reduce the number and severity of traumatic brain injuries resulting from
blasts, impacts, and collisions incurred in military engagements, motor vehicle accidents, and
athletics; and the development of new lightweight materials for vehicles that could enable new
energy storage and propulsion systems and improve fuel efficiency.35 The White House asserts
that
Since the launch of MGI in 2011, the Federal government has invested over $250 million in
new R&D and innovation infrastructure to anchor the use of advanced materials in existing
and emerging industrial sectors in the United States.36
Neither the President’s FY2015 budget nor his FY2016 budget included a table of agency funding
for the MGI. The NSTC Subcommittee on the Materials Genome Initiative (SMGI) coordinates
the initiative’s activities. Among the agencies participating in MGI R&D are DOE, DOD, U.S.
Geological Survey, NSF, NIST, NASA, NIH, and NSF. MGI also coordinates its efforts with two
other multiagency initiatives, the NNI and NITRD. 37
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership
In June 2011, President Obama launched the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP), an
effort to bring together “industry, universities, and the Federal government to invest in emerging
technologies that will create high-quality manufacturing jobs and enhance our global
competitiveness.”38 Two R&D-focused components of the AMP are the National Robotics
Initiative (NRI) and the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI).
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
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, “Examples of Materials Applications,” accessed May 2014,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/mgi/examples.
36 The White House, Materials Genome Initiative, accessed February 27, 2015, http://www.whitehouse.gov/mgi.
37 NSTC, Committee on Technology, SMGI, “Materials Genome Initiative Strategic Plan,” December 2014,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/mgi_strategic_plan_-_dec_2014.pdf.
38John 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.
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
National Robotics Initiative
The National Robotics Initiative seeks to “develop robots that work with or beside people to
extend or augment human capabilities.”39 Among the goals of the program are increasing labor
productivity in the manufacturing sector, assisting with dangerous and expensive missions in
space, accelerating the discovery of new drugs, and improving food safety by rapidly sensing
microbial contamination.40
In January 2015, several agencies—NSF, NIH, NASA, USDA, and DOD—announced a new
round of funding for NRI efforts.41 Neither the President’s FY2015 nor his FY2016 budget
included a table of agency funding for the NRI, but the Analytical Perspectives supplement to the
President’s FY2016 budget indicates support for initiative funding.42
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation43
President Obama first proposed the establishment of a National Network for Manufacturing
Innovation in his FY2013 budget, which requested $1 billion to support the establishment of up
to 15 institutes. The President also included proposals for establishing the NNMI in his FY2014,
FY2015 and FY2016 budgets.
As originally conceived, the NNMI would consist of
a network of institutes where researchers, companies, and entrepreneurs can come together to
develop new manufacturing technologies with broad applications. Each institute would have
a unique technology focus. These institutes will help support an ecosystem of manufacturing
activity in local areas. The Manufacturing Innovation Institutes would support manufacturing
technology commercialization by helping to bridge the gap from the laboratory to the market
and address core gaps in scaling manufacturing process technologies.44
In the absence of explicit congressional authorization and appropriations for the NNMI, the
Obama Administration competed and/or awarded eight institutes for manufacturing innovation
using the broad agency authorities and appropriations of the DOD and DOE. The Administration
has committed to establishing a ninth institute, but the focus area has not been identified.
In December 2014, Congress passed the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act
of 2014 (RAMIA), as Title VII of Division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235). President Obama signed the bill into law on December
39 Ibid.
40 EOP, OSTP, website, August 3, 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/03/supporting-president-s-national-
robotics-initiative.
41 National Science Foundation, “National Robotics Initiative (NRI): The realization of co-robots acting in direct
support of individuals and groups,” Program Solicitation NSF 15-505, January 2, 2015, http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/
nsf15505/nsf15505.htm.
42 EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2016, pp. 293-294.
43 For additional information on the NNMI, see CRS Report R42625, The Obama Administration’s Proposal to
Establish a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, by John F. Sargent Jr., and CRS Report R43857, The
Network for Manufacturing Innovation, by John F. Sargent Jr.
44 DOC, FY2014 Budget in Brief, February 2012, p. 123, http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY13BIB/
fy2013bib_final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
16
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
16, 2014. RAMIA directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Network for Manufacturing
Innovation (NMI) program within the Commerce Department’s NIST.
The President’s FY2016 budget proposes discretionary funding for seven additional centers—two
each to be supported by USDA, DOE, and NIST, and one to be supported by DOD. In addition,
the President’s FY2016 budget includes a request for $1.9 billion in mandatory funding for NIST
for the establishment of 29 additional centers between FY2017 and FY2024, which would bring
the total number of centers to 45.
Reorganization of STEM Education Programs45
In FY2014, the Obama Administration proposed a major overhaul of the federal science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education portfolio. That plan would have
affected about 50% of the federal STEM education effort and involved the transfer of STEM
education budget authority between federal agencies.
Although many legislators expressed conceptual support for reorganization as a means to improve
the portfolio, the joint explanatory statement that accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76) rejected the proposal overall. It stated that the proposal “contained no
clearly defined implementation plan, had no buy-in from the education community, and failed to
sufficiently recognize or support a number of proven, successful programs.” Some FY2014
House and Senate appropriations reports accepted some changes on a case-by-case basis. In a
March 2014 progress report the Administration stated that the number of federal STEM education
programs had been reduced by 40% between FY2012 (228 programs) and FY2014 (138
programs).
For FY2015, the Obama Administration proposed what it described as a “fresh” reorganization of
the federal STEM education portfolio. Unlike the FY2014 proposal, which sought to transfer
funding between agencies, the FY2015 proposal sought to consolidate funding within agencies.
According to the Office of Management and Budget, the FY2015 reorganization would have
consolidated or eliminated 31 programs at 9 agencies, affecting $145 million in FY2014 budget
authority. The FY2015 budget request aimed to further reduce STEM education programs to 111
from their FY2014 level of 138.
The OSTP asserts that the President’s FY2016 budget continues to reduce fragmentation.46
Further government-wide details were not available at the time of publication of this report.
45 For additional information on the reorganization of federal STEM education programs, see CRS Report R43880, The
America COMPETES Acts: An Overview , by 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.
46 EOP, OMB, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2016, “Cuts Consolidations, and Savings,” p. 87,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/ccs.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
17
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
FY2016 Appropriations Status
The remainder of this report provides a more in-depth analysis of R&D in 12 federal departments
and agencies that, in aggregate, receive more than 98% of total federal R&D funding. Annual
appropriations for these agencies are provided through 9 of the 12 regular appropriations bills.
For each agency covered in this report, Table 7 shows the corresponding regular appropriations
bill that provides primary funding for the agency, including its R&D activities.
Because of the way that agencies report budget data to Congress, it can be difficult to identify the
portion that is R&D. Consequently, R&D data presented in the agency analyses in this report may
differ from R&D data provided by OMB.
Funding for R&D is often included in appropriations line items that also include non-R&D
activities; therefore, it is not possible to identify precisely how much of the funding provided in
appropriations laws is allocated to R&D specifically. In general, R&D funding levels are known
only after departments and agencies allocate their appropriations to specific activities and report
those figures.
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
18
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Table 7. Alignment of Agency R&D Funding and Regular Appropriations Bills
Department/Agency
Regular Appropriations Bill
Department of Defense
Department of Defense Appropriations Act
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act
Department of Health and Human Services
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
- National Institutes of Health
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, FY2016 Status Table of Appropriations, available at http://crs.gov/Pages/
AppropriationsStatusTable.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
19
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Department of Defense47
Congress supports R&D in the Department of Defense (DOD) primarily through its Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) appropriation. The appropriation supports the
development of the nation’s future military hardware and software and the technology base upon
which those products rely.
Nearly all of what DOD spends on RDT&E is appropriated in Title IV of the defense
appropriation bill. (See Table 8.) However, RDT&E funds are also appropriated in other parts of
the bill. For example, RDT&E funds are appropriated as part of the Defense Health Program,
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program, and the National Defense Sealift Fund.
The Defense Health Program (DHP) supports the delivery of health care to DOD personnel and
their families. DHP funds (including the RDT&E funds) are requested through the Defensewide
Operations and Maintenance appropriations request. The program’s RDT&E funds support
congressionally directed research in such areas as breast, prostate, and ovarian cancer and other
medical conditions. Congress appropriates funds for this program in Title VI (Other Department
of Defense Programs) of the defense appropriations bill. The Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction Program supports activities to destroy the U.S. inventory of lethal chemical agents
and munitions to avoid future risks and costs associated with storage. Funds for this program are
requested through the Defensewide Procurement appropriations request. Congress appropriates
funds for this program also in Title VI. The National Defense Sealift Fund supports the
procurement, operation and maintenance, and research and development of the nation’s naval
reserve fleet and supports a U.S. flagged merchant fleet that can serve in time of need. The
RDT&E funding for this effort is in the Navy’s Procurement request and appropriated in Title V,
Revolving and Management Funds, of the appropriation bill.
The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF) also contains RDT&E monies. In
contrast to the programs mentioned above, the fund does not contain an RDT&E line item. 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
Table 8.
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, 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 made 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 asks for additional OCO funds in supplemental requests, if the initial OCO
funding is not enough to get through the fiscal year. The OCO budget is declining as operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan are reduced. As the U.S. steps up its battle with the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria (ISIS), OCO funding will likely continue.
47 This section was written by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
20
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
In addition, GWOT/OCO-related requests/appropriations often include money for a number of
transfer funds. These have included in the past the Iraqi Freedom Fund (IFF), the Iraqi Security
Forces Fund, the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Capability Fund. Another transfer fund is the Mine Resistant and Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund
(MRAPVF). Congress typically makes a single appropriation into each of these funds, and
authorizes the Secretary to make transfers to other accounts, including RDT&E, at his discretion.
These transfers are eventually reflected in Title IV prior year funding figures.
For FY2016, the Obama Administration is requesting $69.785 billion for DOD’s baseline Title IV
RDT&E. This is $6.101 billion above what was enacted for FY2015. It should be noted that the
overall President’s budget request does not stay within the caps of the Budget Control Act of 2011
(P.L. 112-25) as modified by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240) and the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2012 (P.L. 113-67).
In addition to the baseline Title IV RDT&E request, the Administration is requesting $980 million
in RDT&E through the Defense Health Program and $579 million in RDT&E through the
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction program for FY2016. The Administration is
requesting $25 million in RDT&E funding through the National Defense Sealift Fund for
FY2016.
RDT&E funding can be analyzed by policymakers 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 the development
of system improvements in existing operational systems.
Many congressional policymakers are particularly interested in S&T funding since these funds
support the development of new technologies and the underlying science. Some in the defense
community see ensuring adequate support for S&T activities as imperative to maintaining U.S.
military superiority into the future. The knowledge generated at this stage of development can
also contribute to advances in commercial technologies.
The FY2016 Title IV baseline S&T funding request is $12.266 billion, $81 million more than
what was enacted in 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 is requesting $2.089 billion for basic
research for FY2016. This is $189 million less than what was enacted for FY2015.
Congressional Research Service
21
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Table 8. Department of Defense RDT&E
(in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Final
Budget
Account
Base OCO Base OCO
Base OCO Base OCO Base OCO
Army 6,673
2
6,925
2
Navy 15,955
36
17,886
36
Air Force
23,630
15
26,474
17
Defensewide 17,217
270a 18,330 137
Dir. Test & Eval.
209
171
Total Title IV—By
Accountb 63,684
322
69,785
191
Budget Activity
6.1 Basic Research
2,278
2,089
6.2 Applied Research
4,603
45
4,713
6.3 Advanced Tech. Dev.
5,304
23
5,464
6.4 Advanced Component
Dev. and Prototypes
12,472
19
14,402
2
6.5 Systems Development
and Demonstration
11,101
10
12,771
6.6 Management Supportc 4,396
4,185
6.7 Op. Systems Dev.d
23,530
225
26,161
190
Total Title IV—by
Budget Activityb 63,684
322
69,785
191
Title V—Revolving and
Management Funds
National Defense Sealift
Fund 24
25
Title VI—Other
Defense Programs
Defense Health Program
1,731
980
Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction
596
579
Inspector General
1 5
Grand Totalb 66,036
322
71,374
191
Source: CRS, adapted from the Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2016 RDT&E Programs (R-1),
February 2015.
a. This figure includes $95 million for Ebola Response and Preparedness.
b. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
c. Includes funding for Director of Test and Evaluation.
d. Includes funding for Classified Programs.
Congressional Research Service
22
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Department of Homeland Security48
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has identified five core missions: to prevent
terrorism and enhance security, to secure and manage the borders, to enforce and administer
immigration laws, to safeguard and secure cyberspace, and to ensure resilience to disasters. New
technology resulting from research and development can contribute to all these goals. The
Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) has primary responsibility for establishing,
administering, and coordinating DHS R&D activities. The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
(DNDO) is responsible for R&D relating to nuclear and radiological threats. Other components,
such as the U.S. Coast Guard, conduct R&D relating to their specific missions.
The President is requesting $1.154 billion in FY2016 for R&D and related programs in DHS.
This is a 19.2% decrease from $1.430 billion in FY2015. The total includes $779 million for the
S&T Directorate, $357 million for DNDO, and $18 million for Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation (RDT&E) in the U.S. Coast Guard. (See Table 9.)
The S&T Directorate is the primary DHS R&D organization.49 Led by the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, it performs R&D in several laboratories of its own and funds R&D
performed by the DOE national laboratories, industry, universities, and others. It also conducts
testing and other technology-related activities in support of acquisitions by other DHS
components. The Administration’s request of $779 million for the S&T Directorate in FY2016 is
29.4% less than the FY2015 appropriation of $1.104 billion. Most of the difference results from a
lower request for Laboratory Facilities, which received $300 million in FY2015 for construction
of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF). No further funds for NBAF construction
are requested in FY2016. Within the request for Research, Development, and Innovation (RD&I),
support for Apex projects would increase to $78 million in FY2016.50 Apex projects are
multidisciplinary projects agreed to between the S&T Directorate and the head of another DHS
component. The FY2016 request would support six Apex projects in addition to the previous two.
It would also establish a crosscutting “technology engines” activity within the Apex program.
DNDO is the DHS organization responsible for nuclear detection research, development, testing,
evaluation, acquisition, and operational support. The Administration is requesting $357 million
for DNDO in FY2016, an increase of 16.1% from the FY2015 appropriation of $308 million. In
the Systems Acquisition account, the Administration proposes to merge the Radiation Portal
Monitors program ($5 million in FY2015) and the Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems
program ($49 million in FY2015) into a single, expanded Radiological and Nuclear Detection
Equipment Acquisition program ($101 million requested for FY2016). The increase in funding
for the merged program would support recapitalization of DHS radiation detection equipment that
is at or past its life expectancy.
48 This section was written by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
49 For more information, see CRS Report R43064, The DHS S&T Directorate: Selected Issues for Congress, by Dana
A. Shea.
50 The FY2015 act and explanatory statement did not specify the allocation of funding to Apex projects within the total
provided for RD&I. Apex funding was $15 million in FY2014 and in the FY2015 request.
Congressional Research Service
23
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
In September 2012, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that although the
S&T Directorate, DNDO, and the Coast Guard are the only DHS components that report R&D
activities to the Office of Management and Budget, several other DHS components also fund
R&D and activities related to R&D.51 The GAO report found that DHS 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.52 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.53 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.54 In September 2014, GAO testified that DHS
had updated its guidance to include a definition of R&D, but that efforts to develop a process for
coordinating R&D across the department were ongoing but not yet complete.55
51 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Department of Homeland Security: Oversight and Coordination of
Research and Development Should Be Strengthened, GAO-12-837, September 12, 2012.
52 Congressional Record, March 11, 2013, p. S1547.
53 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.
54 Congressional Record, January 15, 2014, p. H927.
55 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Department of Homeland Security: Actions Needed to Strengthen
Management of Research and Development, GAO-14-865T, September 9, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
24
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Table 9. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Final
Directorate of Science and Technology
$1,104
$779
Management and Administration
130a 132
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
974b 647
Research, Development, and Innovation
457
435
Laboratory
Facilities
435
134
Acquisition and Operations Support
42
47
University
Programs
40
31
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
308
357
Management and Administration
37
38
Research, Development, and Operations
198
196
Systems
Architecture
17
17
Systems
Development
21
22
Transformational
R&D
70
68
Assessments
38
38
Operations
Support
31
31
National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center
21
20
Systems Acquisition
73
123
Radiological//Nuclear Detection Equipment
101
Acquisition
—
Radiation Portal Monitors Program
5
—
Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems
49
—
Securing the Cities
19
22
U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E
18
18
DHS, Total R&D and Related Programs
1,430
1,154
Sources: FY2014 actual and FY2016 request from DHS FY2016 congressional budget justification. FY2015
enacted from H.R. 240 and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, January 13, 2015.
Note: Totals may differ from sum of components due to rounding.
a. Does not reflect a rescission of $0.5 million from unobligated prior-year balances.
b. Does not reflect a rescission of $16.6 million from unobligated prior-year balances.
Congressional Research Service
25
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Department of Health and Human Services
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the federal government’s “principal
agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services,
especially for those who are least able to help themselves.”56
The President is requesting $31.0 billion in R&D funding for HHS, an increase of $565 million
(1.9%) from its FY2015 level of $30.5 billion. Several components of HHS provide funding for
R&D. This report focuses on HHS R&D funded through NIH, an HHS agency which provides
more than 95% of total HHS R&D funding.57
The President’s FY2016 request for R&D at other HHS agencies includes:
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: $398 million, equal to the amount it
received in FY2015.
• Food and Drug Administration: $410 million, equal to the amount it received in
FY2015.
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: $385 million, an increase of $1
million (0.3%) from its FY2015 level.
• Health Resources and Services Administration: $22 million, equal to the amount
it received in FY2015.
• Administration for Children and Families: $17 million, an increase of $6 million
(54.5%) from its FY2015 level.58
In addition, the President’s budget would eliminate R&D funding for the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services, which received $64 million in FY2015, and provide $163 million for
departmental management related to R&D, an increase of $6 million (3.8%) above its FY2015
level.59
National Institutes of Health60
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary agency of the federal government charged
with performing and supporting biomedical and behavioral research. It also has major roles in
training biomedical researchers and disseminating health information. The NIH mission is “to
seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application
of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce the burdens of illness and
56 HHS, “About,” http://www.hhs.gov/about.
57 Email correspondence between OMB and CRS, February 9, 2015.
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid.
60 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 and CRS Report R43341, NIH Funding: FY1994-FY2016,
by Judith A. Johnson.
Congressional Research Service
26
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
disability.”61 The agency’s organization consists of the Office of the NIH Director and 27
institutes and centers.
NIH supports and conducts a wide range of basic and clinical research, research training, and
health information dissemination across all fields of biomedical and behavioral sciences. About
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.62 The NIH Office of the Director (OD)
sets overall policy for NIH and coordinates the programs and activities of all NIH components,
particularly in areas of research that involve multiple institutes. The institutes and centers
(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 10, Congress provides separate appropriations to 24 of
the 27 ICs, to OD, and to an intramural Buildings and Facilities account. The other three centers,
which perform centralized support services, are funded through assessments on the IC
appropriations.
Funding for NIH comes primarily from the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill, with
an additional amount for Superfund-related activities from the Interior/Environment
appropriations bill. Those two bills provide NIH’s discretionary budget authority. In addition,
NIH receives $150 million in mandatory funding annually. The Public Health Service (PHS) Act
provides this funding for a special program on type 1 diabetes research and funding from a PHS
Act transfer. The total funding available for NIH activities, taking account of transfers, is known
as the NIH program level.
The President’s FY2016 budget requests an NIH program level total of $31.311 billion, an
increase of $1 billion (3.3%) over the FY2015 level of $30.311 billion (see Table 10). The
FY2016 program level request for NIH includes $150 million in mandatory funding for research
on type 1 diabetes which is proposed for reauthorization in FY2016.63 The FY2016 program level
amount also proposes $847 million in funding transferred to NIH by the PHS Program Evaluation
Set-Aside, also called the evaluation tap. NIH and other HHS agencies and programs authorized
under the PHS Act are subject to a budget assessment found in Section 241 of the PHS Act (42
U.S.C. §238j). It authorizes the Secretary to use a portion of eligible appropriations to study the
effectiveness of federal health programs and to identify improvements. Although the PHS Act
limits the evaluation tap to no more than 1% of eligible appropriations, in recent years the annual
Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations act has specified a higher amount (2.5% in FY2015)
and also typically directs specific amounts of funding from the evaluation tap for transfer to a
number of HHS programs. The set-aside has the effect of redistributing appropriated funds for
specific purposes among PHS and other HHS agencies. NIH, with the largest budget among the
PHS agencies, has traditionally been the largest “donor” of program evaluation funds and, until
recently, a relatively minor recipient.64
61 National Institutes of Health, “About the National Institutes of Health,” http://www.nih.gov/about/mission.htm.
62 Department of Health and Human Services, Fiscal Year 2016 Budget in Brief, Washington, DC, February 2, 2015, p.
45, http://www.hhs.gov/budget/fy2016/fy-2016-budget-in-brief.pdf.
63 Mandatory funds for type 1 diabetes research under PHS Act §330B were provided by the American Taxpayer Relief
Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240) in FY2014 and the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-93) in FY2015.
64 Section 205 of the FY2012 Labor/HHS and Education appropriations act capped the set-aside at 2.5%, which drew
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
27
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Except for the mandatory diabetes funding, Congress does not usually specify amounts for
particular diseases or research areas. Congress generally appropriates specific amounts to each IC
and leaves it to NIH and its scientific advisory panels to allocate funding to different research
areas.65 Some bills may propose authorizations for designated research purposes, but funding
generally remains subject to discretionary appropriations and the NIH peer review process.
Under the President’s FY2016 budget request, most of the NIH institutes and centers would
receive a 2% to 4% increase compared to FY2015 with few exceptions, such as a $70 million
(6%) increase for the National Institute on Aging and a $57 million (17%) increase for the
National Library of Medicine (NLM). The increase for NLM would allow the National Center for
Biotechnology Information to support PubMed Central, providing public access to papers
emanating from NIH research, and enable ClinicalTrials.gov to accommodate the increased
volume of clinical trial reporting due to a proposed expansion of NIH trial reporting policy and
implementation of regulations related to the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of
2007 (FDAAA).66 The overview below outlines research priorities in the FY2016 NIH budget. 67
Basic Research. About 54% of the proposed NIH budget is targeted for basic biomedical and
behavioral research. The Brain Research through Application of Innovative Neurotechnologies
Initiative, a collaborative effort with the National Science Foundation and the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, develops and applies new tools for the study of complex brain
functions. The NIH portion of about $135 million in FY2016 is an increase of $70 million over
FY2015. Insights into brain circuitry and activity gained via the BRAIN initiative may help
reveal the underlying problems in brain disorders and may provide therapeutic or prevention
approaches for conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, autism, schizophrenia, depression, and
addiction.
Translating Discovery into Health. To continue implementing the research components of the
National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), NIH estimates it will spend $638 million on
AD research in FY2016, an increase of $51 million over FY2015. Over 25 NIH-supported
clinical trials are being conducted and more than 40 grants are testing compounds as possible
prevention or treatment agents against AD and other forms of cognitive decline.
(...continued)
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%. The President’s FY2015 Budget again proposed increasing the tap from 2.5% to
3.0%; P.L. 113-235 set the assessment at 2.5%. For FY2015, although NIH contributed an estimated $700 million to
the tap, it received $715 million under P.L. 113-235, an increase over the $8.2 million the agency received in the past
from the transfer. P.L. 113-235 allocates the entire $715 million to the National Institute of General Medical Sciences
(NIGMS), offsetting the more than $700 million reduction in discretionary budget authority for NIGMS in the law
compared with its FY2014 funding level. By convention, budget tables such as Table 10 do not subtract the amount of
the evaluation tap from the donor agencies’ appropriations. For further information on the PHS Evaluation Set-Aside,
see CRS Report R43304, Public Health Service Agencies: Overview and Funding, coordinated by C. Stephen Redhead.
65 See NIH website, “Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC),”
http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx.
66 NIH, FY2016 Justification of Estimates for Appropriation Committees, Vol. V, National Library of Medicine, p.
NLM-6, at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/about/2016CJ_NLM.pdf.
67 The amounts discussed in the text below are based on the NIH section in Fiscal Year 2016 Budget in Brief, pp. 44-
49, http://www.hhs.gov/budget/fy2016/fy-2016-budget-in-brief.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
28
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
NIH would spend $23 million in FY2016, same level as FY2015, on the Accelerating Medicines
Partnership (AMP), a venture with ten biopharmaceutical firms and several non-profit
organizations. The partnership aims at promising biological targets in three disease areas:
Alzheimer’s; type 2 diabetes; and two autoimmune disorders, rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.
In addition, NIH would target $461 million in FY2016 to support the Administration’s National
Strategy to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance Bacteria, an increase of $100 million over FY2015.
Big Data. NIH would spend $102 million in FY2016 on the Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K)
initiative, an increase of $20 million over FY2015, to facilitate sharing and protection of data as
well as develop faster and more accurate analytical methods and software. Examples of large
complex biomedical datasets of information include high-resolution medical images and DNA
sequencing data from many individuals.
Precision Medicine Initiative. The FY2016 budget request proposes a total of $215 million for a
multi-agency precision medicine initiative: $10 million to FDA to support the development of the
necessary regulatory approaches, $5 million to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health
Information Technology for developing relevant data privacy and sharing requirements, and $200
million to support biomedical research at NIH. Of the amount for NIH, it would use $130 million
for the development of a national research cohort composed of one million or more volunteers.
The cohort’s health, genetic, environmental and other data would be collected and used in
research studies to identify novel therapeutics and prevention strategies. The proposal would use
existing smaller research cohorts rather than recruiting one million new participants. The National
Cancer Institute would use the remaining $70 million of NIH funds to explore the genetics of
tumor cells that are resistant to therapy, to determine the efficacy of combination therapies that
target specific tumor mutations, and for research on non-invasive methods to track response to
cancer treatment.
Biomedical Research Workforce. NIH estimates it will spend $785 million to support 15,735
individuals in its major research training program, the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research
Service Awards, with a 2% stipend increase in FY2016 for predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees.
The request is $23 million above the FY2015 level. NIH will continue with programs to
encourage exceptionally promising new investigators, such as the Pioneer Research Awards, the
NIH Director’s Early Independence Awards, Transformative Research Awards, New Innovator
Awards, and the Pathway to Independence Awards. In addition, several ICs are conducting similar
award programs which are expected to expand in FY2016. NIH asserts it will continue to
implement steps to promote diversity and understand the barriers to career advancement of people
traditionally underrepresented in the research workforce.
The following are other selected program changes and areas of emphasis in the FY2016 request.
HIV/AIDS. NIH estimates it will spend about $3.1 billion on HIV/AIDS research in FY2016, an
increase of $100 million compared with FY2015.
Pediatric Research. NIH estimates it will spend over $3.6 billion on pediatric research in
FY2016, an increase of $75 million over FY2015. The $13 million authorized for pediatric
research by the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-94) will continue in
FY2016.
Congressional Research Service
29
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Research Project Grants. The main funding mechanism for supporting NIH extramural research
is research project grants (RPGs), which are competitive, peer-reviewed, and largely investigator-
initiated. The FY2016 budget requests total funding for RPGs of $17.2 billion, representing about
55% of NIH’s proposed budget. The request would support an estimated 35,447 RPG awards.
Within that total, 10,000 would be competing RPGs, an increase of over 1,200 grants compared
with FY2015. (Competing awards are new grants plus competing renewals of existing grants.)
NIH estimates the average amount of a competing RPG in FY2016 would be about $461,000, up
from about $457,000 in FY2015.
Table 10. National Institutes of Health Funding
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2015
Operating
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Level
Request
House
Senate
Final
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
$4,953
$5,098
National Heart, Lung, & Blood Institute
2,996 3,072
(NHLBI)
Dental/Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
398
407
Diabetes/Digestive/Kidney (NIDDK)a
1,749
1,788
Neurological Disorders/Stroke (NINDS)
1,605
1,660
Al ergy/Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
4,418
4,615
General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
1,657
1,587
Child Health/Human Development (NICHD)
1,287
1,318
National Eye Institute (NEI)
677
695
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
667
682
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
1,198
1,267
Arthritis/Musculoskeletal/Skin Diseases
522 533
(NIAMS)
Deafness/Communication Disorders
405 416
(NIDCD)
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
1,434
1,489
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
1,016
1,047
Alcohol Abuse/Alcoholism (NIAAA)
447
460
National Institute of Nursing Research
141 145
(NINR)
National Human Genome Research Institute
499 515
(NHGRI)
Biomedical Imaging/Bioengineering (NIBIB)
327
337
Minority Health/Health Disparities (NIMHD)
271
282
Complementary/Integrative Health (NCCIH)b 124 128
Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)
633
660
Fogarty International Center (FIC)
68
70
Congressional Research Service
30
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
FY2015
Operating
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Level
Request
House
Senate
Final
National Library of Medicine (NLM)
337
394
Office of Director (OD)
1,414
1,443
Buildings & Facilities (B&F)
129
129
Subtotal, Labor/HHS Appropriation
29,369
30,237
PHS Evaluation Tap fundingc 715
847
Subtotal, NIH
30,084
31,084
Superfund (Interior appropriation to NIEHS)d 77 77
Pre-appropriated type 1 diabetes fundse 150
150
Total, NIH program level
30,311
31,311
Source: NIH, FY2016 Justification of Estimates for Appropriation Committees, Vol. I, Overview, table on
“Budget Request by Institute and Center,” p. 85, at http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/br.html.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding. Amounts in table may differ from
actuals in many cases. By convention, budget tables such as Table 10 do not subtract the amount of transfers,
such as the evaluation tap, from the agencies’ appropriation. CRS estimated the NIH contribution to the
evaluation tap to be over $700 mil ion for FY2015. FY2015 amounts do not include $238,000,000 for NIAID for
research on Ebola that was provided in P.L. 113-235 (Title VI of Division G).
a. Amounts for NIDDK do not include mandatory funding for type 1 diabetes research (see note e).
b. Reflects name change from National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine to National
Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; provision included in P.L. 113-235.
c. Additional funds for NLM in FY2014 and for NIGMS in FY2015 Operating Level and FY2016 Request from
PHS Evaluation Set-Aside (§241 of PHS Act).
d. This is a separate account in the Interior/Environment appropriations for NIEHS research activities related
to Superfund.
e. Mandatory funds available to NIDDK for type 1 diabetes research under PHS Act §330B (provided by P.L.
112-240 in FY2014 and P.L. 113-93 in FY2015) are proposed for reauthorization in FY2016. Although not
reflected in Table 10, the FY2015 amount was reduced by about $11 million (7.3%) due to the FY2015
sequestration.
Department of Energy68
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.
68 This section was written by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
31
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
The Administration is requesting $14.178 billion in FY2016 for DOE R&D and related activities,
including programs in three major categories: science, national security, and energy. This request
is 12.2% more than the FY2015 appropriation of $12.640 billion. (See Table 11 for details.)
The request for the DOE Office of Science is $5.340 billion, an increase of 5.4% from the
FY2015 appropriation of $5.068 billion. There is no authorized funding level for the Office of
Science for FY2016. The most recent authorization act (the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010, P.L. 111-358) authorized appropriations through FY2013. The
FY2016 budget request 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 FY2016 request for the Office of Science is 47% more than
its FY2006 baseline.
The Office of Science includes six major research programs. The request for the largest program,
Basic Energy Sciences (BES), is $1.849 billion, an increase of 6.7%. Within BES, a proposed
increase of $62 million for continued construction of the Linac Coherent Light Source II (LCLS-
II) is slightly less than was previously projected; however, the projected future cost of completing
the project in FY2017 through FY2019 has increased. A proposed increase of $35 million for
Scientific User Facilities would support increased operating hours at multiple BES research
facilities. Energy Frontier Research Centers would increase by $10 million to support up to 10
new centers.
The request for High Energy Physics is $788 million, an increase of 2.9%. Within this program, a
proposed increase of $15 million for continued construction of the Muon to Electron Conversion
Experiment (Mu2e) is slightly less than was previously projected; however, the projected future
cost of completing the project in FY2017 through FY2019 has increased. In the program’s three
major experimental areas, proposed increases for cosmic frontier physics and energy frontier
physics are approximately offset by a proposed decrease for physics at the intensity frontier.
The request for Biological and Environmental Research is $612 million, an increase of 3.4%.
This program consists of two roughly equal parts: Biological Systems Science and Climate and
Environmental Sciences. Within Climate and Environmental Sciences, the request includes an
increase of $31 million for climate and Earth system modeling.
The request for Advanced Scientific Computing Research is $621 million, an increase of 14.8%.
Essentially the entire increase would be allocated to the Research and Evaluation Prototypes
program. This activity supports R&D partnerships with vendors to influence and accelerate
critical technologies for next-generation systems, system integration research, and development
and engineering efforts.
The request for Fusion Energy Sciences is $420 million, a decrease of 10.2%. Construction
funding for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) would be $150
million, the same as in FY2015. 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,
Congressional Research Service
32
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
its schedule has slipped, the international project schedule is “not reliable,” and DOE can “only
partially” influence the international project’s performance.69 All other major program areas
would decrease. The Alcator C-MOD facility would cease operations at the end of FY2016.
The request for DOE national security R&D is $4.488 billion, a 9.0% increase from $4.119
billion in FY2015. In the Weapons Activities account, Advanced Simulation and Computing
would increase by $25 million, and Advanced Manufacturing Development would increase by
$23 million. Funding for the Naval Reactors program would rise by 11.5%, including increases
for technology development, systems development, and facility operations and maintenance.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D would increase by $26 million, but this would result
largely from a transfer of funding for materials characterization research and diagnostic
equipment development to this account from Weapons Activities.
The FY2016 request for DOE energy R&D is $4.350 billion, up 26.0% from $3.453 billion in
FY2015. The request would increase funding for R&D in the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE) by 43.9%, with increases requested for all major EERE programs.
Within EERE, the largest increases would be for Advanced Manufacturing ($404 million, up from
$200 million in FY2015), Vehicle Technologies ($444 million, up from $280 million), Solar
Energy ($337 million, up from $233 million), and Building Technologies ($264 million, up from
$172 million). The request for Advanced Manufacturing would support the establishment of two
additional Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institutes (see “National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation”). The proposed increase for Nuclear Energy reflects a rescission of
unobligated prior-year balances in FY2015; without this rescission, the FY2016 request for
Nuclear Energy would be a $6 million decrease. The request for Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability R&D includes an increase of $15 million for smart grid R&D and $10 million to
establish a new program of R&D on transformer resilience and advanced components. Support
for the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) would increase by 16.1%. The
balance of ARPA-E project funding would shift from an equal distribution between Stationary
Power Systems and Transportation Systems to approximately a 60:40 split.
Table 11. Department of Energy R&D and Related Activities
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Final
Science
$5,068
$5,340
Basic Energy Sciences
1,733
1,849
High Energy Physics
766
788
Biological and Environmental Research
592
612
Nuclear
Physics
596
625
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
541
621
Fusion Energy Sciences
468
420
Other
373
425
69 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
33
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Final
National
Security
4,119
4,488
Weapons
Activitiesa
2,478
2,676
Naval
Reactors
1,234
1,375
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D
393
419
Defense Environmental Cleanup Tech. Dev.
14
17
Energy
3,453
4,350
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energyb
1,671
2,404
Fossil Energy R&D
561
560
Nuclear
Energy
833
908
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability R&D
108
153
Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy
280
325
DOE,
Total
12,640
14,178
Source: FY2014 actual and FY2016 request from DOE FY2016 congressional budget justification,
http://energy.gov/cfo/downloads/fy-2016-budget-justification. FY2015 enacted from P.L. 113-235 and explanatory
statement, Congressional Record, December 11, 2014.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding. Amounts include rescissions and
use of prior-year unobligated balances. FY2014 amounts include transfers within and between accounts for the
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs.
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 and
Infrastructure and Safety. Additional R&D activities may take place in the subprograms of Directed Stockpile
Work that are devoted to specific weapon systems. This table does not include these funds because
detailed funding schedules for those subprograms are classified.
b. Excluding Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.
National Science Foundation70
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.”71 The NSF is a
primary source of federal support for U.S. university research, especially in mathematics and
computer science. It is also responsible for significant shares of the federal science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics education program portfolio and federal STEM student aid and
support.72
70 This section was written by Heather B. Gonzalez, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
71 The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-507).
72 For more information about the NSF, see CRS Report R43585, The National Science Foundation: Background and
Selected Policy Issues, by Heather B. Gonzalez.
Congressional Research Service
34
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
NSF has six major appropriations accounts: Research and Related Activities (RRA, the main
research account), Education and Human Resources (EHR, the main education account), Major
Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC), Agency Operations and Award
Management (AOAM), the National Science Board (NSB), and the Office of Inspector General
(OIG). FY2016 funding for these accounts is tracked in Table 12.
Overall, the Obama Administration seeks $7.724 billion for the NSF in FY2016, a $379 million
(5%) increase over the FY2015 estimate of $7.344 billion. Under the request, RRA would
increase by $253 million or 4%. EHR would grow by nearly $100 million (11%).
In its budget documents NSF indicates that its FY2016 priorities include four programs that have
been foundation priorities since at least FY2013: Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and
Smart Systems (CEMMSS, $257 million requested, 11% increase); Cyberinfrastructure
Framework for 21st Century Science, Engineering, and Education (CIF21, $143 million
requested, 11% increase); Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES, $81
million requested, 42% reduction); and Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC, $124 million
requested, 1% increase). New priorities in FY2016 include Clean Energy Technology ($377
million, 2% increase), Innovation Corps (I-Corps, $30 million, 14% increase), NSF Research
Traineeships (NRT, $62 million, 1% increase), and Research at the Interface of Biological,
Mathematical, and Physical Sciences (BioMaPS, $33 million, 12% increase). NSF added
Cognitive Science and Neuroscience to its priority list in FY2015, but removed it in FY2016.73
As previously noted, the Administration seeks a $253 million (4%) increase in year-over-year
funding for RRA. In FY2015, House report language (H.Rept. 113-448) directed NSF to apply
any additional appropriations (over FY2015 RRA requested levels) to BIO, CISE, ENG and
MPS. NSF received $126 million more than requested for RRA in FY2015. The additional
funding was applied to the specified major subaccounts, which received 3%-4% increases over
FY2015 requested levels. (Funding for GEO, SBE, IA/OISE, and USARC was at FY2015
requested levels.) Although the FY2016 budget request seeks increases ranging from 2% to 8%
for all major RRA subaccounts, the request seeks slightly more (on average, as a percentage over
prior year) for accounts that did not receive extra funding in FY2015 (i.e., GEO, SBE, IA/OISE,
and USARC).74 However, more than half of the $253 million total increase for RRA (54%) would
still go to BIO, CISE, ENG, and MPS.
Policymakers actively debate congressional funding directives at the major subaccount level in
RRA. Some analysts assert that legislators have a role in establishing funding priorities by
scientific field within RRA, as part of the legislative oversight function and in order to assure
accountability for taxpayer funds. Other analysts argue that the scientists who manage NSF ought
to determine the distribution of funding by field, based on their deeper knowledge of research
needs and scientific possibilities within each field, and of how these needs are best balanced
across the NSF portfolio.
73 In FY2016, NSF identifies cognitive science and neuroscience as elements of a cross-foundation investment called
Understanding the Brain (UtB). The FY2016 request for UtB is $144 million, $38 million (35%) more than the FY2015
estimate of $106 million.
74 The average requested percentage increase for BIO (2%), CISE (4%), ENG (6%), and MPS (2%) is 4%. The average
requested percentage increase for GEO (5%), SBE (7%), IA/OISE (8%), and USARC (5%) is 6%.
Congressional Research Service
35
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
RRA programs that are widely tracked by policymakers include the Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) program. For FY2016, the Administration seeks $170
million for EPSCoR, a $10 million (6%) increase over the FY2015 estimate of $160 million.
The FY2016 request for EHR is $963 million, or $97 million more than the FY2015 estimated
level of $866 million. Most of the requested increase ($81 million or 83%) would go to activities
classified as R&D. This additional investment in R&D would further shift the balance between
R&D and education and training within EHR.75 If Congress adopts the FY2016 request, the
portion of EHR dedicated to R&D activities would reach 49%. By comparison, in FY2008 (the
earliest year for which comparable budget data are available), R&D activities constituted 11% of
EHR funding. The character of EHR’s R&D funding has also shifted, moving from about 91%
basic research in FY2008 to about 34% basic research in the FY2016 request.
By program, the largest increase in the FY2016 EHR request is for Improving Undergraduate
STEM Education (IUSE).76 The Administration seeks $121 million in EHR funding for IUSE in
FY2016, a $36 million (43%) increase over the FY2015 estimated level of $84 million. In
addition, IUSE would receive $15 million in FY2016 RRA co-funding (from GEO, ENG, and
BIO). The second-largest increase in the FY2016 EHR request is for EHR Core Research (ECR):
STEM Learning, within the Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings.77
The FY2016 request for ECR:STEM Learning is $49 million, or $24 million (92%) more than the
FY2015 estimate of $26 million.
Other widely tracked EHR programs include Advanced Technological Education (ATE, $66
million requested, no change); Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program (Noyce, $61 million
requested, no change); Cybercorps: Scholarships for Service (SFS, $45 million requested, no
change); Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL, $60 million requested, 9% increase); and
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics + Computing (STEM+C) Partnerships
(formerly Mathematics and Science Partnerships, $52 million requested, 9% decrease).
The FY2016 NSF budget request would provide $338 million in combined funding for the
Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF), which receives half of its funding from RRA and half from
EHR, for a $4 million (1%) increase over the FY2015 estimate of $333 million. The NSF
Research Traineeship (NRT, formerly the Integrative Graduate Education and Research
Traineeship or IGERT), which is also co-funded by RRA and EHR (but not equally), would
receive $62 million in FY2016. This amount is about 1% more than FY2015. However, the
budget request seeks to reduce the RRA contribution by $7 million and increase the EHR
contribution by a similar amount. EHR would provide the majority of NRT program funding for
the first time in at least five fiscal years.
75 According to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) character classification definitions, most EHR funding goes
to R&D or to education and training. The education and training classification includes scholarships, as well as
operating assistance for schools and colleges. For more information, see OMB Circular A-11, Section 84, “Character
Classification (Schedule C)” at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/a11_current_year/s84.pdf.
76 According to the July 23, 2014, IUSE program solicitation (NSF14588), two goals guide the IUSE program, “1) to
promote the development, use, and testing of instructional practices and curricular innovations that engage and improve
student learning and retention in STEM, and 2) to promote community and institutional transformation that will
increase opportunities for the application of highly effective STEM teaching methods.”
77 Each EHR division has an ECR program. ECR:STEM Learning is in the Division of Research on Learning in Formal
and Informal Settings (DRL). According to the October 24, 2014, ECR: STEM Learning program solicitation
(NSF15509), DRL’s “ECR projects are grounded in theory, ask well formulated research questions, employ relevant
data and analytic techniques, and contribute to the growing body of literature on STEM education research.”
Congressional Research Service
36
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
The Administration seeks no changes for most of NSF’s 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). The FY2016 NSF budget request does
not seek funding for a Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) program. Some policymakers have
encouraged NSF to seek such funding in the past. Rather, the budget request pledges to
emphasize Hispanic-serving two-year colleges through existing programs, including ATE, IUSE,
and LSAMP.
Other accounts that fund R&D at the NSF include the MREFC account, which supports large
construction projects and scientific instruments. The Administration seeks just over $200 million
for MREFC in FY2016, which is close to the FY2015 estimate of $201 million. In FY2016,
MREFC funding would pay for the final year of National Ecological Observatory Network
(NEON) construction, and would provide ongoing support for the Large Synoptic Survey
Telescope (LSST) and Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope (DKIST).78
Historically, the MREFC account has typically supported between four and six projects at a time.
The FY2015 and FY2016 requests for three projects was lower than the historical trend, which
could indicate that some potentially scientifically valuable projects are being delayed or
overlooked. On the other hand, when these large projects come online their operations costs must
be shouldered by research accounts. This can be seen in the FY2016 BIO request, which states
that “NEON operations will represent a major change to the BIO portfolio, with up to 5.9% of
BIO’s total funding dedicated to operations and maintenance of the facility.”79 In a constrained
budget environment, this dynamic could precipitate difficult choices between funding for research
and funding research facilities and equipment.
The Administration seeks $355 million, $4 million, and $15 million for AOAM, NSB, and OIG
(respectively). Funding for AOAM would be $30 million or 9% greater in FY2016 than it was in
FY2015 ($325 million, estimated). The increase for AOAM is part of a multi-year plan to relocate
NSF headquarters. Previous disputes between NSF and its labor unions over headquarters interior
space allocations have been resolved. Funding for NSB would not change significantly between
FY2015 and FY2016 under the request; funding for OIG would increase by about three-quarters
of a million (5%).
The FY2016 NSF budget request includes funding for three multi-agency initiatives: National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI, $416 million), Networking and Information Technology
Research and Development (NITRD, $1.217 billion), and U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP, $341 million). The request for NNI is about the same as the FY2015 estimate, NITRD
would increase by $31 million, and USGCRP would receive an additional $10 million in FY2016.
78 The Advanced Technology Solar Telescope was renamed the Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope in December 2013.
79 National Science Foundation, FY2016 Budget Request to Congress, February 2, 2015, p. BIO-2.
Congressional Research Service
37
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Table 12. NSF Funding by Major Account
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Account
Estimate
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Research and Related Activities (RRA)
Biological Sciences (BIO)
731.0
747.9
Computer and Information Science and
921.7 954.4
Engineering (CISE)
Engineering (ENG)
892.3
949.2
Geosciences (GEO)
1,304.4
1,365.4
Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS)
1,336.7
1,366.2
Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE)
272.2
291.5
Office of International Science and Engineering
48.5 51.0
(OISE)
Integrative Activities (IA)
425.3
459.2
U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC)
1.4
1.5
RRA, Subtotal
5,933.7
6,186.3
Education and Human Resources (EHR)
866.0
962.6
Major Research Equipment and Facilities
200.8 200.3
Construction (MREFC)
Agency Operations and Award
325.0 354.8
Management (AOAM)
National Science Board (NSB)
4.4
4.4
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
14.4
15.2
NSF, Total
7,344.2
7,723.6
Source: Data in the columns titled, “FY2015 Estimate” and “FY2016 Request” are from the FY2016 NSF Budget
Request to Congress.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding. The account structure in Table 12
reflects the realignment (in FY2015) of OISE and IA as separate budget activities.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration80
In 1958, the National Aeronautics and Space Act (P.L. 85-568) created the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration 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
80 This section was written by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
38
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
such as advanced propulsion systems. In addition, NASA operates the International Space Station
as a facility for R&D and other purposes.
The Administration is requesting $17.282 billion for NASA R&D in FY2016. This amount is
2.7% more than the $16.828 billion NASA received for R&D in FY2015.81 For a breakdown of
these amounts, see Table 13. There is no authorized level for NASA funding in FY2016. The
most recent authorization act (the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, P.L. 111-267) authorized
appropriations through FY2013. NASA R&D funding comes through five accounts: Science,
Aeronautics, Space Technology, Exploration, and International Space Station.
The FY2016 request for Science is $5.289 billion, an increase of 0.8%. In Planetary Science, the
request includes $30 million for formulation and development of a potential future mission to
Jupiter’s moon Europa. Congress provided $69.7 million in FY2013, $80 million in FY2014, and
$100 million in FY2015 for formulation of a Europa mission, which was a high priority of the
2011 National Research Council (NRC) decadal survey of planetary science.82 The NRC
expressed reservations, however, at the mission’s estimated cost of $4.7 billion, and in April
2014, NASA issued a request for information seeking Europa mission concepts costing less than
$1 billion.83 NASA expects to formulate cost and schedule range estimates for a Europa mission
during FY2016; it notes that the “mission concept may require significant modification.”84
Also in the Science account, an increase of 9.9% for Earth Science would support, among other
initiatives, an expansion of the Sustainable Land Imaging program. Over several years, this
program is to develop and launch the Landsat 9 land imaging satellite for the U.S. Geological
Survey as a duplicate of the currently operational Landsat 8. The program is to also develop a
lower-cost Thermal Infrared Free Flyer satellite to reduce the risk of a gap in data availability
prior to the launch of Landsat 9. Finally, it is to initiate an ongoing program of technology
development to inform the future design of Landsat 10.
In Astrophysics, also funded in the Science account, the request includes $85.2 million for the
Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA). In the FY2015 budget, NASA
proposed placing the SOFIA aircraft in storage unless international partners could support the
U.S. share of its operating costs. Rejecting this proposal, the 113th Congress provided $70 million
for SOFIA in FY2015 and directed NASA to “continue to seek partners to restore SOFIA to its
full operational level.”
The FY2016 request for Aeronautics is $571 million, a decrease of 12.3%. This request follows
an increase in FY2015 of nearly $100 million above the FY2015 request. NASA reorganized its
aeronautics research in FY2015 to align with a new strategic vision announced in August 2013.85
The proposed FY2016 budget for Aeronautics would support new activities aligned with the
research thrust areas identified in the strategic vision.
81 Based on a CRS estimate of $3.010 billion in R&D for the International Space Station in FY2015. See notes to Table
13.
82 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.
83 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/.
84 NASA FY2016 congressional budget justification, p. PS-47.
85 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
39
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
The FY2016 request for Space Technology is $725 million, an increase of 21.6%. Space
Technology was first established as a separate account in FY2011. Each year since then, the
Administration has proposed to increase Space Technology funding. Congress has provided
increases each year except FY2014, but always less than the Administration’s request. The
request for FY2016 includes an increase of $44 million for in-space technology demonstrations
and an increase of $48 million for maturation of early-stage transformational technologies.
The FY2016 request for Exploration is $4.506 billion, an increase of 3.4%. This account funds
development of the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle and the Space Launch System (SLS)
heavy-lift rocket, which the 2010 authorization act mandated 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 $2.863 billion for
Orion, the SLS, and related ground systems (known collectively as Exploration Systems
Development) is a decrease of 11.8%, while the request of $1.244 billion for commercial crew is
an increase of 54.5%. Other recent Administration budgets have similarly proposed to decrease
Exploration Systems Development funding while increasing commercial crew funding. Many in
Congress have seen these proposals as evidence of a difference in human spaceflight priorities
between Congress and the Administration. Congress has generally appropriated less than the
Administration’s request for commercial crew and more for Exploration Systems Development.
NASA argues that the requested amount for commercial crew is necessary to maintain the
scheduled availability of commercial crew transportation to the International Space Station
starting in 2017. It asserts that the schedule for initial operation of Orion and SLS (NASA plans a
first crewed test flight for FY2021-FY2022) is dependent primarily on testing and development
schedules and would be difficult to accelerate, even with additional funds. Some congressional
supporters of Orion and SLS argue that those programs have not received the funds they need to
stay on schedule.
The Administration’s FY2016 request includes $3.106 billion for the International Space Station
(ISS).86 Funding for the ISS includes the cost of commercial cargo flights for ISS resupply, as
well as the cost of Russian Soyuz flights for U.S. ISS astronauts.
Table 13. NASA R&D
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Final
Science $5,244.7
$5,288.6
Earth
Science
1,772.5
1,947.3
Planetary
Science
1,437.8
1,361.2
Astrophysics
684.8
709.1
James Webb Space Telescope
645.4
620.0
Heliophysics
662.2
651.0
Education
42.0a
—
86 Neither P.L. 113-235 nor the accompanying explanatory statement specified FY2015 funding for the ISS. They
identified only the amount for Space Operations, which includes funding for other activities in addition to the ISS. The
total FY2016 request for Space Operations is a 4.6% increase.
Congressional Research Service
40
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Final
Aeronautics 651.0
571.4
Space Technology
596.0
724.8
Exploration 4,356.7
4,505.9
Exploration Systems Development
3,245.3
2,862.9
Commercial
Spaceflight
805.0
1,243.8
Exploration
R&D
306.4
399.2
International Space Station
—b
3,105.6
Subtotal R&D
13,858.4
14,196.3
Non-R&D Programsc 973.8
1,024.4
Safety, Security, and Mission Servicesd 2,758.9
2,843.1
Associated with R&De 2,577.8
2,651.8
Construction & Environmental C&R
419.1
465.3
Associated with R&De 391.6
434.0
NASA, Total (R&D)
16,827.8
17,282.0
NASA, Total
18,010.2
18,529.1
Sources: FY2014 actual and FY2016 request from NASA’s FY2016 congressional budget justification,
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/. FY2015 enacted from P.L. 113-235 and explanatory statement, Congressional
Record, December 11, 2014, Book II, at pp. H9348-H9349.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
a. Included in Astrophysics in other years. This item is separate from the Education account, which is included
in Non-R&D Programs, lower in the table.
b. Not specified in P.L. 113-235 or the explanatory statement. The R&D totals shown in the table are
calculated using a CRS estimate of $3,010.0 million for the International Space Station.
c. Space Operations other than International Space Station, Education, and Inspector General.
d. Formerly known as Cross-Agency Support.
e. CRS estimates the allocation between R&D and non-R&D 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.
Department of Commerce
The Department of Commerce is a multi-faceted organization engaging in diverse policy and
programmatic activities, including trade, technology, telecommunications, data collection and
analysis, and the environment. The department’s R&D activities are found primarily in the
National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. This chapter addresses only DOC R&D funding at these organizations.
Congressional Research Service
41
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
National Institute of Standards and Technology87
An agency of the Department of Commerce, NIST has 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 budget request would provide $1.120 billion for NIST in FY2016, an increase of
$255.8 million (29.6%) over the FY2015 enacted appropriation. (See Table 14.) NIST funding is
provided through three accounts: Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS),
Industrial Technology Services (ITS), and Construction of Research Facilities (CRF).
The President’s request includes $754.7 million for R&D in the STRS account for FY2016, $79.2
million (11.7%) above FY2015 funding. According to NIST, activities with increased requested
funding in this account for FY2016 include: advanced manufacturing, up $24 million; ensuring a
world-class neutron research facility, up $11 million; disaster resilience, up $10 million; advanced
communications, up $9 million; cybersecurity, up $7 million; Smart Cities/cyber-physical
systems, up $5 million; quantum information science, up $5 million; and a lab-to-
market/technology transfer initiative, up $4 million.88
The President is requesting $306.0 million for the ITS account for FY2016, including $141.0
million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program (up $11.0 million, 8.5%,
from FY2015), $15.0 million for the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech)
(up $6.9 million, 85.2%, from FY2015), and $150.0 million for the Network for Manufacturing
Innovation (NMI).89 The Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014
(RAMIA, Title VII of Division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act,
2015 [P.L. 113-235]) authorized the NMI with provisions largely mirroring the National Network
for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) first proposed by President Obama in his FY2013 budget
request and renewed in his FY2014 and FY2015 requests. RAMIA authorizes NIST to carry out
the NMI program using $5 million per year for FY2015-FY2024 from funds appropriated to the
ITS account. The act also authorizes DOE to transfer to NIST up to $250 million over the
FY2015-FY2024 period from funds appropriated for advanced manufacturing R&D in the DOE
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account. The President’s FY2016 budget also includes
a request for $1.9 billion in mandatory funding for NIST for the establishment of 29 additional
centers between FY2017 and FY2024, bringing the total number of centers to 45.
87 This section was written by John F. Sargent, Jr., Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
88 National Institute of Standards and Technology, “Programs with increased funding requests,” press release, February
3, 2015, http://nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/budget-2016.cfm.
89 For more information, see “National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.”
Congressional Research Service
42
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
The President is requesting $59.0 million for the NIST CRF account, up $8.7 million (17.3%)
over FY2015.90
NIST’s extramural programs (currently the MEP 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, previously 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.
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 and CRF accounts). In April
2009, President Obama indicated his decision to double the budget of key science agencies,
including the NIST STRS and CRF accounts, over the next 10 years. In President Obama’s
FY2011 budget the time frame for doubling slipped to 11 years; his FY2012 budget was silent on
a time frame for doubling. There is no mention of doubling or a time frame in the FY2016 budget
request. For more information on the doubling effort, see “Efforts to Double Certain R&D
Accounts.”
Table 14. NIST Appropriations
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Base Budget
Scientific and Technical Research and
Services (STRS)
$675.5
$754.7
Industrial Technology Services (ITS) a 138.1
306.0
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)
130.0
141.0
Adv. Mfg. Technology Consortia (AmTech)
8.1
15.0
National Network for Mfg. Innovation (NNMI)
b
150.0
Construction of Research Facilities (CRF)
50.3 59.0
NIST, Total (Base Budget)
863.9
1,119.7
Wireless Innovation (WIN) Fund
$300.0c
Mandatory Funding
National Network for Manufacturing
Innovation (NNMI)
1,930.0
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Department of Commerce, Budget in Brief, Fiscal Year 2016,
http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY16BIB/EntireDocument-WebVersionWithCharts.pdf; FY2016
Congressional Budget Justification for the National Institute of Standards and Technology/National Technical
90 National Institute of Standards and Technology, “Programs with Increased Funding Requests,” press release,
February 3, 2015, http://nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/budget-2016.cfm.
Congressional Research Service
43
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Information Service, http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY16CJ/NIST-
NTIS_FY_2016_CJ_Final_508_Compliant.pdf.
Notes:
a. The Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 authorizes NIST to use $5 million per
year for FY2015-FY2024 from funds appropriated to its Industrial Technology Services account to carry out
the NMI program. The act also authorizes the Department of Energy to transfer to NIST up to $250 million
over the FY2015-FY2024 period from funds appropriated for advanced manufacturing R&D.
b. The President’s FY2015 budget proposed the establishment of the NNMI to promote the development of
manufacturing technologies with broad applications. This request was not part of the President’s FY2015
base budget request, but rather a part of the adjunct $56 billion Opportunity, Growth, and Security
Initiative (OGSI) proposal. The OGSI included $2.4 billion to establish up to 45 NNMI institutes. Both of
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.
c. The spectrum auction authorized by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-96)
provided $300.0 million for NIST; these funds will be used in FY2015 and future years.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration91
The Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
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. 4.92 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. One of
the agency’s main challenges is related to its diverse mission of science, service, and stewardship.
A review of research undertaken by NOAA found, “The major challenge for NOAA is connecting
the pieces of its research program and ensuring research is linked to the broader science needs of
the agency.”93
NOAA’s Research Council has developed a five-year plan (2013-2017) to guide the agency’s
R&D efforts.94 R&D efforts support the long-term goals and enterprise objectives of NOAA’s
Next Generation Strategic Plan.95 The strategic plan is organized into four categories of long-
term goals including (1) climate adaptation and mitigation, (2) a weather-ready nation,96 (3)
healthy oceans, and (4) resilient coastal communities and economies; and three groups of
enterprise objectives including (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) data and observations, and (3)
91 This section was written by Harold F. Upton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
92 “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.
93 Dr. Kathryn Sullivan, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator, NOAA
Response to the NOAA Science Advisory Board’s Portfolio Review Task Force Report , NOAA, April 15, 2014,
http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Reports/2014/NOAA.Response.to.PRTF.Report_2014.04.15.pdf.
94 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.
95 NOAA, NOAA’s Next-Generation Strategic Plan, Silver Spring, MD, December 2010, http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/wp-
content/uploads/NOAA_NGSP.pdf.
96 According to NOAA a weather-ready nation is envisioned as a society that is prepared for and responds to weather-
related events.
Congressional Research Service
44
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
integrated environmental modeling. To achieve the strategic plan’s goals and objectives, NOAA
has identified gaps in knowledge and capabilities. NOAA’s R&D plan attempts to address these
gaps by asking key questions. Key questions are used in the plan to frame and organize R&D
objectives and to identify tasks associated with achieving these objectives.
The R&D plan notes that it “contains many elements to pursue and efforts must be prioritized as
funding will likely not be available for all topics at all times.” The plan also describes how
priorities are set during the annual planning season. Although the plan identifies many different
NOAA R&D efforts, it does not consider the relative importance of these efforts and related
funding needs. Another challenge identified in the NOAA R&D plan is the need to integrate the
diverse perspectives and professional expertise required by the agency’s mission. The plan states
that “holistically understanding the earth system is not only understanding its individual
components, but understanding and interpreting the way each of the components interact and
behave as an integrated composite that is more than the sum of its parts.”
For FY2016, President Obama is requesting $911.7 million in R&D funding for NOAA, an
increase of $229.5 million (33.7%) above the FY2015 enacted level of $682.2 million. In the
FY2016 request, R&D accounts for 15.3% of NOAA’s total funding. The R&D request consists
of $498.6 million for research (54.7% of total R&D funding), $97.8 million for development
(10.7%), and $315.4 million for R&D equipment (34.6%).97 Most of the $163.1 million increase
for R&D equipment would be used for NOAA vessel construction and fleet improvements.
NOAA’s administrative structure is organized by five line offices that reflect its diverse mission:
the National Ocean Service (NOS); National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); National
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS); National Weather Service
(NWS); and Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). In addition to NOAA’s five
line offices, Program Support (PS), a cross-cutting budget activity, includes the Office of Marine
and Aviation Operations (OMAO). Table 15 provides R&D funding levels by line office for
FY2015 and the FY2016 request.98
The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research is the primary center for R&D within NOAA.
In FY2015, OAR accounts for 60.3% of NOAA’s total R&D funding. The President’s FY2016
request would provide OAR with $471.1 million to fund R&D, an increase of $59.9 million
(14.6%) above the FY2015 enacted funding level of $411.2 million.99
OAR conducts research in three major areas which include weather and air chemistry; climate;
and oceans, coasts, and the Great Lakes. A significant portion of these efforts is implemented
through partnerships between NOAA and cooperative research institutes and the National Sea
Grant College Program. NOAA supports 16 cooperative research institutes that work with seven
NOAA laboratories in all three of the main OAR research areas. The President’s FY2016 request
would fund the cooperative institutes with a total of $165.6 million, $8.6 million (5.5%) more
than the FY2015 enacted funding level of $157.0 million.
The National Sea Grant College Program is composed of 33 university-based state programs. Sea
Grant programs support scientific research and engage constituents to identify and solve problems
97 Courtney Barry, NOAA Budget Office, email to CRS, February 3, 2015.
98 Ibid.
99 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
45
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
faced by coastal communities. The President’s FY2016 request would provide the National Sea
Grant College Program with a total of $68.5 million, $1.2 million (1.8%) more than the FY2015
enacted funding level of $67.3 million.
Table 15. NOAA R&D
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Final
National Ocean Service (NOS)
$73.8
$77.9
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
70.9
76.8
National Weather Service (NWS)
19.0
26.1
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and
26.0
25.9
Information Service (NESDIS)
Office of Marine and Aviation Operationsa
(OMAO)
81.2
233.9
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR)
411.2
471.1
Total,
R&D
682.2
911.7
OAR Total, R&D and Non-R&D
446.3
507.0
NOAA Total, R&D and Non-R&D
5,441.0
5,976.9
Source: Courtney Barry, NOAA Budget Office, email to CRS concerning NOAA R&D, February 3, 2015
Note:
a. All Office of Marine and Aviation Operations funding is for equipment related to R&D.
Congressional Research Service
46
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Department of Agriculture100
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was created in 1862 in part to support agricultural
research in an expanding, agriculturally dependent country. USDA conducts intramural research
at federal facilities with government-employed scientists, and supports external research at
universities and other facilities through competitive grants and formula-based funding. The
breadth of contemporary USDA research spans traditional agricultural production techniques,
organic and sustainable agriculture, bioenergy, nutrition needs and composition, food safety,
animal and plant health, pest and disease management, economic decision making, and other
social sciences affecting consumers, farmers, and rural communities.
Four agencies carry out USDA’s research and education activities, grouped together into the
Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area. The agencies are the Agricultural
Research Service (ARS), National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), and Economic Research Service (ERS).101
For FY2016, the President’s request102 would provide a total of $3.167 billion for the USDA
research mission area, $442 million (16%) more than the FY2015 enacted amount. Nearly half of
the requested increase is for ARS (mostly for buildings and facilities), and most of the rest of the
increase is for NIFA competitive grants. (See Table 16.)
Agricultural Research Service
The Agricultural Research Service is USDA’s in-house basic and applied research agency. It
operates approximately 90 laboratories nationwide with about 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.
For FY2016, the President’s request would provide $1.397 billion for ARS, $220 million (19%)
more than FY2015. The request is composed of $1.192 billion for ARS salaries and expenses,
plus $206 million for ARS buildings and facilities construction. The salaries and expenses portion
would be $59 million (5%) more than enacted in FY2015. The buildings and facilities portion
would be $161 million (358%) more than FY2015; FY2015 was the first time in several years
that this account received appropriations.
100 This section was written by Jim Monke, Specialist in Agricultural Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
101 For more background on agricultural research, see CRS Report R40819, USDA’s Research, Education, and
Economics (REE) Mission Area: Issues and Background, by Dennis A. Shields. For background on FY2015
agricultural appropriations, see CRS Report R43669, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations,
coordinated by Jim Monke.
102 USDA, FY2016 USDA Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/
fy16budsum.pdf; and USDA, FY2016 USDA Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations, at
http://www.obpa.usda.gov/fy16explan_notes.html.
Congressional Research Service
47
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
ARS proposes increases across several programmatic areas on prioritized research projects,
coupled with reductions in funding for several existing programs. This is similar to prior-year
appropriations requests for which Congress rejected many, if not most, of the reductions.
For buildings and facilities, which comprises most of the ARS budget increase, ARS has
prioritized construction of a Biocontainment Laboratory and Consolidated Poultry Research
Facility in Athens, GA. The FY2015 appropriation directed funding to “priorities identified in the
USDA ARS Capital Investment Strategy.”103 Of the $206 million requested for ARS buildings and
facilities in FY2016, $114 million would be to complete the Athens poultry facility. The rest
would be for modernization of facilities in Beltsville, MD ($37 million); Houston, TX ($29
million); Ames, IA ($14 million); and Tucson, AZ ($12 million).
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture provides federal funding for research, education,
and extension projects conducted in partnership with the State Agricultural Experiment Stations,
the State Cooperative Extension System, land grant universities, colleges, and other research and
education institutions, as well as individual researchers. These partnerships include the 1862 land-
grant institutions, 1890 historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), 1994 tribal land-
grant colleges, and Hispanic-serving institutions.104 Federal funds enhance capacity at universities
and institutions by statutory formula funding, competitive awards, and grants.
For FY2016, the President’s request would provide $1.503 billion for NIFA, $214 million (17%)
more than the FY2015 appropriation. Administratively, USDA proposes to merge NIFA’s three
primary accounts (Research and Education, Extension, and Integrated Activities) into a single
NIFA-wide account. Individual programs, as discussed below, largely would continue to be
funded separately, albeit not identified within one of the former programmatic activities.
The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), USDA’s flagship competitive grants
program with potentially 30% of NIFA’s total budget, would receive $450 million—an increase of
$125 million over FY2015. Formula funded programs would increase more modestly. Under the
President’s FY2016 request, 1862 land-grant universities would receive Hatch Act authorized
appropriations of $256 million, up $12 million (5%) over FY2015, and the Evans-Allen program
that funds 1890 HBCUs, would receive $60 million, up $8 million (15%) to accommodate
additional universities that became eligible in the 2014 farm bill. Extension funding would remain
nearly constant.
The Administration proposes to establish two new “Innovation Institutes” as part of the
Administration’s multiagency National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. (For additional
information, see “National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.”) These centers would focus
on emerging agricultural research challenges such as biomanufacturing and nanocellulosics. The
public-private institutes would receive $80 million per year.
103 USDA-ARS, The USDA Agricultural Research Service Capital Investment Strategy, April 2012, at http://www.ars.
usda.gov/sp2UserFiles/Subsite/ARSLegisAffrs/USDA_ARS_Capital_Investment_Strategy_FINAL_eeo.pdf.
104 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
48
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
The request for USDA also follows the Administration’s federal STEM education funding
consolidation. (For additional information, see “Reorganization of STEM Education Programs.”)
USDA would no longer fund Higher Education Challenge Grants, Graduate and Post-graduate
Fellowship Grants, Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Program, Women and Minorities in
STEM Program, Agriculture in the Classroom, and Secondary/Postsecondary Challenge Grants.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
The National Agricultural Statistics Service conducts the Census of Agriculture and provides
official statistics on agricultural production and indicators of the economic and environmental
status of the farm sector. For FY2016, the President’s request would provide $180 million for
NASS, an increase of $8 million (5%) over FY2015. NASS plans additional survey coverage of
antimicrobial resistance, pollinator issues, fruit and vegetable estimates, and satellite-based
agricultural statistics.
Economic Research Service
The Economic Research Service 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. For FY2016,
the President’s request would provide $86 million for ERS, an increase of less than $1 million
(0.8%) over FY2015.
Table 16. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Agency or Major Program
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Final
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
1,132.6
1,191.5
Buildings and Facilities
45.0
205.9
Subtotal,
ARS
1,177.6
1,397.4
National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA)
Research
and
Education
AFRI (competitive grants)
325.0
450.0
Hatch Act (1862 institutions)
243.7
256.2
Evans-Allen (1890s institutions)
52.5
60.5
McIntire-Stennis
(forestry)
34.0
34.0
Innovation
Institutes
80.0
Other
131.7
ns
Subtotal
786.9
ns
Extension
Smith-Lever (b) & (c)
300.0
304.0
Smith-Lever
(d)
85.5
86.0
Congressional Research Service
49
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Agency or Major Program
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Final
Other
86.2
ns
Subtotal
471.7
ns
Integrated
Activities
30.9
ns
Subtotal,
NIFA
1,289.5
1,503.1
National Agricultural Statistics Service
172.4
180.3
(NASS)
Economic Research Service (ERS)
85.4
86.0
Total, USDA Research Mission Area
2,724.9
3,166.9
Source: CRS, compiled from tables in the joint explanatory statements for P.L. 113-235 and P.L. 113-76, the
OMB FY2016 Budget Appendix, and the USDA FY2016 Budget Explanatory Notes.
Notes: “ns” indicates that the figure is “not specified” in the President’s FY2016 budget request. Components
may not add to subtotals.
Department of the Interior105
The Department of the Interior (DOI) was created 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.106
The Administration is requesting $1.075 billion in DOI R&D funding for FY2016, $140.2 million
(15.0%) above its FY2015 enacted level of $934.6 million.107
According to DOI,
Activities supported by this [R&D] funding range from scientific observations of the Earth
and its systems—including water, wildlife, and plants—to applied field research to better
address specific problems such as sea level rise, invasive species, and drought. This research
reflects and informs the expertise of Interior’s land managers who are on the front lines of a
changing climate and confronting the unpredictable nature of its impacts.108
105 This section was written by John F. Sargent, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
106 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.
107 Email correspondence between the DOI budget office and CRS.
108 Department of the Interior, Fiscal Year 2016: The Interior Budget in Brief, February 2015, p. DH-50,
http://www.doi.gov/budget/appropriations/2016/highlights/upload/2016_Highlights_Bookv3.pdfhttp://www.doi.gov/
budget/appropriations/2015/highlights/upload/2015_Highlights_Book.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
50
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Of the R&D funding requested for FY2016, 5.6% is for basic research, 81.4% is for applied
research, and 13.0% is for development. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the only DOI
component that conducts basic research.109
Funding for DOI R&D is generally included in appropriations line items that also include non-
R&D activities; therefore, it is not possible to identify precisely how much of the funding
provided in appropriations laws is allocated to R&D specifically unless funding is provided at the
precise level of the request. In general, R&D funding levels are known only after DOI
components allocate their appropriations to specific activities and report those figures.
U.S. Geological Survey
A single account, Surveys, Investigations, and Research (SIR), provides all USGS funding. 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 FY2016 budget request for USGS (SIR account) is $1.104 billion.
Requested SIR funding includes $761.1 million for R&D, an increase of $95.3 million (14.3%)
over the FY2015 level of $665.8 million. This total includes $176.3 million for Ecosystems, up
$19.3 million (12.3%); $140.1 million for Climate and Land Use Change, up $40.1 million
(40.1%); $103.3 million for Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health, up $11.0 million
(12.0%); $116.9 million for Natural Hazards, up $5.6 million (5.1%); $128.2 million for Water
Resources, up $6.5 million (5.4%); $95.9 million for Core Science Systems, up $12.7 million
(15.2%); $0.4 million for Science Support, up $17,000 (4.0%).110
Other DOI Components
In addition to the USGS, the President’s FY2016 request includes R&D funding for the following
DOI components: 111
• Bureau of Reclamation (BOR): $85.9 million in applied research and
development funding for FY2016, up $9.9 million (13.1%) from FY2015.
• Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM): $69.3 million in applied
research and development funding for FY2016, down $1.2 million (1.7%) from
FY2015.
• Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): $49.7 million in applied research for FY2016,
up $17.2 million (53.1%) from FY2015.
• Bureau of Land Management (BLM): $31.0 million in applied research and
development for FY2016, up $10.8 million (53.4%) from FY2015.
• National Park Service (NPS): $28.2 million in applied research and development
for FY2016, up $1.2 million (4.4%) from FY2015.
109 Email correspondence between the DOI budget office and CRS.
110 Ibid.
111 Email correspondence between the DOI budget office and CRS.
Congressional Research Service
51
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
• Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE): $26.7 million in
applied research for FY2016, down $0.4 million (1.4%) from FY2015.
• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): $12.5 million in applied research for FY2016, up
$3.0 million (31.6%) from FY2015.
• Wildland Fire Management (WFM): $6.0 million in applied research for
FY2016, equal to the FY2015 level.
• Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE): $4.4 million
in applied research for FY2016; the office received no funding for R&D in
FY2015.
Table 17 summarizes FY2015 R&D funding and the President’s FY2016 R&D funding request
for DOI components.
Table 17. Department of the Interior R&D
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Final
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
$665.8
$761.1
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
76.0
85.9
Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM)
70.5
69.3
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
32.5
49.7
Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) 20.2
31.0
National Park Service (NPS)
27.0
28.2
Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement
(BSEE) 27.1
26.7
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
9.5
12.5
Wildland Fire Management
(WFM) 6.0
6.0
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSMRE) 0.0
4.4
Department of the Interior,
Total $934.6
$1,074.8
Source: Department of the Interior, Fiscal Year 2016: The Interior Budget in Brief, February 2015, p. DH-51,
http://www.doi.gov/budget/appropriations/2016/highlights/upload/2016_Highlights_Bookv3.pdf; email
correspondence between the DOI budget office and CRS.
Note: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
52
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Environmental Protection Agency112
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal regulatory agency responsible for
implementing a number of environmental pollution control laws, funds a broad range of R&D
activities to provide scientific tools and knowledge that support decisions relating to preventing,
regulating, and abating environmental pollution. Beginning in FY2006, Congress has funded EPA
through the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations. 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 in appropriations laws is
allocated to R&D specifically unless funding is provided at the precise level of the request (see
discussion later in this section). In general, R&D funding levels are known only after EPA
allocates its appropriations to specific activities and reports those figures. The agency’s Science
and Technology (S&T) account funds much of EPA’s scientific research activities. These
activities include R&D conducted by the agency at its own laboratories and facilities, and R&D
and other related scientific evaluations conducted by universities, foundations, and other non-
federal entities that receive EPA grants. The S&T account receives a base appropriation and a
transfer from the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) account.113 The transferred funds
are for research on more effective methods to clean up contaminated sites.
The President’s FY2016 budget requests $785.3 million for EPA’s S&T account, including
transfers from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account ($16.2 million). This is $31.8 million
(4.2%) above the $753.5 million (including the Superfund transfer) appropriated for FY2015.114
As indicated in Table 18 at the end of this section, the FY2016 requested total base (prior to
transfers) for the S&T account is $769.1 million, $34.5 million (4.7%) above the FY2015 enacted
level of $734.6 million. The $16.2 million FY2016 requested transfer from the Superfund account
is less than the $18.8 million transferred in FY2015.
The requested base amount for the S&T account for FY2016 includes mostly increases for
individual EPA program and activity line items below the account level compared to the FY2015
enacted levels.115
One of the largest percentage increases in the FY2016 request within the S&T account is for the
Computational Toxicology activity in the Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability program
area. The $33.8 million requested for Computational Toxicology in FY2016 is $12.4 million
112 This section was written by Robert Esworthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
113 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.
Since 1996, EPA’s annual appropriations have been requested, considered, and enacted according to eight statutory
appropriations accounts established by Congress. A ninth account, Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Fund,
was added during the FY2014 budget process. Because of the differences in the scope of the activities included in these
accounts, comparisons before and after FY1996 are not readily available.
114 For an overview of the EPA FY2015 appropriations see CRS Report R43709, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA): FY2015 Appropriations, by Robert Esworthy.
115 “Explanatory Statement” submitted by the Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations in the House
Congressional Record, vol. 160 No. 151-Book II (December 11, 2014), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2014-
12-11/content-detail.html. Under Division F, see discussion regarding EPA S&T account under “Title II—
Environmental Protection Agency,” p. H9766; and in the funding table, pp. H9801-H9802.
Congressional Research Service
53
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
(57.9%) more than the FY2015 enacted level of $21.4 million. Within the S&T account, the
FY2016 request includes $100.3 million for Air, Climate, and Energy (ACE) Research, an $8.4
million (9.1%) increase above the FY2015 enacted level, and $111.0 million for Safe and
Sustainable Water (SSW) Resources, a $3.6 million (3.4%) increase compared to FY2015 enacted
level. Contributing to these two requested increases are proposed $3.8 million and $3.7 million
increases under ACE and SSW, respectively, as part of EPA’s overall research efforts to address
additional questions regarding the safety of hydraulic fracturing.116 Concerns regarding potential
drinking water impacts associated with hydraulic fracturing are likely to continue as an area of
considerable interest during the 114th Congress.117
The largest proposed decrease in dollar terms in the S&T account is for Research: Sustainable and
Healthy Communities. There, the $139.2 million requested is $10.8 million (7.2 %) less than the
$150.0 million FY2015 enacted appropriation.118 This decrease is attributable to the proposed
$11.1 million reduction for EPA’s Science to Achieve Results (STAR) and Greater Research
Opportunities (GRO) fellowship programs as part of the Administration’s proposal for
reorganization and consolidation of STEM education programs.119 (For additional information,
see “Reorganization of STEM Education Programs” above.)
EPA’s FY2016 congressional justification includes a proposal to eliminate $0.2 million within the
S&T account appropriated in FY2015 to support radon testing.120 The FY2014 and FY2015
budget requests also proposed eliminating this funding.121 For FY2015, Congress rejected the
proposed elimination of radon activities but did not specify a funding amount for these activities
within the S&T account.122 The FY2016 budget request proposes eliminating the indoor radon
(categorical) state grants ($8.1 million) in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
account,123 the same as in the FY2015 request. In the explanatory statement the December 11,
2014 Congressional Record, Congress appropriated $8.1 million for the radon state grants
FY2015,124 rejecting the proposed elimination of funding in the FY2015 request. In addition to
the proposed decreases for the radon program, the FY2016 request proposes increased funding
within the Environmental Program and Management (EPM) account to support continuance of
the EPA’s Federal Radon Action plan to reduce radon risks and improve the public’s
understanding related to the risks associated with radon.125
116 U.S. EPA, Fiscal Year 2016 Justification of Appropriations Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations: Science
and Technology, February 2015, pp. 39, 156-157, and 162-166, http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/
documents/epa_fy_2016_congressional_justification.pdf.
117 For more information, see CRS Report R41760, Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Regulatory
Issues, by Mary Tiemann and Adam Vann.
118 See footnote 116, pp. 168-174, and footnote 115.
119 See footnote 116, pp. 173.
120 See footnote 116, pp. 107-108.
121 See EPA’s FY2014 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for Committee on Appropriations (FY2014
Congressional Justification), http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/archive, p. viii, p. 15, and pp. 99-100, and EPA’s
FY2015 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for Committee on Appropriations (FY2015 Congressional
Justification), http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/fy2015, pp.101-102.
122 See footnote 115, p. H9766.
123 See footnote 116, pp. x, 794-795.
124 See footnote 115, Table on p. H9808
125 See footnote 116, pp. 555-556.
Congressional Research Service
54
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
The FY2015 appropriations (P.L. 113-235) included $4.1 million for Research: National
Priorities, a slight decrease compared to the $4.2 million FY2014 enacted level. The FY2015
funding, like FY2014 funding, was for competitively awarded research grants to fund “high-
priority water quality and availability research by not-for-profit organizations.”126 As in previous
requests, the President’s FY2016 budget request did not include funding for Water Quality
Research and Support Grants: Congressional Priorities.127
The EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) is the primary manager of R&D at EPA
headquarters and laboratories around the country, as well as external R&D. 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. Many of the programs implemented by other offices within EPA
have a research component, but the research component is not necessarily the primary focus of
the program.
Table 18. Environmental Protection Agency Science &Technology (S&T) Account
(millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Enacted Request
House
Senate
Final
Science and Technology Appropriations
Account
Clean Air and Climate
$116.5
$124.8
Clean Air Al owance Trading Program
NR
7.8
Climate Protection Program
8.0
8.1
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
NR
8.5
Federal Vehicle and Fuel Standards and
Certification
NR 100.4
Enforcement 13.7
14.4
Homeland Security
37.1
38.1
Indoor Air and Radiation
6.0
6.6
Indoor Air: Radon
NR
0.0
Radiation: Protection
NR
2.2
Radiation: Response Preparedness
NR
4.0
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
NR
0.4
IT/Data Management/Security
3.1
3.2
Operations and Administration
68.3
79.2
Pesticide Licensing
6.0
7.7
Research: Air, Climate, and Energy
91.9
100.3
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
126.9 140.7
Human Health Risk Assessment
NR
39.3
126 See footnote 115, pp. H9766, and H9802.
127 See footnote 116, pp.193-194, and 1046.
Congressional Research Service
55
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Enacted Request
House
Senate
Final
Research: Computational Toxicology
21.4
33.8
Research: Endocrine Disruptor
16.3
15.4
Research: Other Activities
NR
52.3
Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
107.4
111.0
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
150.0
139.2
Water: Human Health Protection (Drinking Water
3.5 3.8
Programs)
Research: National [Congressional] Priorities (Water
4.1 0.0
Quality and Availability)
Subtotal S&T Account Base Appropriations
734.6
769.1
Transfer in from Hazardous Substance
18.8 16.2
Superfund Account
EPA, Total (Science and Technology)
753.5
785.3
Source: Prepared by CRS. FY2015 requested amounts are based on the EPA Fiscal Year 2016 Justification of
Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
02/documents/epa_fy_2016_congressional_justification.pdf. The FY2015 enacted amounts are as presented in
the table in the House Congressional Record, vol. 160, No. 151-Book II (December 11, 2014), pp. H9801-H9802,
http://www.lis.gov/crtext/113-datesection.shtml.
Notes: The NR (not reported) indicates those instances where the December 11, 2014, Congressional Record,
did not specify funding amounts for these sub-program activities. Totals may differ from the sum of the
components.
Department of Transportation128
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 is requesting $1.046 billion for Department of Transportation R&D and R&D
facilities in FY2016, an increase of $244.6 million (30.5%) from the FY2015 enacted level. (See
Table 19.) 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 (79.1% in the FY2016 request).129
128 This section was written by John F. Sargent, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
129 Except as noted otherwise, the R&D funding figures in this section come from unpublished data provided by the
DOT budget office to CRS by email on February 24, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
56
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Funding for DOT R&D is generally included in appropriations line items that also include non-
R&D activities; therefore, it is not possible to identify precisely how much of the funding
provided in appropriations laws will be allocated to R&D specifically unless funding 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.
Federal Highway Administration
Under the President’s request, the Federal Highway Administration would receive $453.3 million
in R&D funding in FY2016, an increase of $89.5 million (24.6%) from the FY2015 enacted level.
The President’s request would provide $130.0 million for highway R&D, up $22.0 million
(20.4%); $139.5 million for Intelligent Transportation Systems R&D, up $64.1 million (84.8%);
$167.1 million for State Planning and Research, up $3.2 million (1.9%); and $16.7 million for
R&D-related administrative expenses.130
Federal Aviation Administration
Under the President’s request, the Federal Aviation Administration would receive $374.2 million
for R&D and R&D facilities in FY2015, an increase of $93.7 million (33.4%) from the FY2015
enacted level.131 The FY2016 request includes $342.0 million for research and development, an
increase of $86.7 million (34.0%),132 and $32.3 million for R&D facilities, an increase of $7.0
million (27.7%).
Of this FY2016 request, $166.0 million are included in the FAA’s Research, Engineering, and
Development (RE&D) account (up $9.3 million, 5.9%). All RE&D account funding is for
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.
Other DOT Components
A number of other DOT components also fund research and development.
• The President’s FY2016 request for National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) R&D and R&D facilities is $76.6 million, an increase
of $14.1 million (22.5%) above the FY2015 level.
• The President’s FY2016 request for Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
R&D and R&D facilities is $65.3 million, an increase of $22.5 million (52.6%)
above the FY2015 level.
130 FHWA, Budget Estimates Fiscal Year 2016: Federal Highway Administration, http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/
files/docs/FY2016-BudgetEstimate-FHWA.pdf.
131 The FAA notes that $74 million of this increase is due to a reclassification of certain NextGen FY2016 funding as
applied R&D “to better align with OMB Circular A-11 Research Definitions.”
132 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
57
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
• The President’s FY2016 request for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) R&D
and R&D facilities is $28.2 million, an increase of $15.5 million (122.1%) above
the FY2015 level.
• The President’s FY2016 request for Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) R&D and R&D facilities is $22.0 million, an increase
of $0.8 million (3.7%) above the FY2015 level.
• The President’s FY2016 request for Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA) R&D and R&D facilities is $10.6 million, an increase of $4.5 million
(74.0%) above the FY2015 level.
• The President’s FY2016 request for Office of the Secretary of Transportation
(OST) R&D is $15.4 million, an increase of $4.0 million (35.4%) above the
FY2015 level.
Table 19 summarizes R&D funding for the DOT components.
Table 19. Department of Transportation R&D and R&D Facilities
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Final
Federal Highway Administration
$363.8
$453.3
Federal Aviation Administration
280.5
374.2
Research, Engineering, and
Development 156.8
166.0
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration 62.5
76.6
Federal Railroad Administration
42.8
65.3
Railroad Research and
Development 39.1
39.3
Federal Transit Administration
12.7
28.2
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials
Safety Administration
21.2
22.0
Office of the Secretary
11.4
15.4
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration 6.1
10.6
DOT, R&D Total
801.0
1,045.6
Source: DOT FY2016 department and agency budget justifications; email communication between CRS and the
Department of Transportation, February 24, 2015.
Notes: Figures include R&D and R&D facilities. Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to
rounding.
Congressional Research Service
58
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Department of Veterans Affairs133
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was created to provide America’s veterans with medical
care, benefits, social support, and memorials, as well as other support. 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 appropriations line items that also include non-
R&D activities; therefore, it is not possible to know precisely how much of the funding provided
for in appropriations laws 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 President is requesting $1.147 billion for VA R&D in FY2016, up $57.3 million (5.0%) from
FY2015. This total includes $621.8 million for the Medical and Prosthetic Research account, up
$33.3 million (5.7%), and $525.0 million in funding for research supported by the Medical Care
appropriation (up $24.0 million, 4.8%).134
The VA Office of Research and Development consists of four main research services:
• biomedical laboratory R&D, which supports preclinical research to understand
life processes at the molecular, genomic, and physiological levels;
• clinical science R&D, which administers investigations, including human subject
research, to determine the feasibility or effectiveness of new treatments such as
drugs, therapy, or devices;
• health services R&D, which supports studies to identify and promote effective
and efficient strategies to improve the organization, cost-effectiveness, and
delivery of quality of health care; and
• rehabilitation R&D, which develops novel approaches to restore full and
productive lives to veterans with traumatic amputation, central nervous system
injuries, loss of sight or hearing, or other physical and cognitive impairments.135
Table 20 summarizes R&D funding for VA’s Research account and Medical Care Support
account.
133 This section was written by John F. Sargent, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
134 Department of Veterans Affairs, “Volume II Medical Programs and Information Technology Programs,”
Department of Veterans Affairs Congressional Submission, FY2016, p. VHA-280, http://www.va.gov/budget/docs/
summary/Fy2016-VolumeII-MedicalProgramsAndInformationTechnology.pdf.
135 Ibid., pp. VHA-282 to VHA-283.
Congressional Research Service
59
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Table 20. Department of Veterans Affairs R&D
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Account
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Research
$588.5
$621.8
Medical Care Support
501.0
525.0
Veterans Affairs, Total
1,089.5
1,146.8
Source: VA, 2016 Budget In Brief, p.17, http://www.va.gov/budget/docs/summary/Fy2016-BudgetInBrief.pdf.
Table 21 provides amounts to be spent in Designated Research Areas (DRAs) which VA describe
as “areas of particular importance to our veteran patient population.”136 Funding for research
projects that span multiple areas may be included in several DRAs; thus, amounts in Table 21
total to more than the appropriation or request for the VA Research account.
Table 21. Department of Veterans Affairs R&D by Designated Research Area
(in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
Estimate
Request
Acute & Traumatic Injury $20.3
$21.3
Aging 146.9
154.2
Autoimmune, Allergic & Hematopoietic Disorders
27.7
29.1
Cancer 55.0
57.8
CNS Injury & Associated Disorders
89.0
93.5
Degenerative Diseases of Bones & Joints
30.2
31.8
Dementia & Neuronal Degeneration
24.8
26.1
Diabetes & Major Complications 35.0
36.8
Digestive Diseases
20.7
21.7
Emerging Pathogens/Bio-Terrorism
1.0
1.0
Gulf War Veterans Illness
9.5
15.0
Health Systems
62.5
72.7
Heart Disease/Cardiovascular Health
62.3
65.4
Infectious Diseases
33.0
34.7
Kidney Disorders
20.9
22.0
Lung Disorders
27.0
28.3
Mental Illness
110.3
115.8
Military Occupations & Environ Exposures
14.0
16.6
Other Chronic Diseases
4.9
5.1
Prosthetics 15.1
15.8
Sensory Loss
17.1
17.9
Special Populations 19.6
20.6
Substance Abuse
29.4
30.9
Source: VA, “Volume II Medical Programs and Information Technology Programs,” Department of Veterans Affairs
Congressional Submission, FY2016, http://www.va.gov/budget/docs/summary/Fy2016-VolumeII-
MedicalProgramsAndInformationTechnology.pdf.
Notes: Amounts in this table add to more than the totals in Table 20 because projects that span multiple areas
may be included in several DRAs.
136 Ibid., p. VHA-308.
Congressional Research Service
60
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
Appendix. Acronyms and Abbreviations
Glossary
ACE
Air, Climate, and Energy
ACI
American Competitiveness Initiative
AD
Alzheimer’s Disease
AFRI
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
AISL
Advancing Informal STEM Learning
AMP
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership – or – Accelerating Medicines Partnership
AMTech
Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia
AOAM
Agency Operations and Award Management
ARPA-E
Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy
ARS
Agricultural Research Service
ATE
Advanced Technological Education
B&F
Buildings & Facilities
BD2K
Big Data to Knowledge
BES
Basic Energy Sciences
BIA
Bureau of Indian Affairs
BIO
Directorate for Biological Sciences
BioMaPS
Research at the Interface of Biological, Mathematical, and Physical Sciences
BLM
Bureau of Land Management
BOEM
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
BRAIN
Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies
BSEE
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
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
CISE
Computer and Information Science and Engineering
CRF
Construction of Research Facilities
DARPA
Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency
DHP
Defense Health Program
DHS
Department of Homeland Security
DKIST
Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope
DNDO
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
DOC
Department of Commerce
DOD
Department of Defense
DOE
Department of Energy
DOI
Department of the Interior
DOT
Department of Transportation
DRAs
Designated Research Areas
ECR
EHR Core Research
EERE
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Congressional Research Service
61
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
EHR
Education and Human Resources
ENG
Engineering
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
EPM
Environmental Program and Management
EPSCoR
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
ERS
Economic Research Service
FAA
Federal Aviation Administration
FDA
Food and Drug Administration
FDAAA
Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
FIC
Fogarty International Center
FMCSA
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA
Federal Railroad Administration
FTA
Federal Transit Administration
FWS
Fish and Wildlife Service
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
HBCU
Historically Black Col eges and Universities
HBCU-UP
Historically Black Col eges and Universities—Undergraduate Program
HHS
Department of Health and Human Services
IARPA
Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity
ICER
Integrative and Collaborative Education and Research
I-Corps
Innovation Corps
ICs
Institutes and Centers
IFF
Iraqi Freedom Fund
IG
Inspector General
IGERT
Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship
IA
Integrative Activities
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
LSAMP
Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation
LSST
Large Synoptic Survey Telescope
MEP
Manufacturing Extension Partnership
MGI
Materials Genome Initiative
MPS
Mathematical and Physical Sciences
Congressional Research Service
62
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
MRAPVF
Mine Resistant and Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund
MREFC
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction
Mu2e
Muon to Electron Conversion Experiment
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
NCCIH
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health
NCI
National Cancer Institute
NCSES
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
NEI
National Eye Institute
NEON
National Ecological Observatory Network
NESDIS
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
NHGRI
National Human Genome Research Institute
NHLBI
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
NHTSA
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
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
NMI
Network for Manufacturing Innovation
NNI
National Nanotechnology Initiative
NNMI
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOS
National Ocean Service
Congressional Research Service
63
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
NPS
National Park Service
NRC
National Research Council
NRI
National Robotics Initiative
NRT
NSF Research Traineeships
NSB
National Science Board
NSET
Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSTC Subcommittee)
NSF
National Science Foundation
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
OCO-3
Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3
OD
NIH Office of the Director
OGSI
Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative
OIG
Office of the Inspector General
OISE
Office of International Science and Engineering
OMAO
Office of Marine and Aviation Operations
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
OOI
Ocean Observatories Initiative
ORD
Office of Research and Development
OST
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
OSTP
Office of Science and Technology Policy
PE
Program Element
PHMSA
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
PHS
Public Health Service
PMI
Precision Medicine Initiative
PS
Program Support
R&D
Research and Development
R&E
Research and Experimentation
RAMIA
Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014
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
Congressional Research Service
64
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016
SLS
Space Launch System
SMGI
Subcommittee on the Materials Genome Initiative (NSTC)
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
STEM+C
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics + Computing
STRS
Scientific and Technical Research and Services
TCUP
Tribal Col eges and Universities Program
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
WFM
Wildland Fire Management
WIN Fund
Wireless Innovation Fund`
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
65