Introduction

The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports both basic research and education in the non-medical sciences and engineering. Congress established the foundation 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." The NSF is a major source of federal support for U.S. university research, especially in certain fields such as mathematics and computer science. It is also responsible for significant shares of the federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education program portfolio and federal STEM student aid and support.

This report describes selected items from the Administration's FY2016 budget request for NSF and tracks legislative action on FY2016 appropriations to the foundation. It also details selected NSF appropriations authorizations proposed in the 114^th Congress, summarizes budget and appropriations action from FY2015 and FY2014, and presents information on historical funding for the foundation.

NSF adopted its current appropriations account structure in FY2003. In general, NSF's major accounts have been comparable since then.¹ NSF has six major appropriations accounts: Research and Related Activities (RRA), Education and Human Resources (EHR), Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC), Agency Operations and Award Management (AOAM), National Science Board (NSB), and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The majority of NSF's primary mission activities are funded through RRA, EHR, and MREFC.

Appropriations to NSF are typically included in annual Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts. (The Congressional Research Service tracks these acts on CRS.gov, at http://www.crs.gov/appropriationsstatustable/index.) NSF's budget justifications are published on the agency's website at http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/. More information about the NSF may also be found in CRS Report R43585, The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues, by [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report R43880, The America COMPETES Acts: An Overview, by [author name scrubbed].

FY2016 Budget and Appropriations Actions

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.² Under the request, RRA would increase by $253 million or 4%. EHR would grow by nearly $100 million (11%). (See Table 1.)

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 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 the 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 threatened to veto H.R. 2578 when it was considered by the House (for a variety of reasons, only some of which related to the NSF—see text box titled, "Veto?").

As amended and reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 2578 would provide close to the FY2015 estimated funding levels to all major NSF accounts in 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).

NSF identified eight priorities in its FY2016 budget documents. Four of these programs have been foundation priorities since at least FY2013: Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems (CEMMSS, $257 million requested, 11% increase); Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21^st 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).

Research and Related Activities (RRA)

The Administration seeks $6.186 billion for RRA in FY2016. This amount is $253 million (4%) more than the FY2015 estimated funding level of $5.934 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.³ 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).⁴ Nevertheless, more than half of the total requested increase for RRA (54% of $253 million) would go to BIO, CISE, ENG, and MPS.

As previously noted, 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 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, $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. Distributed proportionally, which the House report does not require but has been past practice at NSF in some instances, this 16% decrease in funding would reduce support for GEO by $212 million (from $1.304 billion in FY2015 to $1.092 billion in FY2015) and would reduce support for SBE by $44 million (from $272 million in FY2015 to $228 million in FY2016).

Other RRA provisions in the House report provide $147 million for the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative; $177 million for Advanced Manufacturing; and $50 million for the International Ocean Drilling Program (IODP).

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 and Human Resources (EHR)

The FY2016 request for EHR is $963 million, or $97 million (11%) more than the FY2015 estimated level of $866 million. Most of the requested increase ($81 million) would go to activities classified as research and development (R&D). This additional investment would further shift the balance between R&D and education and training within EHR.⁶ If Congress adopts the FY2016 request, the portion of EHR dedicated to R&D activities would increase to 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 33% basic research in the FY2016 request. It is not entirely clear what has driven these changes or how these changes have affected program activities and constituencies.⁷

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.

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 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 (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.

Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC)

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).

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.

NSF Funding History

The following sections summarize NSF budget and appropriations action from the two most recent fiscal years (FY2015 and FY2014), and provide funding data and trends since the foundation was established in 1950.

FY2015 Budget and Appropriations (Final Summary)

FY2015 enacted funding for NSF is $7.344 billion. This amount is $213 million (3%) more than the FY2014 actual funding level of $7.131 billion and $89 million (1%) more than the FY2015 request for $7.255 billion. Under the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235), RRA, EHR, NSB, and OIG received 3% to 4% more than their FY2014 actual levels. AOAM received 6% more; MREFC received no increase. Compared to the request, EHR and AOAM received 3% and 4% less, respectively, and RRA received 2% more. MREFC, NSB, and OIG received their requested levels.

The joint explanatory statement printed in the December 11, 2014, Congressional Record accompanied P.L. 113-325 and provided additional guidance on FY2015 funding for certain NSF programs and accounts.⁸ Among other things, the explanatory statement adopted by reference House report language requiring NSF to apply any funding increases it received for RRA (above requested levels) to MPS, CISE, ENG, and BIO.

The Administration initially sought $7.255 billion in funding for the NSF in FY2015.⁹ The request held funding levels for RRA and MREFC essentially constant while seeking a 7% increase for EHR as well as an 11% increase for AOAM. Most of the requested increase in AOAM funding was for the new NSF headquarters. NSF's FY2015 budget request to Congress highlighted five initiatives that were also foundation priorities in FY2014: Cognitive Science and Neuroscience ($29 million); Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems ($213 million); Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21^st Century Science, Engineering, and Education ($125 million); Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability ($139 million); and Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace ($100 million). The FY2015 NSF budget request incorporated STEM education program changes in accordance with the Administration's revised FY2015 government-wide reorganization of federal STEM education programs.¹⁰

The House passed H.R. 4660 (Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015) by a vote of 321 to 87 on May 30, 2014. H.Rept. 113-448 accompanied H.R. 4660 when it was reported from the House Committee on Appropriations. Among other things, H.R. 4660 would have provided $7.394 billion to NSF in FY2015. This amount was $139 million (2%) more than the Administration's FY2015 request and $263 million (4%) over FY2014 actual. The House-passed bill would have provided a 3% increase over FY2014 actual and the FY2015 request for RRA, as well as increases (though smaller than the request) for EHR and AOAM. H.R. 4660 would have provided the requested levels for MREFC, NSB, and OIG.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 2437 (Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015) on June 5, 2014. S.Rept. 113-181 accompanied S. 2437 when it was reported from the committee. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended the requested level for NSF in FY2015. However, relative to the request, the committee would distribute funding slightly differently across two of NSF's major accounts. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended providing approximately $30 million more than the request to RRA and reducing AOAM by an equivalent amount. The committee recommended the requested levels for EHR, MREFC, NSB, and OIG.

FY2014 Budget and Appropriations (Final Summary)

FY2014 enacted funding for NSF was $7.172 billion. This amount was $270 million (4%) more than NSF's FY2013 actual funding level of $6.902 billion.¹¹ Most of the $270 million increase ($250 million) went to RRA. FY2014 enacted funding for NSF's six major accounts was $5.809 billion for RRA (including $158 million for EPSCoR), $847 million for EHR, $200 million for MREFC, $298 million for AOAM, $4 million for NSB, and $14 million for OIG.

The Obama Administration initially sought $7.626 billion in funding for the NSF in FY2014. NSF's FY2014 budget request to Congress noted that its overarching priorities for FY2014 would include six programs: Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems; Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21^st Century Science, Engineering, and Education; NSF Innovation Corps; Integrated NSF Support Promoting Interdisciplinary Research and Education; Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability; and Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace.¹² The FY2014 NSF budget request also incorporated several changes to the foundation's STEM education programs in accordance with the Administration's proposed FY2014 government-wide reorganization of federal STEM education programs.¹³

The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations recommended $6.995 billion and $7.426 billion, respectively, for NSF in FY2014. Both committees initially rejected the Administration's proposed changes to the federal STEM education effort, including changes to NSF programs. The final FY2014 appropriations agreement reiterated this objection. The appropriations committees initially disagreed on funding for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) in the MREFC account—the Senate Committee on Appropriations sought to fund the new project, the House Committee on Appropriations would not. The final agreement provided some of the requested funding for the LSST and encouraged the foundation to seek permission to transfer funds from other accounts if the amount appropriated was insufficient.¹⁴

Long-term Funding Trends (Tables and Figures)

The following tables and figures include information about historical funding to NSF.

NSF Authorizations, Budget Requests, and Appropriations: FY1951-FY2016

Table 2, Figure 1, and Figure 2 show the trends in NSF authorizations, budget requests, and appropriations since the foundation was first authorized in the early 1950s. Except in FY1957, current and constant dollar actual appropriations to NSF grew rapidly between FY1951 and FY1966. After FY1967, appropriations fluctuated (up some years and down in others) until about FY1988. NSF experienced two periods of generally sustained growth in current and constant dollar appropriations between FY1989 and FY1995, and again in between FY1998 and FY2003. Since FY2004, growth in the NSF budget has slowed compared to prior years.

Figure 1. Current Dollar NSF Authorizations, Budget Requests, and Appropriations: FY1951 to FY2016 Request In Millions, Current Dollars, Rounded

Source: Table 2.

Figure 2. Constant Dollar NSF Authorizations, Budget Requests, and Appropriations: FY1951 to FY2016 Request In Millions, Constant (2016) Dollars, Rounded

Source: Table 2.

NSF Obligations by Major Account

Table 3 provides NSF obligations by major account since FY2003. (Because of changes in the NSF account structure, prior years are not comparable.) Most of the growth in total NSF obligations since FY2003 has accrued to the main research account, RRA, which increased by about $1.790 billion (43%) between FY2003 and the FY2015 estimate. Total NSF obligations increased by about $1.975 billion (36%) during this same period.

Appropriations Authorizations

Appropriations authorizations to NSF, which were last enacted in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358), expired in FY2013. Members of the 114^th Congress have introduced measures to reauthorize provisions from P.L. 111-358, including provisions that authorize appropriations to NSF.¹⁵

Table 1 includes FY2013 NSF authorization levels under P.L. 111-358, actual and estimated appropriations to NSF in FY2014 and FY2015, as well as FY2016 proposed authorized funding levels for NSF under selected reauthorization measures from the 114^th Congress.

Author Contact Information

Footnotes

1.	In FY2008, NSF shifted the EPSCoR program from EHR to RRA.
2.	NSF's congressional budget justifications typically refer to current fiscal year funding levels in "estimated" amounts.
3.	Policymakers actively debate Congressional funding directives at the major subaccount level in RRA. Some analysts assert that legislators have a role in establishing funding priorities by scientific field within RRA, as part of the legislative oversight function and in order to assure accountability for taxpayer funds. Other analysts argue that the scientists who manage NSF ought to determine the distribution of funding by field, based on their deeper knowledge of (1) research needs and scientific possibilities within each field, and (2) how these needs are best balanced across the NSF portfolio. For more information, see CRS Report R43585, The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues, by [author name scrubbed].
4.	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%.
5.	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.
6.	According to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) character classification definitions, most EHR funding goes to R&D or to education and training. As described by OMB, 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.
7.	The NSF asserts that some of the increases in activities classified as R&D be attributable to OMB-driven reclassification of EHR activities. However, some stakeholders perceive a general increase in research requirements across all EHR solicitations.
8.	pp. H9343-H9363.
9.	See CRS Report R43509, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations, coordinated by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed]
10.	For more information about the proposed FY2015 STEM education reorganization, see CRS Report IF00013, The President's FY2015 Budget and STEM Education (In Focus), by [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report IN10011, The Administration's Proposed STEM Education Reorganization: Where Are We Now?, by [author name scrubbed].
11.	For more information about the NSF FY2014 budget request and appropriations, see CRS Report R43080, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: FY2014 Appropriations, coordinated by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed]
12.	With one exception—the Expeditions in Education program, which was not included in the FY2014 request—these were the same programs included in the "OneNSF Framework" from NSF's FY2013 budget request.
13.	National Science Foundation, FY2014 Budget Request to Congress, April 10, 2013, http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2014/index.jsp.
14.	H.Rept. 113-171, S.Rept. 113-78, and the Joint Explanatory Statement published in the January 15, 2014, Congressional Record.
15.	For more information, see CRS Report R43880, The America COMPETES Acts: An Overview, by [author name scrubbed].