Federal Research and Development Funding:
FY2016

John F. Sargent Jr., Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
November 10, 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 ............................................... 5
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 .............................................................................................. 15
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation ............................................................. 16
Reorganization of STEM Education Programs ....................................................................... 17
FY2016 Appropriations Status ...................................................................................................... 18
Department of Defense .................................................................................................................. 20
Department of Homeland Security ................................................................................................ 24
Directorate of Science and Technology ................................................................................... 24
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office ........................................................................................ 25
Coordination of DHS R&D Activities .................................................................................... 25
Proposed Reorganization......................................................................................................... 26
Department of Health and Human Services .................................................................................. 28
National Institutes of Health ................................................................................................... 28
Department of Energy ................................................................................................................... 34
National Science Foundation ......................................................................................................... 38
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ........................................................................... 44
Department of Commerce ............................................................................................................. 47
National Institute of Standards and Technology ..................................................................... 48
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ................................................................ 52
Department of Agriculture ............................................................................................................. 54
Agricultural Research Service ................................................................................................. 55
National Institute of Food and Agriculture ............................................................................. 56
National Agricultural Statistics Service .................................................................................. 56
Economic Research Service .................................................................................................... 57
Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................. 58
U.S. Geological Survey ........................................................................................................... 58
Other DOI Components .......................................................................................................... 59
Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 60
Congressional Research Service

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

Department of Transportation........................................................................................................ 65
Federal Highway Administration ............................................................................................ 65
Federal Aviation Administration ............................................................................................. 65
Other DOT Components ......................................................................................................... 66
Department of Veterans Affairs ..................................................................................................... 67

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 ..................................................................................... 23
Table 9. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs .................................... 27
Table 10. National Institutes of Health Funding ............................................................................ 33
Table 11. Department of Energy R&D and Related Activities ...................................................... 37
Table 12. NSF Funding by Major Account .................................................................................... 43
Table 13. NASA R&D ................................................................................................................... 46
Table 14. NIST Appropriations ..................................................................................................... 51
Table 15. NOAA R&D .................................................................................................................. 54
Table 16. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D ........................................................................... 57
Table 17. Department of the Interior R&D .................................................................................... 60
Table 18. Environmental Protection Agency Science &Technology (S&T) Account ................... 64
Table 19. Department of Transportation R&D and R&D Facilities .............................................. 67
Table 20. Department of Veterans Affairs R&D ............................................................................ 68
Table 21. Department of Veterans Affairs R&D by Designated Research Area ............................ 69

Appendixes
Appendix. Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................... 70

Congressional Research Service

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 74

Congressional Research Service

link to page 75 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, col ection 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 ful er 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 fol owing 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

link to page 13 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.
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

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

link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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
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.

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

link to page 10 link to page 11 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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.
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%).
Congressional Research Service
5

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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
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

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.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
6

link to page 12 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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%
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.

11 EOP, OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2015, Table 21-1.
Congressional Research Service
7

link to page 14 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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.
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.)

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.
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.
Congressional Research Service
8

link to page 14 link to page 14 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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
$5,589
$5,890
$6,125
$6,494
$3,002
$6,873
DOE/Office of Science
3,602
3,813
4,089
4,773
1,596
4,829
NIST/STRS
395
434
441
472
220
515
NIST/CRF
174
59
161
172
360
147
Total
9,760
10,196
10,815
11,910
5,178
12,364







FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016

Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Request
NSF
$6,806b
$7,033
$6,884
$7,172
$7,344
$7,724
DOE/Office of Science
4,858
4,874
4,621
5,070
5,071
5,340
NIST/STRS
497
567
580
651
675
755
NIST/CRF
70
55
56
56
50
59
Total
12,231
12,529
12,141
12,949
13,141
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 Internet Information System, “NSF Requests and Appropriations History,” NSF.gov, February 25, 2015,
http://dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov/NSFRqstAppropHist/NSFRequestsandAppropriationsHistory.pdf; 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. Figures in this table have been
revised since the original date of publication in this report due to methodological changes.
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 mil ion 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
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 $12.141 billion, $2.964 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 21-year pace.

16 For more information, see America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69): Selected Policy Issues, coordinated by Heather
B. Gonzalez.
17 For additional information on reauthorization efforts, see CRS Report R43880, The America COMPETES Acts: An
Overview
, by Heather B. Gonzalez.
Congressional Research Service
9

link to page 16 link to page 16 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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?
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

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.
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
10


Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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, the NSF Budget Internet Information System, 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.
Congressional Research Service
11

link to page 17 link to page 18 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
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.
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
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.

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.
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.
Congressional Research Service
13

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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 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

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.
33 Email correspondence between OSTP and CRS, March 14, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
14

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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).
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

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.
39 Ibid.
40 EOP, OSTP, website, August 3, 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/03/supporting-president-s-national-
robotics-initiative.
Congressional Research Service
15

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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
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.

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

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

link to page 24 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.
As of the start of fiscal year 2016, Congress has not completed action on any of the 12 regular
appropriations bills for FY2015. The House Committee on Appropriations had reported all 9 of
the regular appropriations bills that provide R&D funding and the House had passed 5 of them.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations had reported all 9 of the regular appropriations bills
that provide R&D funding and the Senate had not passed any of them.
On September 30, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Continuing Appropriations Act,
2016 (P.L. 114-53), a continuing resolution (CR) that will provide funding for the agencies
through December 11, 2015, until the enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or
activity provided for in this act, or until the enactment into law of the applicable appropriations
act for FY2016 without any provision for such project or activity. The CR generally provides
FY2016 budget authority for FY2015 projects and activities at the rate they were funded during
that fiscal year. Most projects and activities funded in the CR are subject to an across-the-board
decrease of 0.2108%.
In addition to the general provisions that establish the coverage, duration, and rate, CRs usually
include provisions that are specific to certain agencies, accounts, or programs. These include
provisions that designate exceptions to the formula and purpose for which any referenced funding
is extended (referred to as “anomalies”) and provisions that have the effect of creating new law or
changing existing law (often used to renew expiring provisions of law). The CR includes a
number of such provisions, each of which is briefly summarized in CRS Report R44214,
Overview of the FY2016 Continuing Resolution (H.R. 719), by Jessica Tollestrup.
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

link to page 28 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

Department of Defense47
Congress supports research and development in the Department of Defense (DOD) primarily
through its Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) appropriation. The
appropriation supports the development of the nation’s future military hardware and software and
the technology base upon which those products rely.
Nearly all of what DOD spends on RDT&E is appropriated in Title IV of the defense
appropriation bill. (See Table 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 requested 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.
However, the fund does not contain an RDT&E line item as do the programs mentioned above.
The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office, which administers the fund, tracks (but
does not report) the amount of funding allocated to RDT&E. The JIEDDF funding is not included
in the table below.
RDT&E funds also have been requested and appropriated as part of DOD’s separate funding to
support efforts in what the Bush Administration had termed the Global War on Terror (GWOT),
and what the Obama Administration refers to as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
Typically, the RDT&E funds appropriated for GWOT/OCO activities go to specified Program
Elements (PEs) in Title IV. However, they are requested and accounted for separately. The Bush
Administration requested these funds in separate GWOT emergency supplemental requests. The
Obama Administration, while continuing to identify these funds uniquely as OCO requests, has
included these funds as part of the regular budget, not in emergency supplementals. However, the
Obama Administration has asked for additional OCO funds in supplemental requests, if the initial
OCO funding is not enough to get through the fiscal year. The OCO budget has been declining as
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are reduced. As the United States steps up its battle with the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), OCO funding will continue.
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

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

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 requested $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). Whether to continue abiding by these caps is a
matter of a larger budget debate between the Administration and Congress. This debate is
reflected somewhat in the amount of funding allocated to OCO-related RDT&E, since OCO
funding is considered emergency funding and not counted toward the caps.
In addition to the baseline Title IV RDT&E request, the Administration requested $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 requested $25
million in RDT&E funding through the National Defense Sealift Fund for FY2016.
The House approved $66.151 billion for DOD’s baseline RDT&E program, $3.634 billion below
the Administration’s request. Most of this decrease can be attributed to reductions made to the Air
Force’s request. For example, the Long Range Strike program request was reduced by $460
million to reflect a rescheduling of the program. The Next Generation Refueling K-46 Aircraft
program request was reduced by $275 million because the House determined that the request of
$602 million exceeded needed funding. The House also expressed concern that the Air Force was
using funds authorized for the Space Modernization Initiative to start new programs rather than to
advance more evolutionary improvements in existing programs. As a result the House reduced the
request for the Advanced Extremely High Frequency Military Satellite Communication program
by $140 million and the Space Based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS) program request by $51 million,
while transferring the balance of the request for this latter program ($241 million) to the Air
Force’s Title IX OCO appropriation. This transfer of $241 million to the Air Force OCO RDT&E
appropriation accounts for just a portion of the $1.349 billion increase the House approved in Air
Force OCO RDT&E. The increase in Air Force OCO RDT&E also included an increase of $915
million for classified Air Force programs. In total, the House increased the request for OCO
RDT&E by $1.594 billion.
The House also reduced the Navy’s request by $648 million, with the biggest decrease made to
the Marine Assault Vehicle program (-$68 million). The Army’s request was increased by $447
million with the largest increase going to the Combat Vehicle Improvement program (+$98
million) to upgrade the lethality of the Stryker combat vehicle. The House reduced the
Defensewide account by a net $123 million. This included a $100 million general reduction of
request for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a $250 million increase
to continue support for the Defense Rapid Innovation Fund, and an increase of $165 million for
the U.S.-Israeli Cooperative program, primarily directed at ballistic missile defense technologies.
In addition to the Title IV appropriation recommendations, the House also recommended the
requested amounts for the National Defense Sealift Fund and the Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction program, $2 million for RDT&E for the Office of the Inspector General, and $1.640
billion for Defense Health Program RDT&E. The latter includes an additional $63 million added
by amendment on the House floor.
Congressional Research Service
21

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

The Senate Appropriations Committee has recommended $70.325 billion for Title IV RDT&E,
$540 million more than that requested by the Administration. Some notable recommended
changes to the Administration’s requests were: an increase of $350 million for the Navy’s
Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System; an increase of $144
million for the Air Force’s Expendable Launch Vehicle, an increase of $400 million to continue
the Defense Rapid Innovation Program in the Defensewide account; an increase of $165 million
for the U.S.-Israeli Cooperative program in the Defensewide account; and an increase of $203
million for the Defense Technology Analysis program in the Defensewide account. The latter was
directed toward assessing the cyber vulnerability of major weapons systems.
In addition to the Title IV appropriation recommendations, the Senate Committee also
recommended the requested RDT&E funds for the National Defense Sealift Fund and the
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction program. The committee recommended $2 million
in RDT&E for the Office of the Inspector General. The committee also recommended increasing
RDT&E funding in the Defense Health Program by $819 million. The committee recommended
funding for OCO RDT&E at the requested levels.
RDT&E funding can be analyzed in different ways. Each of the military departments request and
receive their own RDT&E funding. So, too, do various DOD agencies (e.g., the Missile Defense
Agency and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), collectively aggregated within the
Defensewide account. RDT&E funding also can be characterized by budget activity (i.e., the type
of RDT&E supported). Those budget activities designated as 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 (basic research,
applied research, and advanced technology development, respectively) constitute what is called
DOD’s Science and Technology Program (S&T) and represent the more research-oriented part of
the RDT&E program. Budget activities 6.4 and 6.5 focus on the development of specific weapon
systems or components (e.g., the Joint Strike Fighter or missile defense systems), for which an
operational need has been determined and an acquisition program established. Budget activity 6.6
provides management support, including support for test and evaluation facilities. Budget activity
6.7 supports 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 was $12.266 billion, $81 million more than
what was enacted in FY2015. The House voted to appropriate $12.573 billion for Title IV S&T.
This includes the $100 million general reduction to DARPA’s request. The Senate Appropriation
Committee recommended $12.822 billion for Title IV S&T.
Within the S&T program, basic research (6.1) receives special attention, particularly by the
nation’s universities. DOD is not a large supporter of basic research, when compared to NIH or
NSF. However, over half of DOD’s basic research budget is spent at universities and represents
the major contribution of funds in some areas of science and technology (such as electrical
engineering and material science). The Administration requested $2.089 billion for basic research
for FY2016. This is $189 million less than what was enacted for FY2015. The House approved
$2.100 billion for basic research (not counting the DARPA general reduction). The Senate
Appropriation Committee recommended $2.317 billion in basic research. Much of the Senate
Committee’s recommended increase would go toward in-house basic research and toward
increases in the Navy’s University Research Initiatives.

Congressional Research Service
22

link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 29 link to page 28 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 29 link to page 29 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

Table 8. Department of Defense RDT&E
(in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016

Enacted
Request
House
S. Cmte.
Budget Account
Base
OCO
Base
OCO
Base
OCO
Base
OCO
Army
6,673
2
6,925
2
7,372
2
7,097
2
Navy
15,955
36
17,886
36
17,238
218
18,237
36
Air Force
23,630
15
26,474
17
23,163
1,366
25,874
17
Defensewide
17,217
270a
18,330
137
18,207b
199
18,926
137
Dir. Test & Eval.
209

171

171

191

Total Title IV—By
Account
c
63,684
322
69,785
191
66,151b
1,785
70,325
191
Budget Activity








6.1 Basic Research
2,278

2,089

2,100d

2,317

6.2 Applied Research
4,603
45
4,713

4,838d

4,928

6.3 Advanced Dev.
5,304
23
5,464

5,735d
40
5,577

6.4 Advanced
Component Dev. and
Prototypes
12,472
19
14,402
2
13,621
57
14,936
2
6.5 Systems Dev. And
Demo
11,101
10
12,771

11,704
241
12,839

6.6 Management
Suppore
4,396

4,185

4,321

4,496

6.7 Op. Systems Dev.f
23,530
225
26,161
190
23,931
1,447
25,231
190
Total Title IV—by
Budget Activity
c
63,684
322
69,785
191
66,151bg
1,785
70,325
191
Title V—Revolving




and Management
Funds





National Defense
Sealift Fund
24

25

25

25

Title VI—Other




Defense Programs




Defense Health
Program
1,731

980

1,640h

1,799

Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction
596

579

579

579

Inspector General
1

5

2

2

Grand Totalc
66,036
322
71,374
191
68,397
1,785
72,730
191
Source: CRS, adapted from the Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2016 RDT&E Programs (R-1),
February 2015. H.Rept. 114-139. S.Rept. 114-63.
a. This figure includes $95 mil ion for Ebola Response and Preparedness.
b. These figures include a $100 mil ion general reduction to the recommended DARPA appropriation.
recommendation.
Congressional Research Service
23

link to page 32 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

c. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
d. These figures do not include the $100 mil ion general reduction to the recommended DARPA
appropriation, since it is not possible to determine how this reduction wil be allocated.
e. Includes funding for Director of Test and Evaluation.
f.
Includes funding for Classified Programs.
g. This figure, in particular, does equal the sum of the column because the 6.1 through 6.3 funding does not
reflect the $100 mil ion DARPA general reduction.
h. This includes $63 mil ion added to the Defense Health program RDT&E account on the House floor, which
was offset by an equal reduction in the Defensewide Operations and Maintenance account.
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. The House committee recommended a total of
$1.162 billion, including $787 million for the S&T Directorate, $357 million for DNDO, and $18
million for Coast Guard RDT&E. The Senate committee recommended a total of $1.103 billion,
including $765 million for the S&T Directorate, $320 million for DNDO, and $18 million for
Coast Guard RDT&E. (See Table 9.)
Directorate of Science and Technology
The S&T Directorate is the primary DHS R&D organization.49 Led by a Senate-confirmed 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

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
24

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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. The
request for University Programs, which funds S&T’s university centers of excellence (together
with some smaller programs), is $31 million, down from $40 million in FY2015.
The House committee’s recommendation of $787 million for S&T was $8 million more than the
request. In its report, the House committee recommended a $9 million increase (relative to the
request) for University Programs, which it said would be sufficient to support all the existing
centers of excellence. Other differences relative to the request were small. The committee
expressed support for the Apex concept and recommended Apex funding at the requested level.
The Senate committee’s recommendation of $765 million for S&T was $14 million less than the
request. In its report, the Senate committee recommended an $8 million increase (relative to the
request) for University Programs, offset by a $20 million decrease for RD&I. Other differences
relative to the request were small. The committee stated that the University Programs increase
would allow S&T to maintain at least 10 university centers of excellence (the current number).
The committee did not specify how the decrease for RD&I should be allocated. It did state that
“not less than prior year funding” should be allocated to the Apex program and directed S&T to
“continue its focus” on three of the six new Apex projects.
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
DNDO is the DHS organization responsible for nuclear detection research, development, testing,
evaluation, acquisition, and operational support. It is led by a presidentially appointed Director. In
addition to its DHS responsibilities, it is charged with coordinating federal nuclear forensics
programs and the U.S. portion of the global nuclear detection architecture. 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.
The House committee’s recommendation of $357 million for DNDO was the same as the
Administration’s request, except for a reduction of less than $1 million in the Management and
Administration account. The committee concurred with the Administration’s proposed
consolidation and expansion of the Nuclear Detection Equipment Acquisition program.
The Senate committee’s recommendation of $320 million for DNDO was $37 million less than
the request. The reduction included $1 million from the Management and Administration account
and $36 million from the new Nuclear Detection Equipment Acquisition program.
Coordination of DHS R&D Activities
DHS-wide coordination of R&D activities has been an issue for several years. 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
Congressional Research Service
25

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

related to R&D.51 The GAO report found that DHS lacked department-wide policies to define
R&D and guide reporting of R&D activities, and, as a result, DHS did 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 the FY2013 and FY2014 appropriations cycles, Congress responded to GAO’s findings by
directing DHS to develop new policies and procedures. 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 The joint explanatory
statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76) directed DHS to
implement and report on new policies for R&D prioritization, and to review and, in accordance
with GAO’s recommendations, to implement policies and guidance for defining and overseeing
R&D department-wide.53
Concerns remain, however. 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.54 In April 2015, GAO’s annual report on
fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative federal programs stated that its concerns about DHS
R&D had been only “partially addressed.”55
In the FY2016 appropriations cycle, the House committee’s report stated that “The Department
needs a strategic planning process to focus research and development and future investments.”56
Proposed Reorganization
In 2013, Congress directed DHS to review its programs relating to chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear threats and to evaluate “potential improvements in performance and
possible savings in costs that might be gained by consolidation of current organizations and
missions, including the option of merging functions of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
(DNDO) and the Office of Health Affairs (OHA).”57 The report of this review was completed in
June 2015. In July 2015, DHS officials testified that DHS plans to consolidate DNDO, OHA, and
smaller elements of several other DHS programs into a new office, led by a new Assistant
Secretary, with responsibility for DHS-wide coordination of chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear, and explosives “strategy, policy, situational awareness, threat and risk assessments,
contingency planning, operational requirements, acquisition formulation and oversight, and

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 Congressional Record, January 15, 2014, p. H927.
54 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Department of Homeland Security: Actions Needed to Strengthen
Management of Research and Development
, GAO-14-865T, September 9, 2014.
55 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2015 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation,
Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits
, GAO-15-404SP, April 2015.
56 H.Rept. 114-215, p. 4.
57 Explanatory statement on the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6),
Congressional Record, March 11, 2013, p. S1547.
Congressional Research Service
26

link to page 32 link to page 29 link to page 59 link to page 59 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

preparedness.”58 The House and Senate committee reports on FY2016 appropriations do not
address the proposed consolidation.
Table 9. Department of Homeland Security R&D and Related Programs
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016

Enacted
Request
H. Cmte.
S. Cmte.
Final
Directorate of Science and Technology
$1,104
$779
$787
$765

Management and Administration
130a
132
132
130

R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
9740
647
655a
634a

Research, Development, and Innovation
457
435
435
415

Laboratory Facilities
435
134
134
134

Acquisition and Operations Support
42
47
47
47

University Programs
40
31
40
39

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
308
357
357
320

Management and Administration
37
38
38
38

Research, Development, and Operations
198
196
196
196

Systems Architecture
17
17
17
17

Systems Development
21
22
22
22

Transformational R&D
70
68
68
68

Assessments
38
38
38
38

Operations Support
31
31
31
31

National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center
21
20
20
20

Systems Acquisition
73
123
123
87

Rad./Nuc. Detection Equipment Acquisition

101
101
65

Radiation Portal Monitors Program
5




Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems
49




Securing the Cities
19
22
22
22

U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E
18
18
18
18

DHS, Total R&D and Related Programs
1,430
1,154
1,162
1,103

Sources: FY2014 actual and FY2016 request from DHS FY2016 congressional budget justification. FY2015
enacted from P.L. 114-4 and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, January 13, 2015. FY2016 House
Committee from H.R. 3128 as reported and H.Rept. 114-215. FY2016 Senate Committee from S. 1619 as
reported and S.Rept. 114-68.
Note: Totals may differ from sum of components due to rounding.
a. Does not reflect a rescission of $0.5 mil ion from unobligated prior-year balances.
b. Does not reflect a rescission of $16.6 mil ion from unobligated prior-year balances.
c. Does not reflect rescissions totaling $10.0 mil ion from unobligated prior-year balances.

58 Joint prepared testimony of Reginald Brothers, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Kathryn H. Brinsfield,
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and Chief Medical Officer, and Huban A. Gowadia, Director of the Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office, Department of Homeland Security, before the House Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittees on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications and Cybersecurity, Infrastructure
Protection, and Security Technologies, July 14, 2015, http://homeland.house.gov/hearing/joint-subcommittee-hearing-
weapons-mass-destruction-bolstering-dhs-combat-persistent-threats.
Congressional Research Service
27

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.”59
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.60
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.61
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.62
National Institutes of Health63
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
disability.”64 The agency’s organization consists of the Office of the NIH Director and 27
institutes and centers.

59 HHS, “About,” http://www.hhs.gov/about.
60 Email correspondence between OMB and CRS, February 9, 2015.
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid.
63 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.
64 National Institutes of Health, “About the National Institutes of Health,” http://www.nih.gov/about/mission.htm.
Congressional Research Service
28

link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 38 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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.65 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 (Labor/HHS/ED)
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. Each year NIH has also received $150 million in mandatory funding that is provided in
the Public Health Service (PHS) Act for a special program on type 1 diabetes research. In
addition, NIH has received funding via 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.66 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/ED 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.67

65 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.
66 Mandatory funds for type 1 diabetes research under PHS Act §330B were provided by the Protecting Access to
Medicare Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-93) in FY2015 and by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015
(P.L. 114-10) for FY2016 and FY2017.
67 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 NIH received in FY2014 and prior years 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 (FY2010-FY2016)
, coordinated by C. Stephen Redhead and Agata
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
29

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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).68
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.69 Some bills may propose authorizations for designated research purposes, but funding
generally remains subject to discretionary appropriations and the NIH peer review process.
The House Appropriations Committee-reported version of the FY2016 Labor/HHS/ED
appropriations bill (H.R. 3020) would provide NIH with a total of $31.184 billion, including
$1.01 billion provided by the evaluation tap.70 Adding to this total the amount for Superfund-
related activities ($77 million) and the mandatory type 1 diabetes program ($150 million) would
bring the FY2016 NIH program level to $31.411 billion.
The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported version of the FY2016 Labor/HHS/ED
appropriations bill (S. 1695) would provide NIH with a total of $32.084 billion, including $940
million provided by the evaluation tap and an estimated $650 million in new funding from the
HHS Non-recurring Expenses Fund (NEF).71 Adding to this total the amount for Superfund-
related activities ($77 million) and the mandatory type 1 diabetes program ($150 million) would
bring the FY2016 NIH program level to $32.311 billion.
The overview below outlines research priorities in the FY2016 NIH budget and selected
responses from the House and Senate appropriation committee report language.72

(...continued)
Dabrowska.
68 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.
69 See NIH website, “Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC),”
http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx.
70 H.R. 3020 would set the PHS evaluation tap assessment at not more than 2.4% or $1.068 billion, whichever is less.
71 S. 1695 would set the PHS evaluation tap assessment at not more than 2.5%. The HHS Secretary is authorized to
transfer to the NEF unobligated balances of certain expired discretionary funds. Under current law, NEF funds are
available until expended for use by the HHS Secretary for capital acquisitions including facility and information
technology infrastructure. Congressional appropriators must be notified in advance of any planned use of NEF funds.
NEF funds have been used by HHS for expenses related to the Affordable Care Act, such as the federally facilitated
exchanges. (See CRS Report R43066, Federal Funding for Health Insurance Exchanges, by Annie L. Mach and C.
Stephen Redhead.) The Senate FY2016 Labor/HHS/ED appropriations bill includes language that would repurpose the
NEF for NIH biomedical research activities. S.Rept. 114-74 states on p. 105 that the NEF “funding shall be transferred
to and merged with the accounts for the various” ICs and the OD “in proportion to their shares of total NIH
appropriations made by this act.” Note that the FY2016 Labor/HHS/ED appropriations bill would terminate the NEF
and rescind unobligated balances.
72 The amounts discussed in the text below regarding the Administration’s FY2016 request 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
30

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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
(BRAIN) 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 the FY2016 request is an increase of
$70 million over FY2015. The House report on H.R. 3020 states that it would provide an $85
million increase for BRAIN in FY2016.73 The Senate report on S. 1695 states that it “fully funds
the administration’s request for the program in FY2016, an increase of $70 million above
FY2015.”74
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. In a section on the National
Institute on Aging (NIA), the House report on H.R. 3020 specifies funding for Alzheimer’s
disease research at $886 million, an increase of $300 million over FY2015. In contrast, the Senate
report on S. 1695 states “In keeping with long-standing tradition, the Committee has not
earmarked funding for research on specific diseases. However, the Committee has included a
$350,971,000 increase for NIA and expects that a significant portion will be dedicated to high
quality research on Alzheimer’s disease, subject to the scientific opportunity presented in the peer
review process.”75
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.
NIH would target $461 million in FY2016 to support the Administration’s National Strategy to
Combat Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, an increase of $100 million over FY2015. The increase is
supported by both the House and the Senate appropriation committees.
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 (PMI). 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 1 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 1 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

73 H.Rept. 114-195, p. 57.
74 S.Rept. 114-74, p. 9.
75 S.Rept. 114-74, p. 95.
Congressional Research Service
31

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

therapies that target specific tumor mutations, and for research on non-invasive methods to track
response to cancer treatment. Both House and Senate appropriation committees indicate support
for PMI.
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. The House and Senate appropriation committees allocate $12.6 million for pediatric
research via the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act. Both committees comment on the
cancellation of the National Children’s Study (NCS) by NIH in December 2014.76 The House
Appropriations Committee “directs and provides funding for the continuation of the NCS in an
alternative form” while the Senate Appropriations Committee “urges NIH to recalibrate and
realign the investment already made in the NCS to initiate new and focus existing longitudinal
studies to address the objectives identified for the NCS.”77
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.



76 National Institutes of Health, “Statement on the National Children’s Study,” press release, December 12, 2014,
http://nih.gov/about/director/12122014_statement_ACD.htm.
77 H.Rept. 114-195, p. 78; and., S.Rept. 114-74, p. 104.
Congressional Research Service
32

link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

Table 10. National Institutes of Health Funding
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2015
Operating
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016

Level
Request
H. Cmte. S. Cmte.
Final
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
$4,953
$5,098
$5,082
$5,204

National Heart, Lung, & Blood Institute (NHLBI)
2,996
3,072
3,035
3,136

Dental/Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
398
407
405
415

Diabetes/Digestive/Kidney (NIDDK)d
1,749
1,788
1,771
1,825

Neurological Disorders/Stroke (NINDS)
1,605
1,660
1,656
1,695

Allergy/Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
4,418
4,615
4,513
4,710

General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
1,657
1,587
1,429
1,571

Child Health/Human Development (NICHD)
1,287
1,318
1,306
1,345

National Eye Institute (NEI)
677
695
698
710

Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
667
682
676
696

National Institute on Aging (NIA)
1,198
1,267
1,518
1,548

Arthritis/Musculoskeletal/Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
522
533
528
544

Deafness/Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
405
416
412
425

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
1,434
1,489
1,512
1,520

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
1,016
1,047
1,051
1,069

Alcohol Abuse/Alcoholism (NIAAA)
447
460
456
469

National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
141
145
143
148

National Human Genome Research Institute
499
515
506
526

(NHGRI)
Biomedical Imaging/Bioengineering (NIBIB)
327
337
338
344

Minority Health/Health Disparities (NIMHD)
271
282
272
287

Complementary/Integrative Health (NCCIH)e
124
128
128
130

Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)
633
660
643
699

Fogarty International Center (FIC)
68
70
69
71

National Library of Medicine (NLM)
337
394
341
402

Office of Director (OD)
1,414
1,443
1,552
1,524

Buildings & Facilities (B&F)
129
129
133
129

Subtotal, Labor/HHS Appropriation
29,369
30,237
30,174
30,494

PHS Evaluation Tap fundingf
715
847
1,010
940

Non-recurring Expenses Fund (NEF)



650

Subtotal, NIH
30,084
31,084
31,184
32,084

Superfund (Interior appropriation to NIEHS)g
77
77
77
77

Pre-appropriated type 1 diabetes fundsh
150
150
150
150

Total, NIH program level
30,311
31,311
31,411
32,311

Congressional Research Service
33

link to page 38 link to page 42 link to page 13 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

Sources: 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; H.Rept. 114-195, pp.
232-234; and, S.Rept. 114-74, pp. 231-233.
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).
d. Amounts for NIDDK do not include mandatory funding for type 1 diabetes research (see note e).
e. 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.
f.
Additional funds for NIGMS from PHS Evaluation Set-Aside (§241 of PHS Act).
g. This is a separate account in the Interior/Environment appropriations for NIEHS research activities related
to Superfund; H.Rept. 114-170, p. 77, S.Rept. 114-70, p. 5.
h. Mandatory funds available to NIDDK for type 1 diabetes research under PHS Act §330B (provided by P.L.
113-93 in FY2015 and P.L. 114-10 in FY2016).
Department of Energy78
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.
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. The House bill (H.R. 2028 as
passed by the House) would provide $12.813 billion. The Senate bill (H.R. 2028 as reported in
the Senate) would provide $13.154 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 House bill would provide $5.100 billion, which is 40% above the
baseline. The Senate bill would provide $5.144 billion, which is 42% above the 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-

78 This section was written by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
34

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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 House bill would provide $79 million less than the request, including $8 million
less for LCLS-II construction, $57 million less for Scientific User Facilities, and $12 million less
for Energy Frontier Research Centers. The Senate bill would provide the requested amount for
LCLS-II construction, but $5 million less than the request for the remainder of the program.
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 research 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 House bill would provide $12 million less than the request, including $9 million less
for accelerator stewardship. The Senate bill would provide approximately the requested amount
overall, with $10 million more for construction of the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility offset by
$10 million less for research. Both bills would fund Mu2e construction at the requested level.
The request for Nuclear Physics is $625 million, an increase of 4.9%.The proposed increases
would be spread across most areas of research and operations. The House bill would provide $8
million less than the request, including $6 million less for operations at the Relativistic Heavy Ion
Collider and $2 million less for construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams. The Senate
bill would provide $33 million less than the request, including the requested amount for the
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, $5 million less for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, and
unspecified other reductions.
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 House bill would provide $74
million less than the request. The House committee report does not specify how its recommended
funding for Biological and Environmental Research should be allocated. It expresses support for
the Biological Systems Science program and for climate modeling in academia in collaboration
with NASA, but it is silent regarding the remainder of the Climate and Environmental Sciences
program. The Senate bill would provide $2 million less than the request, with the entire reduction
allocated to Climate and Environmental Sciences.
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 Advanced Scientific Computing Research program is the focus of
exascale computing activities in the Office of Science, accounting for $178 million of the $209
million requested for this crosscutting initiative. The House bill would provide $83 million less
than the request for Advanced Scientific Computing Research. Although the House committee
report expresses support for the exascale initiative, it states that its recommendation includes only
$99 million for this purpose within the Office of Science. The Senate bill would provide the
requested amount for Advanced Scientific Computing Research. The Senate committee report
“strongly supports” the exascale initiative and states that its total recommendation for that
purpose in the Office of Science is $158 million.
Congressional Research Service
35

link to page 21 link to page 21 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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,
its schedule has slipped, the international project schedule is “not reliable,” and DOE can “only
partially” influence the international project’s performance.79 All other major program areas in
Fusion Energy Sciences would decrease under the Administration’s request. The Alcator C-MOD
facility would cease operations at the end of FY2016. The House bill would provide $48 million
more than the request. This increase would go entirely to the domestic portion of the program, as
House funding for ITER would be the same as the request. The Senate bill would provide no
funding for ITER, but the requested amount for the domestic program. The Senate committee
report “directs the Secretary to work with the Department of State to withdraw from the ITER
project.”
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 House bill would provide
$109 million less than the request for R&D in Weapons Activities, including $18 million less for
Advanced Simulation and Computing, $16 million less for Advanced Manufacturing
Development, and a number of other changes. It would provide $53 million less than the request
for Naval Reactors, including $30 million less for Development and $21 million less for
Operations and Infrastructure. The Senate bill would provide $67 million less than the request for
R&D in Weapons Activities, including the requested amount for Advanced Simulation and
Computing, $19 million less for Advanced Manufacturing Development, and other changes. It
would provide $75 million less than the request for Naval Reactors, including $14 million less for
Development and $59 million less for two construction projects.
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

79 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
36

link to page 42 link to page 43 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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. The House and Senate
bills would both reject the Administration’s proposed large increases in EERE programs, although
the Senate bill would provide more than the FY2015 enacted amount for most major EERE
programs (with the exception of Wind Energy). Both bills would provide more than the request
for Fossil Energy R&D, more for Nuclear Energy, and less for ARPA-E.
Table 11. Department of Energy R&D and Related Activities
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016

Enacted
Request
House
Sen. Cte.
Final
Science
$5,068
$5,340
$5,100
$5,144

Basic Energy Sciences
1,733
1,849
1,770
1,844

High Energy Physics
766
788
776
788

Biological and Environmental Research
592
612
538
610

Nuclear Physics
596
625
616
592

Advanced Scientific Computing Research
541
621
538
621

Fusion Energy Sciences
468
420
468
270

Other
373
425
394
419

National Security
4,119
4,488
4,326
4,346

Weapons Activitiesa
2,478
2,676
2,567
2,609

Naval Reactors
1,234
1,375
1,323
1,300

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D
393
419
419
419

Defense Environmental Cleanup Tech. Dev.
14
17
17
17

Energy
3,453
4,350
3,387
3,664

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energyb
1,671
2,404
1,425
1,700

Fossil Energy R&D
561
560
605
610

Nuclear Energy
833
908
936
950

Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability R&D
108
153
141
113

Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy
280
325
280
291

DOE, Total
12,640
14,178
12,813
13,154

Source: FY2015 enacted from P.L. 113-235 and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, December 11,
2014. FY2016 request from DOE FY2016 congressional budget justification, http://energy.gov/cfo/downloads/fy-
2016-budget-justification. FY2016 House from H.R. 2028 as passed by the House and H.Rept. 114-91. FY2016
Senate Committee from H.R. 2028 as reported in the Senate and S.Rept. 114-54.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding. Amounts include rescissions and
use of prior-year unobligated balances.
a. Including Stockpile Services R&D Support, Stockpile Services R&D Certification and Safety, Science,
Engineering except Enhanced Surety and Enhanced Surveil ance; Inertial Confinement Fusion 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
Congressional Research Service
37

link to page 48 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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 Foundation80
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.”81 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.82
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 FY2016.83
As passed by the House, H.R. 2578 (Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2016) would provide a total of $7.394 billion to NSF in FY2016. This
amount is $50 million (1%) more than the FY2015 estimated funding level and $329 million
(4%) less than the Administration request. The House bill would keep most NSF accounts at
FY2015 levels. The $50 million increase in total NSF funding would accrue to RRA. (A small

80 This section was written by Heather B. Gonzalez, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
81 The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-507).
82 For more information about the NSF, see CRS Report R43585, The National Science Foundation: Background and
Selected Policy Issues
, by Heather B. Gonzalez; and CRS Report R44170, The National Science Foundation: FY2016
Budget Request and Funding History
, by Heather B. Gonzalez.
83 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.
Congressional Research Service
38

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

increase in funding for the OIG would be offset by a similar reduction in MREFC.) When it was
reported from the House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 2578 was accompanied by H.Rept.
114-130 (referred to as the “House report” in this section). The House report directs NSF to
comply with Section 106 of H.R. 1806 (America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015) as
reported, which requires NSF to publicly articulate (in the award abstract from NSF’s public
awards database) how each award serves the
national interest. The Obama Administration
Veto?
threatened to veto H.R. 2578 when it was
considered by the House (for a variety of
On June 1, 2015, the Obama Administration issued a
“Statement of Administration Policy" on H.R. 2578, as
reasons, only some of which related to the
considered by the House. That statement indicated that
NSF—see text box titled, “Veto?”).84
the Administration strongly opposed House passage of
H.R. 2578 and that senior advisors would recommend a
As amended and reported by the Senate
veto. The statement described a number of concerning
Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 2578
provisions from the bil , most of which were not related
to NSF. However, the statement also cited perceived
would provide close to the FY2015 estimated
insufficiencies in the NSF top line, as well as the
funding levels to all major NSF accounts in
allocation of RRA funding by discipline.85
FY2016. RRA and MREFC would receive
slightly less than their FY2015 funding levels; OIG would receive slightly more. When it was
reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 2578 was accompanied by S.Rept.
114-66 (referred to as the “Senate report” in this section).
Research. The Obama Administration seeks a $253 million (4%) increase in year-over-year
funding for RRA in FY2016, for a total of $6.186 billion. H.R. 2578, as passed by the House,
would provide $5.984 billion to this account in FY2016. As amended and reported by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 2578 would provide $5.934 billion.
FY2015 House report language (H.Rept. 113-448) directed NSF to apply any additional
appropriations (over FY2015 RRA requested levels) to four major RRA subaccounts: BIO, CISE,
ENG, and MPS. NSF received $126 million more than requested for RRA in FY2015. As
directed, NSF applied the additional funding to the specified major RRA subaccounts, which each
received 3% to 4% increases over FY2015 requested levels. Funding for GEO, SBE, IIA/OISE,
and USARC was at FY2015 requested levels.
The FY2016 request seeks increases ranging from 2% to 8% for all major RRA subaccounts.
However, the request seeks slightly more (on average, as a percentage over the prior year) for
accounts that did not receive extra funding over requested levels in FY2015 (i.e., GEO, SBE,
IIA/OISE, and USARC).86 Nevertheless, more than half of the total requested increase for RRA in
FY2016 (54% of $253 million) would go to BIO, CISE, ENG, and MPS.
H.R. 2578, as passed by the House, would provide a total of $5.984 billion to RRA in FY2016—
about $50 million more than the FY2015 estimate. The House report further directs NSF to
provide no less than 70% of total FY2016 RRA funding to BIO, CISE, ENG, and MPS. Under
these provisions, BIO, CISE, ENG, and MPS would split $4.189 billion in FY2016. This amount

84 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of Administration Policy: H.R.
2578—Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016,” June 1, 2015, at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/saphr2578r_20150601.pdf.
85 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of Administration Policy: H.R.
2578—Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016,” June 1, 2015, at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/saphr2578r_20150601.pdf.
86 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%), IIA/OISE (8%), and USARC (5%) is 6%.
Congressional Research Service
39

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

represents an 8% increase ($307 million) over the combined total that these four major
subaccounts received in FY2015 ($3.882 billion).
The remaining major RRA subaccounts (GEO, SBE, OISE, IA, and USARC) would split $1.795
billion. This amount is $257 million or -13% less than the combined total these accounts received
in FY2015 ($2.052 billion). Other House report provisions further direct NSF to provide at least
FY2015 levels to OISE, IA, and USARC. Therefore, of the $1.795 billion total provided for
GEO, SBE, OISE, IA, and USARC in the House report, at least $475 million would go to OISE,
IA, and USARC, while GEO and SBE would split $1.320 billion. GEO and SBE received $1.577
billion (combined) in FY2015, which is $257 million (16%) more than they would receive in
FY2016 under the House report. If NSF distributed these funds proportionally, which the House
report does not require but has been past
Funding for Major RRA Subaccounts?
practice at NSF in some instances, the 16%
Policymakers actively debate congressional funding
decrease in funding would reduce support for
directives at the major subaccount level in RRA. Some
GEO by $212 million (from $1.304 billion in
analysts assert that legislators have a role in establishing
funding priorities by scientific field within RRA, as part of
FY2015 to $1.092 billion in FY2015) and
the legislative oversight function and in order to assure
would reduce support for SBE by $44 million
accountability for taxpayer funds. Other analysts argue
(from $272 million in FY2015 to $228 million
that the scientists who manage NSF ought to determine
in FY2016).
the distribution of funding by field, based on their deeper
knowledge of research needs and scientific possibilities
Other RRA provisions in the House report
within each field, and of how these needs are best
would provide $147 million for the Brain
balanced across the NSF portfolio.87
Research through Advancing Innovative
Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative; $177
million for Advanced Manufacturing; and $50 million for the International Ocean Drilling
Program (IOPD).
As amended and reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 2578 would provide
$5.934 billion to RRA in FY2016—the same amount as the FY2015 estimate, $253 million less
than the request, and $50 million less than the House. The Senate report is silent on the question
of the distribution of funding by major subaccount within RRA. Provisions in the Senate report
include $15 million for research in biomanufacturing; $159 million for cybersecurity research;
and $10 million for a pilot program to provide research funding to Historically Black Colleges
and Universities (HBCUs) from within RRA. (HBCUs already receive targeted funding through
EHR.)
The House report would provide $160 million for the Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (EPSCoR); the Senate report would provide just under this amount. The
Administration seeks $170 million for EPSCoR in FY2016, $10 million (6%) more than the
FY2015 estimated funding level of just under $160 million.
Education. 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.88 If Congress adopts the FY2016 request,

87 CRS Report R43585, The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues, by Heather B.
Gonzalez.
88 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.
Congressional Research Service
40

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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.89 It is not
entirely clear what has driven these changes or how these changes have affected program
activities and constituencies.90
By program, the largest increase in the FY2016 EHR request is for Improving Undergraduate
STEM Education (IUSE).91 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.92
The FY2016 request for ECR:STEM Learning is $49 million, or $24 million (92%) more than the
FY2015 estimate of $26 million.
EHR programs that are widely tracked by congressional policymakers include the Graduate
Research Fellowship (GRF) and National Research Traineeship (NRT). The FY2016 request for
GRF is $338 million, $4 million (1%) over the FY2015 estimated level of $333 million. GRF
funding would be split equally between RRA and EHR, which would each contribute $169
million. The FY2016 request for NRT is $62 million, which is essentially the same as the FY2015
estimate. Funding for the NRT would not be evenly split between EHR and RRA. The RRA
contribution would be $27 million, $7 million below the FY2015 estimate of $33 million. The
EHR contribution would be $35 million, $7 million above the FY2015 estimate of $28 million.
This means EHR would provide the majority of NRT program funding for the first time in at least
five fiscal years.93
The House-passed and Senate Committee on Appropriations-reported versions of H.R. 2578
agree on topline funding for EHR in FY2016. Each would provide $866 million. This amount is
equal to the FY2015 estimate and $97 million below the request.
Provisions in the House report include $66 million for the Advanced Technological Education
(ATE) program—the same as the FY2015 funding level, FY2016 request, and Senate report
recommendation. The House report also recommends $65 million for Advancing Informal STEM

89 CRS analysis of NSF budget data from annual NSF congressional budget justifications and materials.
90 The NSF asserts that some of this change may be attributable to OMB-driven reclassification of EHR activities.
However, some stakeholders perceive an increase in research requirements under EHR solicitations.
91 According to the July 23, 2014, IUSE program solicitation (NSF14-588), 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.”
92 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 (NSF15-
509), 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.”
93 Section 510 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358) directed NSF to (1) provide for
“equal treatment” of the GRF and NRT (previously called the Integrative Graduate Education and Research
Traineeship or IGERT) in funding change decisions—such that increases or decreases to these programs would
purportedly happen at the same rate—and (2), to ensure that at least 50% of GRF and NRT program funds come from
the RRA account. (The other 50% would come from EHR.) However, there may be some ambiguity in the equal
treatment provisions (see author for details); and provisions requiring NSF to support the GRF and NRT programs with
at least 50% RRA funding applied only to the period between FY2011 and FY2013.
Congressional Research Service
41

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

Learning (AISL), which is $10 million more than the FY2015 estimate and $5 million more than
both the FY2016 request and Senate report recommendation.
The Senate report recommends $61 million for the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program
(same as FY2015 estimate and FY2016 request); $45 million for Cybercorps: Scholarships for
Service (same as FY2015 estimate and FY2016 request); and $52 million for STEM+C
Partnerships ($5 million less than the FY2015 estimate and equal to the FY2016 request). The
House report is silent on these programs.
Broadening participation provisions in the House report would provide $35 million for the
Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP). This amount
is $3 million more than the FY2015 estimated funding level, the FY2016 request, and the Senate
report recommendation. The House report also recommends $46 million for the Louis Stokes
Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP) and $14 million for the Tribal Colleges and
Universities Program (T-CUP). These amounts are equal to the FY2015 estimated funding levels,
FY2016 requests, and Senate report recommendations for these two programs.
The Senate report recommends $8 million for Alliances for Graduate Education and the
Professoriate (AGEP) and $24 million for Centers for Research Excellence in Science and
Technology (CREST). These amounts are the same as both the FY2015 estimated funding levels
and FY2016 requests for these programs. The House report does not specify funding for these
programs.
With respect to Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), the Senate report would provide $5 million
for NSF to implement an HSI program. The House report would require NSF to report on targeted
funding opportunities (of at least $30 million) for HSIs. The budget request pledges to emphasize
Hispanic-serving two-year colleges through existing programs, including ATE, IUSE, and
LSAMP.
Construction. 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).94
The House-passed and Senate Committee on Appropriations-reported versions of H.R. 2578
would each provide around $200 million to MREFC in FY2016; with the Senate report
recommending the requested level (exactly) and the House report recommending slightly less.
Too Few MREFC Projects?
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 wil 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.”95 In a constrained budget environment, this
dynamic could precipitate difficult choices between funding for research and funding research facilities and equipment.

94 The Advanced Technology Solar Telescope was renamed the Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope in December 2013.
95 National Science Foundation, FY2016 Budget Request to Congress, February 2, 2015, p. BIO-2.
Congressional Research Service
42

link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

Other accounts. 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 House-passed and Senate Committee on
Appropriations-reported versions of H.R. 2578 agree on funding for AOAM ($325 million) and
the NSB ($4 million); they differ slightly on funding for OIG. The House would provide $15
million to OIG in FY2016, about $700,000 more than the Senate committee.
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 NSF 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.
Table 12. NSF Funding by Major Account
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Account
Estimate
Request
House
S. Cmte.
Enacted
Research and Related Activities (RRA)





Biological Sciences (BIO)
731.0
747.9
see note0
n/s

Computer and Information Science and
Engineering (CISE)
921.7
954.4
see note0
n/s

Engineering (ENG)
892.3
949.2
see note0
n/s

Geosciences (GEO)
1,304.4
1,365.4
see note0
n/s

Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS)
1,336.7
1,366.2
see note0
n/s

Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE)
272.2
291.5
see note0
n/s

Office of International Science and Engineering
48.5
51.0
48.50
n/s

(OISE)
Integrative Activities (IA)
425.3
459.2
425.30
n/s

U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC)
1.4
1.5
1.40
n/s

RRA, Subtotal
5,933.7
6,186.3
5,983.6
5,933.6

Education and Human Resources (EHR)
866.0
962.6
866.0
866.0

Major Research Equipment and Facilities
Construction (MREFC)

200.8
200.3
200.0
200.3

Agency Operations and Award
Management (AOAM)

325.0
354.8
325.0
325.0

National Science Board (NSB)
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4

Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
14.4
15.2
15.2
14.5

NSF, Total
7,344.2
7,723.6
7,394.2
7,343.8

Source: FY2016 NSF Budget Request to Congress; H.R. 2578, as passed by the House, and H.Rept. 113-130; as
well as H.R. 2578, as amended and reported in the Senate, and S.Rept. 114-54.
Congressional Research Service
43

link to page 48 link to page 51 link to page 51 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding. The term “n/s” means “not
specified.” The account structure in Table 12 reflects the realignment (in FY2015) of OISE and IA as separate
budget activities.
a. H.Rept. 114-130 directs NSF to ensure that the BIO, CISE, ENG, and MPS directorates receive 70% of the
committee recommendation for RRA, or $4.189 bil ion, in FY2016. The remaining $1.795 bil ion would be
distributed to the other RRA accounts: GEO, SBE, OISE, IA, and USARC. Of the $1.795 bil ion provided for
GEO, SBE, OISE, IA, and USARC, $475 mil ion would go to OISE, IA, and USARC. (This is because the
House report further directs NSF to provide no less than the FY2015 estimate for OISE, IA, and USARC in
FY2016.) The remaining funds, $1.320 bil ion, would go to GEO and SBE.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration96
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
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
3.0% more than the $16.784 billion NASA received for R&D in FY2015.97 The House bill (H.R.
2578 as passed by the House) would provide $17.275 billion. The Senate bill (H.R. 2578 as
reported in the Senate) would provide $17.143 billion. For a breakdown of these amounts, see
Table 13. NASA R&D funding comes through five accounts: Science, Aeronautics, Space
Technology, Exploration, and the International Space Station portion of Space Operations. 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.
The FY2016 request for Science is $5.289 billion, an increase of 0.8%. The House bill would
provide $5.238 billion. The Senate bill would provide $5.295 billion.
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.98 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.99 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.”100 The House bill would provide $140 million for a Europa mission.
Other Planetary Science increases in the House bill (relative to the request) include an additional
$36 million for Mars Exploration, $20 million for production of plutonium-238 by the
Department of Energy for use as an energy source in future NASA spacecraft, and $19 million for

96 This section was written by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
97 Based on $2.974 billion for the International Space Station in FY2015. See notes to Table 13.
98 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.
99 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/.
100 NASA FY2016 congressional budget justification, p. PS-47.
Congressional Research Service
44

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The Senate bill would provide $40 million less than the
request for Planetary Science. The Senate committee report was silent on funding for a Europa
mission, but directed NASA to use the Space Launch System (see below) to launch the mission.
Also in the Science account, a requested 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 also to
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. The House bill would provide
$264 million less than the request for Earth Science. It would provide no funds for the Thermal
Infrared Free Flyer and $33 million for Landsat 9. The Senate bill would provide $16 million less
than the request for Earth Science. Like the House bill, it would provide no funds for the Thermal
Infrared Free Flyer, but it would provide $100 million for Landsat 9.
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 House and Senate bills would both provide the requested amount for
SOFIA. The House bill would prohibit NASA from using FY2016 funds to shut down SOFIA or
prepare to shut it down.
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 2013.101
The proposed FY2016 budget for Aeronautics would support new activities aligned with the
research thrust areas identified in the strategic vision. The House bill would provide $600 million
for Aeronautics. The Senate bill would provide $525 million.
The FY2016 request for Space Technology is $725 million, an increase of 21.6%. The request
includes an increase of $44 million for in-space technology demonstrations and an increase of
$48 million for maturation of early-stage transformational technologies. 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. This pattern is repeated in the
request and the House and Senate bills for FY2016. The House bill would provide $625 million,
including $25 million for icy satellite surface technology and $20 million for nuclear propulsion.
The Senate bill would provide $600 million, including $150 million for on-orbit satellite
servicing and $20 million for the Flight Opportunities program.
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 House bill would provide
$4.759 billion. The Senate bill would provide $3.831 billion (not counting $900 million for the

101 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
45

link to page 52 link to page 52 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

commercial crew program, which the Senate bill includes in its funding for the International
Space Station).
Within Exploration, 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. This pattern is again evident
in the House and Senate bills for FY2016: the House bill would provide $3.409 billion for
Exploration Systems Development and $1.000 billion for commercial crew, while the Senate bill
would provide $3.510 billion for Exploration Systems Development and $900 million (in a
different account, as noted above) for commercial crew. 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 (ISS) starting in 2017. It notes that without a U.S.
commercial capability, it will need to pay Russia for additional Soyuz flights to transport U.S. ISS
crews. It asserts that the schedule for initial operation of Orion and the SLS (NASA plans a first
crewed test flight for FY2021-FY2022) depends primarily on testing and development schedules
and would be difficult to accelerate, even with additional funds. Some congressional supporters
of Orion and the 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 ISS.102 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. The House bill would provide $3.076 billion. The Senate
bill would provide $3.952 billion. As noted above, $900 million of the Senate provision for the
ISS would be for the commercial crew program, which is funded under Exploration in FY2015,
the FY2016 request, and the FY2016 House bill.
Table 13. NASA R&D
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016

Enacted
Request
House
S. Cmte.
Final
Science
$5,244.7
$5,288.6
$5,237.5
$5,295.0

Earth Science
1,772.5
1,947.3
1,682.9
1,931.6

Planetary Science
1,437.8
1,361.2
1,557.0
1,321.0

Astrophysics
684.8
709.1
735.6
730.6

James Webb Space Telescope
645.4
620.0
620.0
620.0

Heliophysics
662.2
651.0
642.0
649.8

Education
42.0
—a
—a
42.0

Aeronautics
651.0
571.4
600.0
524.7


102 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. Relative to NASA’s April 2015 operating plan for
FY2015, the FY2016 request for the ISS is a 4.4% increase.
Congressional Research Service
46

link to page 59 link to page 52 link to page 59 link to page 52 link to page 52 link to page 52 link to page 52 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016

Enacted
Request
House
S. Cmte.
Final
Space Technology
596.0
724.8
625.0
600.0

Exploration
4,356.7
4,505.9
4,759.3
3,831.2

Exploration Systems Development
3,245.3
2,862.9
3,409.3
3,510.0

Commercial Spaceflight
805.0
1,243.8
1,000.0
0.0c

Exploration R&D
306.4
399.2
350.0
321.2

International Space Station
c
3,105.6
3,075.6
3,951.6c

Subtotal R&D
13,822.3
14,196.3
14,297.4
14,202.5

Non-R&D Programsd
1009.9
1,024.4
1,038.1
950.2

Safety, Security, and Mission Servicese
2,758.9
2,843.1
2,768.6
2,784.0

Associated with R&Df
2,571.1
2,651.8
2,581.2
2,609.4

Construction & Environmental C&R
419.1
465.3
425.0
352.8

Associated with R&Df
390.6
434.0
396.2
330.7

NASA, Total (R&D)
16,783.9
17,282.0
17,274.8
17,142.6

NASA, Total
18,010.2
18,529.1
18,529.1
18,289.5

Sources: FY2015 enacted from P.L. 113-235 and explanatory statement, Congressional Record, December 11,
2014, Book II, at pp. H9348-H9349. FY2016 request from NASA’s FY2016 congressional budget justification,
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/. FY2016 House from H.R. 2578 as passed by the House and H.Rept. 114-130.
FY2016 Senate from H.R. 2578 as reported in the Senate and S.Rept. 114-66.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
a. Included in Astrophysics in the request and the House bil . This item is separate from the Education
account, which is included in Non-R&D Programs, lower in the table.
b. In the Senate bil , $900.0 mil ion for Commercial Crew is included in funding for the International Space
Station.
c. ISS funding is not specified in P.L. 113-235 or the explanatory statement. The R&D totals shown in the table
are calculated using $2,973.9 mil ion for the ISS, as shown in NASA’s April 2015 operating plan.
d. Space Operations other than International Space Station, Education, and Inspector General.
e. Formerly known as Cross-Agency Support.
f.
CRS estimates the allocation between R&D and non-R&D in proportion to the underlying program amounts
in order to allow calculation of a total for R&D. The 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 that engages 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 (NIST) and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This chapter addresses only DOC R&D funding at those
two organizations.
Congressional Research Service
47

link to page 56 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

National Institute of Standards and Technology103
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.
Total Funding. 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.) On June 3, 2015, the House approved the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016 (H.R. 2578). The bill would provide a total of $855.0 million
for NIST, $8.9 million (1.0%) less than in FY2015 and $264.7 million (23.6%) less than the
request. On June 11, 2015, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported an amended version
of H.R. 2578 accompanied by S.Rept. 114-66. The Senate committee-recommended funding level
for NIST is $893.0 million, $29.1 million (3.4%) less than for FY2015, $226.7 million (20.2%)
less than the request, and $38.0 million (4.4%) more than the House-passed level.
NIST funding is provided through three accounts: Scientific and Technical Research and Services
(STRS), Industrial Technology Services (ITS), and Construction of Research Facilities (CRF).
Scientific and Technical Research and Services. 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 resilient buildings and infrastructure, 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.104 The proposed increase for advanced
manufacturing includes additional funding of $10 million for the Manufacturing Genome
Initiative, $5 million for advanced sensing, $5 million for manufacturing entrepreneurship, and $4
million for biomanufacturing.
The House-passed bill would provide $675.0 million for the STRS account, slightly below the
$675.5 million provided for FY2015 and $79.7 million (10.6%) below the request. Of this
amount, the House committee report (H.Rept. 114-130) recommends $603.5 million for
laboratory programs, including $6.5 million for ongoing activities of the National Strategy for
Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC); $55.0 million for standards coordination and special
programs, including $5.0 million for forensic research and standards work; and no funding for the
lab-to-market program. The House committee encourages NIST to continue existing work in

103 This section was written by John F. Sargent Jr., Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
104 Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Submission to
Congress,
February 2015, http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY16CJ/NIST-
NTIS_FY_2016_CJ_Final_508_Compliant.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
48

link to page 21 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

retail cybersecurity and retail supply chain management and logistics, as well as its cybersecurity-
related measurement science, particularly as it relates to implantable medical devices. The House
committee also expresses its support for NIST’s work in windstorm research and disaster
resiliency, advanced textile and apparel research and manufacturing activities, and neuroscience,
and encouraged NIST to examine technical and workforce barriers to high volume additive
manufacturing of metals.
The Senate committee report (S.Rept. 114-66), recommends $684.7 million for the STRS
account, $9.2 million (1.4%) more than for FY2015, $70.0 million less (9.3%) than the request,
and $9.7 million more (1.4%) than the House-passed level. The Senate committee report
expresses its support for the Administration’s request for cybersecurity funding, including $15.0
million for the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence, $16.5 million for the NSTIC, $4.4
million for the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education, and $72.7 million for
cybersecurity R&D. The Senate committee report recommends the requested level of funding for
Disaster Resilient Buildings and Infrastructure, $2.0 million more than the FY2015 funding level
for NIST’s Urban Dome program focused on accurate measurement science for environmental
monitoring and human health in urban areas. The Senate committee report also encourages NIST
to propose funding in future budgets for additional centers of excellence in fields such as
regenerative medicine and advanced photonics, and to investigate the development of new and
better standards for testing sports equipment.
Industrial Technology Services. The President is requesting $306.0 million for the ITS account
for FY2016, up $167.9 million (121.6%) from FY2016. The President’s ITS request includes
$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).105 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.
The House-passed bill would provide $130.0 million for the ITS account for FY2016, $8.1
million (5.9%) below the FY2015 level and $176.0 million (57.5%) below the request. The
House-passed bill would provide $130.0 million for the MEP program, an amount equal to its
FY2015 level and $11.0 million (7.8%) below the request, and would provide no funding for the

105 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. The President’s FY2013 and FY2014 budget requests
sought mandatory appropriations to NIST of $1 billion in support of up to 15 NNMI manufacturing innovation
institutes. No funding was provided for the NNMI in FY2013, FY2014, or FY2015. For more information, see
“National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.”
Congressional Research Service
49

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

AmTech program ($8.1 million in FY2015, $15.0 million in the request) or the Network for
Manufacturing Innovation (no funding in FY2015, $150.0 million in the request). The House
committee report recognizes the authority given NIST under RAMI to use unobligated balances
for the NMI, but stated its expectation that such funds only be used for coordination of
interagency activities in support of the institutes and only for activities authorized by RAMI. The
House committee report also noted that NIST was authorized under RAMI to seek the use of
unobligated balances in the DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account for
manufacturing innovation institutes and stated that NIST may pursue the use of such funds to
establish and operate such institutes.
The Senate committee-recommended funding level for ITS is $145.0 million for FY2016, $6.9
million (5.0%) more than for FY2015, $161.0 million (52.6%) less than the request, and $15.0
million (11.5%) more than the House-passed level. Senate committee-recommended funding for
ITS includes $130.0 million for the MEP program and $15.0 million for the AmTech program.
Within the funds provided for AmTech, the Senate committee recommends $5.0 million for
competitive external grants for R&D and workforce training related to high-volume additive
manufacturing of metals, and $5.0 million for NIST’s role in coordinating the existing NNMI
institutes but would provide no funds for the establishment of any NIST-led NNMIs in FY2016.
Construction of Research Facilities. The President is requesting $59.0 million for the NIST
CRF account, up $8.7 million (17.3%) over FY2015.106 The House-passed bill would provide
$50.0 million for the CRF account, slightly less than the $50.3 million provided for FY2015 and
$9.0 million (15.3%) less than the request. Of these funds, the committee directs NIST to use no
less than $13.0 million to begin design and renovation of its radiation physics research laboratory
(Building 245) in FY2016.
The Senate committee-recommended funding level for the CRF account is $63.3 million, $13.0
million (25.8%) more than for FY2015, $4.3 million (7.3%) more than the request, and $13.3
million (26.6%) more than the House-passed level.
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 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.
Some supporters assert that some technologies are too high-risk or too costly for a single
company, or even a group of companies, to develop on their own, even though the anticipated
widespread economic and societal benefits may be expected to greatly exceed the development
costs. In such cases, some supporters assert that a market failure exists resulting in the private
sector underinvesting in the technologies providing a rationale for federal financial and other
assistance.
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

106 Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Submission to
Congress,
February 2015, http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY16CJ/NIST-
NTIS_FY_2016_CJ_Final_508_Compliant.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
50

link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 56 link to page 56 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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
S. Cmte.
Enacted
Base Budget





Scientific and Technical Research and
Services (STRS)

$675.5
$754.7
$675.0
$684.7

Industrial Technology Services (ITS) a
138.1
306.0
130.0
$145.0

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)
130.0
141.0
130.0
130.0

Adv. Mfg. Technology Consortia (AmTech)
8.1
15.0
0.0
15.0

National Network for Mfg. Innovation (NNMI)
0.0
150.0
0.0
0.0

Construction of Research Facilities (CRF)
50.3
59.0
50.0
63.3

NIST, Total (Base Budget)
863.9
1,119.7
855.0
893.0

Mandatory Funding





Wireless Innovation (WIN) Fund
$300.0b




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
Information Service, http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY16CJ/NIST-
NTIS_FY_2016_CJ_Final_508_Compliant.pdf; H.R. 2578, H.Rept. 114-130, and S.Rept. 114-66.
Notes:
a. The Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 authorizes NIST to use $5 mil ion per
year for FY2015-FY2024 from funds appropriated to its Industrial Technology Services account to carry out
the Network for Manufacturing Innovation program. The act also authorizes the Department of Energy to
transfer to NIST up to $250 mil ion over the FY2015-FY2024 period from funds appropriated for advanced
manufacturing R&D.
b. The spectrum auction authorized by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-96)
provided $300.0 mil ion for NIST; these funds wil be used in FY2015 and future years.


Congressional Research Service
51

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration107
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. 4.108 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.”109
NOAA’s Research Council has developed a five-year plan (2013-2017) to guide the agency’s
R&D efforts.110 R&D efforts support the long-term goals and enterprise objectives of NOAA’s
Next Generation Strategic Plan.111 The strategic plan is organized into four categories of long-
term goals including (1) climate adaptation and mitigation, (2) a weather-ready nation,112 (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)
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

107 This section was written by Harold F. Upton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
108 “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.
109 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.
110 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.
111 NOAA, NOAA’s Next-Generation Strategic Plan, Silver Spring, MD, December 2010, http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/
wp-content/uploads/NOAA_NGSP.pdf.
112 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
52

link to page 59 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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%).113 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.114
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.115
Funding for NOAA R&D is 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. In general, R&D funding levels are known only after
NOAA allocates its appropriations to specific activities and reports those figures.
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 House-passed bill would fund the
cooperative institutes with a total of $155.0 million, $10.6 million (6.4%) less than the FY2016
request and $2.0 million (1.3%) less than the FY2015 enacted funding level. The Senate
committee-reported bill would fund the cooperative institutes with a total of $162.0 million, $7.0
million (4.5%) more than the House-passed bill, $3.6 million (2.2%) less than the FY2016
request, and $5.0 million (3.2%) more than the FY2015 enacted funding level.
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
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. The House-passed bill would fund Sea Grant with a total
of $64.8 million, $3.7 million (5.3%) less than the FY2016 request and $2.5 million (3.7%) less
than the FY2015 enacted funding level. The Senate committee-reported bill would fund Sea
Grant with a total of $72.8 million, $8.0 million (12.4%) more than the House-passed bill, $4.4
million (6.6%) more than the FY2016 request, and $5.5 million (8.2%) more than the FY2015
enacted funding level.116

113 Courtney Barry, NOAA Budget Office, email to CRS, February 3, 2015.
114 Ibid.
115 Ibid.
116 The Sea Grant Program funding level includes Sea Grant base and aquaculture research funding.
Congressional Research Service
53

link to page 59 link to page 59 link to page 59 link to page 59 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

Table 15. NOAA R&D
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)

FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016

Enacted
Request
Housea S. Cmte.a
Final
National Ocean Service (NOS)
$73.8
$77.9
n/a
n/a

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
70.9
76.8
n/a
n/a

National Weather Service (NWS)
19.0
26.1
n/a
n/a

National Environmental Satellite, Data, and
26.0
25.9
n/a
n/a

Information Service (NESDIS)
Office of Marine and Aviation Operationsb (OMAO)
81.2
233.9
n/a
n/a

Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR)
411.2
471.1
n/a
n/a

Total, R&D
682.2
911.7
n/a
n/a







OAR Total, R&D and Non-R&Dc
446.3
507.0
430.7
456.1

NOAA Total, R&D and Non-R&D
5,441.0
5,974.7
5,169.3
5,381.6

Source: Courtney Barry, NOAA Budget Office, email to CRS concerning NOAA R&D, February 3, 2015.
Notes:
a. House-passed and Senate committee-reported bil s do not provide funding levels for R&D.
b. All Office of Marine and Aviation Operations funding is for equipment related to R&D.
c. OAR and NOAA funding totals are provided for context.
Department of Agriculture117
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was created in 1862 in part to support agricultural
research in an expanding, agriculturally dependent country. USDA conducts intramural research
at federal facilities with government-employed scientists, and supports external research at
universities and other facilities through competitive grants and formula-based funding. The
breadth of contemporary USDA research spans traditional agricultural production techniques,
organic and sustainable agriculture, bioenergy, nutrition needs and composition, food safety,
animal and plant health, pest and disease management, economic decisionmaking, and other
social sciences affecting consumers, farmers, and rural communities.
Four agencies carry out USDA’s research and education activities, grouped together into the
Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area. The agencies are the Agricultural
Research Service (ARS), National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), and Economic Research Service (ERS).118
For FY2016, the USDA research mission area would receive $2.691 billion in the House
committee-reported Agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 3049) and $2.684 billion in the Senate

117 This section was written by Jim Monke, Specialist in Agricultural Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
118 For background on agricultural research, see CRS Report R40819, Agricultural Research: Background and Issues,
by Jim Monke. For background on FY2015 agricultural appropriations, see CRS Report R43669, Agriculture and
Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations
, coordinated by Jim Monke.
Congressional Research Service
54

link to page 62 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

committee-reported Agriculture appropriations bill (S. 1800). These amounts are decreases of
1.2% and 1.5%, respectively, from the FY2015 level. The President requested $3.167 billion for
USDA research, an increase of 16% over FY2015.119 Nearly half of the requested increase was
for ARS (mostly for buildings and facilities), with most of the rest for NIFA competitive grants.
The committee-reported bills for FY2016 generally are flat for most research programs and do
not follow most of the proposed changes in priorities in the President’s request. (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 House-reported bill would provide $1.168 billion for ARS, and the Senate-
reported bill $1.137 billion. The amount for FY2015 was slightly higher compared to each bill, at
$1.178 billion. Within the proposed amounts, the House bill would continue a constant $45
million for buildings and facilities, while the Senate bill has nothing for buildings and facilities.
The President requested 5% more for salaries and expenses, and more than four times the FY2015
or House-reported amount for buildings and facilities.
ARS had proposed increases across several programmatic areas for prioritized research projects,
coupled with reductions in funding for several existing programs. Both the House and Senate
committees expressly rejected many, if not most, of those specific reductions and reprogramming.
Both of the committee reports address deficient animal welfare conditions uncovered at ARS
research facilities, particularly at the ARS Meat Animal Research Center in Nebraska.120 Both
committees instruct ARS to comply with Animal Welfare Act standards, allow animal welfare
inspections by a USDA sister agency (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS),
review and update its own animal care policies, and certify progress with the committees. The
House bill further withholds 5% of the ARS appropriation until USDA certifies that it has updated
its policies and has functioning Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees.
For buildings and facilities, which comprises most difference between the request and the two
committee-reported amounts, the House bill would provide $45 million “for priorities identified
in the USDA ARS Capital Investment Strategy,”121 the same as in FY2015. The Senate bill
contains nothing for ARS buildings and facilities. ARS’ top facilities priority is the construction
of a Biocontainment Laboratory and Consolidated Poultry Research Facility in Athens, GA.

119 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.
120 See CRS Report R44091, Meat Animal Research Center: The Animal Welfare Act and Farm Animal Research, by
Tadlock Cowan and Joel L. Greene.
121 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.
Congressional Research Service
55

link to page 21 link to page 22 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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.122 Federal funds enhance capacity at universities
and institutions by statutory formula funding, competitive awards, and grants.
For FY2016, the House-reported bill would provide $1.285 billion for NIFA, and the Senate-
reported bill $1.294 billion. These amounts are within 0.4% of the FY2015 amount of $1.290
billion. The President requested $1.503 billion for NIFA, 17% over the FY2015.
USDA had proposed to merge NIFA’s three primary accounts (Research and Education,
Extension, and Integrated Activities) into a single NIFA-wide account. Congress effectively
rejected that proposal by continuing to fund each of the accounts separately as in past years.
The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), USDA’s flagship competitive grants
program with 25% of NIFA’s total budget, would receive $335 million in the House-reported bill,
and a constant $325 million in the Senate-reported bill. The House-proposed amount is a $10
million increase over FY2015, smaller than the $125 million increase requested by the President.
Formula-funded programs are held constant in the House- and Senate-reported bills. Neither bill
provides funding for the Administration’s proposal to add a competitive portion to the normally
formula-funded “capacity awards” programs such as the Hatch Act. The House report notes a lack
of state matching funding for some Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and directs
USDA to develop a plan to work with the states to meet the matching requirements.
Both committee-reported bills continue to direct that not less than 15% of NIFA’s competitive
research grant funds be used for the USDA agriculture research enhancement awards program,
including USDA-EPSCoR.
The Administration had proposed to establish two new “Innovation Institutes” as part of its
multiagency National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. (For additional information, see
“National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.”) These public-private institutes would receive
$80 million per year for research challenges such as biomanufacturing and nanocellulosics. As in
past years, neither chambers’ reported bill would fund this proposal.
The President’s request would have consolidated federal STEM education funding so that USDA
would no longer provide 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.
(For additional information, see “Reorganization of STEM Education Programs.”) Both
chambers’ reported bills reject that proposal and continue to fund the programs at FY2015 levels.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) conducts the Census of Agriculture and
provides official statistics on agricultural production and indicators of the economic and

122 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
56

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

environmental status of the farm sector. For FY2016, the House-reported bill would provide
NASS $161 million and the Senate-reported bill $168 million, decreases of 6.5% and 2.5%,
respectively, from FY2015. The President’s request was $180 million, an increase of 5% over
FY2015.
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 House-reported bill would provide ERS $78 million (-8.6% from FY2015), and the Senate-
reported bill $85 million (the same as FY2015). The President’s request was $86 million.
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
H. Cmte.
S. Cmte.
Final
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
1,132.6
1,191.5
1,122.5
1,136.8

Buildings and Facilities
45.0
205.9
45.0
0.0

Subtotal, ARS
1,177.6
1,397.4
1,167.5
1,136.8

National Institute of Food and





Agriculture (NIFA)
Research and Education





AFRI (competitive grants)
325.0
450.0
335.0
325.0

Hatch Act (1862 institutions)
243.7
243.7
243.7
243.7

Evans-Allen (1890s institutions)
52.5
58.0
52.5
52.5

McIntire-Stennis (forestry)
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0

Innovation Institutes

80.0



Other
131.7
132.9
116.4
135.9

Subtotal
786.9
998.6
781.5
791.1

Extension





Smith-Lever (b) & (c)
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0

Smith-Lever (d)
85.5
85.7
85.5
102.7

Other
86.2
89.8
86.5
86.2

Subtotal
471.7
475.6
472.1
488.9

Integrated Activities
30.9
28.9
30.9
13.7

Subtotal, NIFA
1,289.5
1,503.1
1,284.5
1,293.7

National Agricultural Statistics Service
172.4
180.3
161.2
168.1

(NASS)
Economic Research Service (ERS)
85.4
86.0
78.1
85.4

Total, USDA Research Mission Area
2,724.9
3,166.9
2,691.2
2,684.0

Source: CRS, compiled from H.R. 3049 (H.Rept. 114-205), S. 1800 (S.Rept. 114-82), and tables in the joint
explanatory statement for P.L. 113-235.
Congressional Research Service
57

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

Notes: Components may not add to subtotals.
Department of the Interior123
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.124
The Administration is requesting $1.075 billion in DOI R&D funding for FY2016, which is
$140.2 million (15.0%) above its FY2015 enacted level of $934.6 million.125
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.126
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.127
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 that
would be provided by appropriations bills is allocated to R&D unless funding is provided at the
precise level of the request. In general, R&D funding levels are known only after DOI
components allocate their final appropriations to specific activities and report those figures.
U.S. Geological Survey
The U.S. Geological Survey was established by Congress on March 3, 1879, to support the
mission of the Department of the Interior and its science requirements. The USGS also works in
collaboration with other federal, state, and tribal cooperators to conduct research and provide
scientific data and information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and
property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and
enhance and protect our quality of life.
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

123 This section was written by John F. Sargent, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
124 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.
125 Email correspondence between the DOI budget office and CRS.
126 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.
127 Email correspondence between the DOI budget office and CRS.
Congressional Research Service
58

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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 (i.e., 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%); and $0.4 million for Science Support, up $17,000 (4.0%).128
On June 16, 2015, the House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 3128 accompanied by
H.Rept. 114-170. The House committee-recommended funding level for USGS (including both
R&D and non-R&D activities) is $1.045 billion for FY2016, the same as for FY2015 and $149.8
million (12.5%) below request. On June 18, 2015, the Senate Committee on Appropriations
reported S. 1645, accompanied by S.Rept. 114-70.The Senate Committee-recommended funding
level for USGS is $1,058.5 billion, $13.5 million (1.3%) more than for FY2015, $136.3 million
(11.4%) less than the request, and $13.5 million (1.3%) more than the House committee-
recommended level.
Other DOI Components
In addition to the USGS, the President’s FY2016 request includes R&D funding for the following
DOI components: 129
 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.
 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.

128 Ibid.
129 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
59

link to page 65 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

 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
H. Cmte.
S. Cmte.
Final
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
$665.8
$761.1
TBD
TBD

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
76.0
85.9
TBD
TBD

Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM)
70.5
69.3
TBD
TBD

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
32.5
49.7
TBD
TBD

Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)
20.2
31.0
TBD
TBD

National Park Service (NPS)
27.0
28.2
TBD
TBD

Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement
(BSEE)
27.1
26.7
TBD
TBD

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
9.5
12.5
TBD
TBD

Wildland Fire Management
(WFM)
6.0
6.0
TBD
TBD

Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSMRE)
0.0
4.4
TBD
TBD

Department of the Interior,
Total

$934.6
$1,074.8
TBD
TBD

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. TBD = To be determined. As noted
in the main text, the allocation of R&D funds within these accounts is not generally specified in appropriations
bil s and is therefore not usually determined until after DOI appropriations are finalized.
Environmental Protection Agency130
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

130 This section was written by Robert Esworthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
60

link to page 69 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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.131 The transferred funds
are for research on more effective methods to clean up contaminated sites.
As indicated in Table 18 at the end of this section, H.R. 2822 and S. 1645, the Department of the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, as reported by the House
and the Senate Committees on Appropriations, included $721.1 million and $720.2 respectively
for FY2016 for EPA’s S&T account, including transfers from the Hazardous Substance Superfund
account ($16.2 million). The total amount proposed in the House committee-reported bill is $64.2
million (8.2%) less than the President’s FY2016 budget request of $785.3 million for EPA’s S&T
account, including transfers ($16.2 million) and $32.4 million (4.3%) below the $753.5 million
including transfers ($18.8 million) appropriated for FY2015 in the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235 Title II of Division F) enacted December 16,
2014. 132 The total amount proposed in the Senate committee-reported bill is $65.1 million (8.3%)
less than the President’s FY2016 budget request for EPA’s S&T account, including transfers and
$33.3 million (4.4%) below the appropriated amount for FY2015
Including transfers, the amount for the S&T account in H.R. 2822 represents about 9.0% of the
total $7.42 billion proposed for the agency; the amount in S. 1645 represents about 9.1% of the
total $7.60 billion proposed; and the amount requested represents roughly 10% of the $7.48
billion total proposed for EPA in the President’s FY2016 request.
As shown in the table, the FY2016 total base (prior to transfers) for the S&T account is $704.9 in
H.R. 2822, $704.0 in S. 1645, and $769.1 million in the FY2016 request, compared to the
FY2015 enacted level of $734.6 million. The $16.2 million FY2016 proposed transfer from the
Superfund account included in the House and Senate committee-reported bills and the FY2016
request, is less than the $18.8 million transferred in FY2015. The base level funding for the S&T
account proposed in H.R. 2822 and S. 1645 include mostly decreases for nearly all of the
individual program area and activity line items below the account level compared to the
President’s FY2016 request, and are generally the same or below the FY2015 enacted levels. The
FY2016 requested base amount for the S&T account included mostly increases for programs and
activities below the account level compared to the FY2015 enacted levels.133 Funding for

131 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.
132 For an overview of the EPA FY2015 appropriations see CRS Report R43709, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA): FY2015 Appropriations
, by Robert Esworthy.
133 For detailed discussion of the various EPA program areas and activities below the S&T account level see U.S. EPA,
Fiscal Year 2016 Justification of Appropriations Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations: Science and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
61

link to page 66 link to page 22 link to page 66 link to page 66 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

individual program and activity line items below the S&T account level are presented in the
committee reports accompanying the reported bills: H.Rept. 114-170 and S.Rept. 114-70.
Within the S&T account, the largest decrease in dollar terms proposed in the House and Senate
committee-reported bills compared to the FY2016 request is the funding for the “Clean air and
climate” program area. The House Committee proposal of $107.7 million is $17.1 million
(13.7%) less than the $124.8 million FY2016 request and $8.8 million (7.5%) less than the
$11656 million enacted for FY2015. The $106.0 million proposed for FY2016 by the Senate
Committee is $18.9 million (17.8%) less than the FY2016 request and $10.6 million (10.0%) less
than the FY2015 enacted level.
Compared to the FY2015 enacted appropriations, the largest proposed decrease in both of the
reported bills in dollar terms in the S&T account is for “Research: Sustainable and Healthy
Communities.” The $135.1 million proposed in the House and Senate committee-reported bills
for this program area is $14.9 million (10.0%) less than the $150.0 million enacted appropriation,
and $4.1 million (2.9%) below the $139.2 million requested. The FY2016 requested amount was
the largest decrease in dollar terms, $10.8 million (7.2%) less than the FY2015 enacted
appropriation.134
One of the largest percentage increases in the FY2016 request within the S&T account was 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 (57.9%) more than the FY2015 enacted level of $21.4 million.135 Both of the committee-
reported bills rejected the proposed increase and would fund this research program activity at the
FY2015 enacted level.
EPA’s FY2016 request proposed eliminating $0.2 million within the S&T account appropriated in
FY2015 to support radon testing.136 The FY2014 and FY2015 budget requests also proposed
eliminating this funding.137 For FY2016, the Senate Committee138 rejected the proposed
elimination of radon activities but did not specify a funding amount for these activities within the
S&T account. The House Committee did not explicitly address the proposed elimination of
funding within the S&T account, but like the Senate Committee rejected the requested proposal to
eliminate funding for radon categorical state grants within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants
(STAG) account radon grants for FY2016139 and proposed restoring funding at the FY2015 level
of $8.1 million.140

(...continued)
Technology, February 2015, http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents/
epa_fy_2016_congressional_justification.pdf, pp. 83-194.
134 See footnote 133, p. 173. This requested 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. See discussion under
“Reorganization of STEM Education Programs” earlier in this report.
135 See footnote 133, pp. 176-181.
136 See footnote 133, pp. 107-108.
137 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.
138 S.Rept. 114-70, p. 49.
139 The Administration asserted that the states had developed the technical expertise and procedures to continue these
efforts without federal grant assistance. For more detailed discussion of the proposed elimination of these programs and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
62

link to page 66 link to page 66 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

Both of the committee-reported bills proposed the allocation of $4.1 million within the S&T
account for FY2016 for “Research: National Priorities,” the same as enacted for FY2015. These
funds are to be used for competitive extramural research grants to support high-priority water
quality and availability research of national scope by “not-for-profit organizations who often
partner with the Agency.” The grants are to be independent of the Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) grant program. The grants are subject to a 25% matching funds requirement. 141 The
House Appropriations Committee proposed an additional allocation of $3.0 million (including
$2.0 million for extramural funding) in the S&T account for EPA to further its research on oil and
gas development in the Appalachian Basin.142 As in previous requests, the President’s FY2016
budget request did not include funding for these program activities in the S&T or other
appropriations accounts referred to as “Congressional Priorities” in the EPA budget
justification.143
In addition to specifying funding amounts below the account level, there are directives and
restrictions included in the reports accompanying the House and Senate committee-reported bills
(H.Rept. 114-170 and S.Rept. 114-70). For example, the House and Senate committee-reported
bills would not provide funding as requested within the S&T account for EPA hydraulic fracturing
research activities144 jointly with the Departments of Energy and Interior.145 The Senate
Committee did not include “... the Administration’s requests for funding increases and for
additional employees related to the Clean Power Plan.”146
The House and Senate committee-reported bills also contain a number of administrative147 and
general (referred to by some as “riders”) provisions. Several of these provisions would restrict or
prohibit the use of FY2016 funds by EPA for implementing or proceeding with a number of
regulatory actions, including in some instances conducting research to support these actions. The
general provisions can be found in Title II of each the committee-reported bills, the general
provisions in Title IV.
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.

(...continued)
other related terminations and reductions, see OMB’s Fiscal Year 2016 Budget of the United States: Cuts,
Consolidations
, and Savings, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/ccs.pdf.
140 H.Rept. 114-170, p. 73.
141 H.Rept. 114-170, p. 50, and S.Rept. 114-70, p.49.
142 S.Rept. 114-70, p.49.
143 See footnote 133, pp.193-194, and 1046.
144 Within the S&T account, the FY2016 request proposed $3.8 million and $3.7 million increases under Air, Climate,
and Energy Research and Safe and Sustainable Water Resources, respectively, as part of EPA’s overall research efforts
to address additional questions regarding the safety of hydraulic fracturing. See footnote 133, pp. 39, 156-157, and 162-
166. See also CRS Report R41760, Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Regulatory Issues, by Mary
Tiemann and Adam Vann.
145 H.Rept. 114-170, p. 50, and S.Rept. 114-70, p. 50.
146 S.Rept. 114-70, p. 51.
147 Administrative provisions generally set terms and conditions for the use of appropriated funds.
Congressional Research Service
63

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

Table 18. Environmental Protection Agency Science &Technology (S&T) Account
(millions of dollars)
FY2016
H.

FY2016
Cmte.
S.
FY2015
FY2016 H.R.
Cmte.
FY2016

Enacted Request 2822
S. 1645
Final
Science and Technology Appropriations Acct.





Clean Air and Climate
$116.5
$124.8
$107.7
$106.0

Clean Air Allowance Trading Program
NR
7.8
NR
NR

Climate Protection Program
8.0
8.1
8.0
8.0

Federal Support for Air Quality Management
NR
8.5
NR
NR

Federal Vehicle and Fuel Standards and

Certification
NR
100.4
NR
NR
Enforcement
13.7
14.4
13.1
13.7

Homeland Security
37.1
38.1
37.1
36.3

Indoor Air and Radiation
6.0
6.6
6.0
6.3

Indoor Air: Radon
NR
0.0
NR
NR

Radiation: Protection
NR
2.2
NR
NR

Radiation: Response Preparedness
NR
4.0
NR
NR

Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
NR
0.4
NR
NR

IT/Data Management/Security
3.1
3.2
3.1
3.2

Operations and Administration
68.3
79.2
68.3
68.3

Pesticide Licensing
6.0
7.7
6.0
6.1

Research: Air, Climate, and Energy
91.9
100.3
88.3
90.4

Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
126.9
140.7
126.9
125.9

Human Health Risk Assessment
NR
39.3
NR
NR

Research: Computational Toxicology
21.4
33.8
21.4
21.4

Research: Endocrine Disruptor
16.3
15.4
16.3
15.4

Research: Other Activities
NR
52.3
NR
NR

Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
107.4
111.0
102.6
104.9

Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
150.0
139.2
135.1
135.1

Water: Human Health Protection (Drinking Water
3.5
3.8
3.5
3.7

Programs)
Research: National [Congressional] Priorities (Water
4.1
0.0
7.1
4.1

Quality and Availability)
Subtotal S&T Account Base Appropriations
734.6
769.1
704.9
704.0

Transfer in from Hazardous Substance
18.8
16.2
16.2
16.2

Superfund Account
EPA, Total (Science and Technology)
753.5
785.3
721.1
720.2

Congressional Research Service
64

link to page 72 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

Source: Prepared by CRS. FY2015 enacted appropriations and FY2016 proposed levels are as presented in the
House and Senate Committee-reported bil s and their accompanying reports, H.Rept. 114-170 and S.Rept. 114-
70. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
Notes: The NR (not reported) indicates those instances where the reports accompanying the House and Senate
committee reported bil s did not specify funding amounts for these sub-program activities. Totals may differ from
the sum of the components.
Department of Transportation148
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 that 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).149
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 that
would be provided by appropriations bills is 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 DOT agencies
allocate their final 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.150 Allocations for these activities are not specified in the
House and Senate bills.
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

148 This section was written by John F. Sargent, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
149 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.
150 FHWA, Budget Estimates Fiscal Year 2016: Federal Highway Administration, http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/
files/docs/FY2016-BudgetEstimate-FHWA.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
65

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

enacted level.151 The FY2016 request includes $342.0 million for research and development, an
increase of $86.7 million (34.0%),152 and $32.3 million for R&D facilities, an increase of $7.0
million (27.7%).
Of this FY2016 request, $166.0 million constitutes 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. The House-
passed version of H.R. 2577 would provide $156.8 million for the RE&D account, the same as
the FY2015 level and $9.3 million (5.6%) less than the request. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations-reported bill recommends $163.3 million for FY2016, $6.6 million (4.2%) more
the FY2015 level and the FY2016 House-passed level, and $2.7 million (1.6%) below than the
request.
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.
 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. The request includes $14.6 million for the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Research and Technology, $1.6 million (12.2%) above the FY2015
level. On June 9, 2015, the House passed H.R. 2577, which would provide $11.4
million for this office, $1.6 million (12.4%) less than the FY2015 level and $3.2
million (21.9%) less than the request. On June 25, 2015, the Senate Committee
on Appropriations reported H.R. 2577. The reported bill recommends $13.0
million for FY2016, equal to FY2015 funding, $1.6 million (10.8%) less than the
request, and $1.6 million (14.2%) more than the House-passed level.

151 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.”
152 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
66

link to page 72 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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
S. Cmte.
Final
Federal Highway Administration
$363.8
$453.3
TBD
TBD

Federal Aviation Administration
280.5
374.2
TBD
TBD

Research, Engineering, and
Development

156.8
166.0
156.8
163.3

National Highway Traffic Safety
TBD
TBD

Administration
62.5
76.6
Federal Railroad Administration
42.8
65.3
TBD
TBD

Railroad Research and
Development

39.1
39.3
39.1
39.1

Federal Transit Administration
12.7
28.2
TBD
TBD

Pipeline and Hazardous
TBD
TBD

Materials
Safety Administration
21.2
22.0
Office of the Secretary
11.4
15.4
11.4
13.0

Federal Motor Carrier Safety
TBD
TBD

Administration
6.1
10.6
DOT, R&D Total
801.0
1,045.6
TBD
TBD

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. TBD=To be determined.
Department of Veterans Affairs153
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.
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%).154

153 This section was written by John F. Sargent, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.
154 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.
Congressional Research Service
67

link to page 73 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

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.155
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.
H.R. 2577, which provides appropriations for VA for FY2016, was passed on June 9, 2015. The
Senate committee reported its version of H.R. 2577 on June 25, 2015. As discussed above, it is
not possible to determine the level of R&D funding included in either version of the bill.
Table 20 summarizes R&D funding for VA’s Research account and Medical Care Support
account.
Table 20. Department of Veterans Affairs R&D
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Account
Enacted
Request
House
S. Cmte.
Enacted
Research
$588.5
$621.8
TBD
TBD

Medical Care Support
501.0
525.0
TBD
TBD

Veterans Affairs, Total
1,089.5
1,146.8
TBD
TBD

Source: VA, 2016 Budget In Brief, p.17, http://www.va.gov/budget/docs/summary/Fy2016-BudgetInBrief.pdf.
Note: TBD=To be determined.







155 Ibid., pp. VHA-282 to VHA-283.
Congressional Research Service
68

link to page 74 link to page 74 link to page 73 Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016


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.”156 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 Il ness
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 Il ness
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.

156 Ibid., p. VHA-308.
Congressional Research Service
69

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
CR
Continuing Resolution
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
Congressional Research Service
70

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

EERE
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
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 Fellowship
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 Col aborative 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
Congressional Research Service
71

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

MPS
Mathematical and Physical Sciences
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
Congressional Research Service
72

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

NOS
National Ocean Service
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
Congressional Research Service
73

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016

SIR
Surveys, Investigations, and Research
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
74