The 114 th 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. The Appendix provides a list of acronyms and abbreviations. 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. 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. 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. 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 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). 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). 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 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. 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). 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. 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%). 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%). 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. 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%. 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%. 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%. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. (See Table 4 .) In 2010, Congress passed the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 ( P.L. 111-358 ) which, among other things, authorized appropriations for the targeted accounts for FY2011 to FY2013. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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." Similar views were expressed by participants at a roundtable held by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in 2014. 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. 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 .) 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%). 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." 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. 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. 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," and to help improve the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of brain diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. According to OSTP, federal investments in the BRAIN initiative totaled approximately $100 million in FY2014 and $200 million in FY2015. The President's FY2016 budget request includes more than $300 million for the effort, including $135 million in funding for NIH, $95 million from DARPA, and $72 million from NSF. In addition, the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) and the FDA are expected to make contributions to the BRAIN Initiative in FY2016. 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. 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. In congressional testimony, OSTP Director John Holdren stated that the purpose of the Materials Genome Initiative is to "speed our understanding of the fundamentals of materials science, providing a wealth of practical information that American entrepreneurs and innovators will be able to use to develop new products and processes" in much the same way that the Human Genome Project accelerated a range of biological sciences by identifying and deciphering the human genetic code. 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. 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. 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. 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." Two R&D-focused components of the AMP are the National Robotics Initiative (NRI) and the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI). The National Robotics Initiative seeks to "develop robots that work with or beside people to extend or augment human capabilities." 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. In January 2015, several agencies—NSF, NIH, NASA, USDA, and DOD—announced a new round of funding for NRI efforts. 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. 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. 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. 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. Further government-wide details were not available at the time of publication of this report. 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. In December 2015, Congress passed, and the President signed, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ) providing discretionary appropriations for all federal agencies for FY2016. For some federal agencies it is possible to discern R&D funding levels directly from this act and its accompanying explanatory statement. In these cases, this report reflects the results of P.L. 114-113 . However, for some agencies, funding for R&D is included in appropriations line items that also include non-R&D activities; therefore, in such cases, 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. As of the start of FY2016, Congress had 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 provided 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 provided 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 were 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 [author name scrubbed]. 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. In addition to this report, CRS produces individual reports on each of the appropriations bills. These reports can be accessed via the CRS website at http://www.crs.gov/cli/Clis?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 . 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 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 did 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 was a matter of a larger budget debate between the Administration and Congress. This debate was 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. The Senate Appropriations Committee 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. Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ) provides FY2016 appropriations for DOD. President Obama signed the act on December 18, 2015. The act provides $69.785 billion for Title IV RDT&E, $6 million (9.6%) more than for FY2015 and equal to the request in aggregate. The aggregate Title IV DOD RDT&E funding level includes: Army: $7.565 billion for FY2016, $892 million (13.4%) more than for FY2015 and $640 million (9.2%) more than the request; Navy: $18.118 billion for FY2016, $2.163 billion (13.6%) more than for FY2015 and $232 million (1.3%) more than the request. Air Force: $25.217 billion for FY2016, $1.587 billion (6.7%) more than for FY2015 and $1.257 (4.7%) billion less than the request. Defensewide: $18.696 billion for FY2016, $1.479 billion (8.6%) more than for FY2015 and $266 million (2.0%) more than the request. In addition, the act fully funds the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction RDT&E at $579 million, $17 million (2.8%) below the FY2015 level, and provides $2.122 billion for Defense Health Program RDT&E, $1.142 billion (116.5%) more than the request and $391 million (22.6%) above the FY2015 level. The act also provides $25 million for RDT&E in the National Defense Sealift Fund, an amount equal to the request and $1 million (3.2%) more than in FY2015, and $2 million in RDT&E for the Office of the Inspector General, $1 million (50.0%) more than in FY2015 and $2.6 million (55.3%) less than the request. P.L. 114-113 also fully funded the OCO request and added an additional $40 million to support the Israel Technical Working Group. 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. P.L. 114-113 provides $13.250 billion for Title IV S&T for FY2016, $984 million (8.0%) more than the request and $1.065 billion (8.7%) above the FY2015 level. 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. P.L. 114-113 provides $2.309 billion for basic research, $32 million (1.4%) more than in FY2015 and $221 million (10.6%) more than the request. 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 requested $1.154 billion in FY2016 for R&D and related programs in DHS. This was a 19.2% decrease from $1.430 billion in FY2015. The total included $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. The final appropriation provided $1.152 billion, including $787 million for the S&T Directorate, $347 million for DNDO, and $18 million for Coast Guard RDT&E. (See Table 9 .) The S&T Directorate is the primary DHS R&D organization. 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 was 29.4% less than the FY2015 appropriation of $1.104 billion. Most of the difference resulted 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 were requested in FY2016. Within the request for Research, Development, and Innovation (RD&I), support for Apex projects was to increase to $78 million in FY2016. Apex projects are multidisciplinary projects agreed to between the S&T Directorate and the head of another DHS component. The FY2016 request proposed supporting six Apex projects in addition to the previous two. It also proposed 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), was $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. The final appropriation of $787 million was $8 million more than the request. It included an increase of $9 million for University Programs, partially offset by decreases of less than $1 million for Laboratory Facilities and Management and Administration. The explanatory statement was silent regarding the Apex program. 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 responsibilities within DHS, it is charged with coordinating federal nuclear forensics programs and the U.S. portion of the global nuclear detection architecture. The Administration requested $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 proposed 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 was to 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. The final appropriation of $347 million for DNDO was $10 million less than the request. The reduction included less than $1 million from Management and Administration and $10 million from Nuclear Detection Equipment Acquisition. 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 related to R&D. 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. 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. 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. 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." 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." In December 2015, the final explanatory statement noted as follows: The Department lacks a mechanism for capturing and understanding research and development (R&D) activities conducted across DHS, as well as coordinating R&D to reflect departmental priorities. As part of the Unity of Effort initiative and in order to address the above concerns, DHS is establishing Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) to assist the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) with requirements gathering, validation, and alignment of budgetary resources. IPTs, comprised of personnel from across DHS, will be tasked with identifying and prioritizing technological capability gaps and coordinating departmental R&D to close those gaps. The overall IPT effort will be led by the Under Secretary for S&T, but individual IPTs will be led by senior representatives from the operational components, and will have representation from the JRC [Joint Requirements Council] Portfolio Teams and S&T. S&T will also play a critical role in helping DHS-wide acquisition programs by conducting independent technical assessments of acquisitions, including participation in developmental test and evaluation activities, to ensure DHS acquisitions effectively fill identified capability gaps. S&T is directed to brief the Committees not later than January 15, 2016, on the results of the first IPTs and technology assessments. 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)." The report of this review was completed in June 2015. In July 2015, DHS officials testified that DHS planned 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 (CBRNE) "strategy, policy, situational awareness, threat and risk assessments, contingency planning, operational requirements, acquisition formulation and oversight, and preparedness." The House and Senate committee reports on FY2016 appropriations did not address the proposed consolidation. A provision in the final bill prohibited DHS from using FY2016 funds to establish an Office of CBRNE Defense "until such time as Congress has authorized such establishment." The provision did, however, give DHS the authority to transfer funds for the establishment of such an office, if authorized. 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." 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. 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. 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. 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." The agency's organization consists of the Office of the NIH Director (OD) and 27 institutes and centers (ICs). 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. OD sets overall policy and coordinates the programs and activities of all NIH components, particularly in areas of research that involve multiple institutes. The ICs focus on particular diseases, areas of human health and development, or aspects of research support. Each IC plans and manages its own research programs in coordination with OD. As shown in Table 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. For FY2016, the Obama Administration requested 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 included $150 million in mandatory funding for research on type 1 diabetes. The FY2016 program level request also proposed $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 in FY2016) and directed 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. Under the President's FY2016 budget request, most ICs would have received 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 was targeted for the National Center for Biotechnology Information to support PubMed Central in providing public access to papers emanating from NIH research. The increase was also for 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). 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. 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 have provided NIH with a total of $31.184 billion, including $1.01 billion provided by the evaluation tap. 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 have provided 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). 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 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( H.R. 2029 , P.L. 114-113 ) provides $32.084 billion for NIH in Division H (the Labor/HHS/Education appropriations act): $31.304 billion for the ICs plus $780 million in funding via the PHS Act transfer. With the addition of the $77 million for Superfund-related research and the $150 million in diabetes funding, the NIH program level is $32.311 billion in FY2016, an increase of $2 billion (7%) over FY2015. The overview below outlines research priorities in the FY2016 NIH budget and selected responses from the House and Senate appropriation committee report language as well as the explanatory statement that accompanies the final bill, H.R. 2029 ( P.L. 114-113 ). BRAIN. About 54% of the proposed NIH budget focuses on basic biomedical and behavioral research. The Brain Research through Application of Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative is a collaborative effort with the National Science Foundation and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. It develops and applies new tools for the study of complex brain functions. The Administration requested a $70 million increase over FY2015 for the NIH portion of BRAIN, bringing the total to about $135 million in FY2016. The House report on H.R. 3020 stated that it would provide an $85 million increase for BRAIN in FY2016. The Senate report on S. 1695 stated that it supported a $70 million increase. P.L. 114-113 provides an $85 million increase for BRAIN. Alzheimer's Disease. To continue implementing the research components of the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease (AD), NIH estimated it would 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 specified funding for Alzheimer's disease research at $886 million, an increase of $300 million over FY2015. In contrast, the Senate report on S. 1695 stated, "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." The explanatory statement on H.R. 2029 ( P.L. 114-113 ) states that an increase of $350 million is provided for Alzheimer's disease research. Antimicrobial Resistance. 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 House and Senate appropriation committees as well as the explanatory statement on H.R. 2029 ( P.L. 114-113 ). Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) . The FY2016 budget request proposed 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, $130 million is 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 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 indicated support for PMI and the explanatory statement states that it includes $200 million for PMI in FY2016. Biomedical Research Workforce. NIH estimated it would spend $785 million—$23 million more than in FY2015—to support 15,735 individuals, with a 2% stipend increase for predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees, in its major research training program, the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards. The explanatory statement accompanying H.R. 2029 ( P.L. 114-113 ) states it "expects NIH to support the number of Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards and other training grants in proportion to at least the general IC level funding increase. The agreement expects NIH to provide a stipend level and inflationary increases to grantees that is at least consistent with any fiscal year 2016 Federal employee pay raise." National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). The explanatory statement accompanying H.R. 2029 ( P.L. 114-113 ) indicates that funding is provided directly to NLM for NCBI "to meet the challenge of collecting, organizing, analyzing, and disseminating the increasing amounts of data related to research in molecular biology and genomics and to support the deposit of manuscripts in PubMed Central under the NIH Public Access Policy." Pediatric Research. NIH estimated it would 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 ) would continue in FY2016. The House and Senate appropriation committees allocated $12.6 million for pediatric research via the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act as did the explanatory statement accompanying H.R. 2029 ( P.L. 114-113 ) which encouraged NIH to prioritize research on childhood cancer and provide an update in the FY2017 NIH budget request. National Children's Study. Both committees commented on the cancellation of the National Children's Study (NCS) by NIH in December 2014. 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." The explanatory statement accompanying H.R. 2029 ( P.L. 114-113 ) provides funding to the NIH Office of the Director for the follow-on to the NCS and "expects NIH to continue to move forward based on the directions provided by the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate." 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 requested 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 estimated the average amount of a competing RPG in FY2016 would be about $461,000, up from about $457,000 in FY2015. 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 requested $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 was 12.2% more than the FY2015 appropriation of $12.640 billion. The House bill ( H.R. 2028 as passed by the House) would have provided $12.813 billion. The Senate bill ( H.R. 2028 as reported in the Senate) would have provided $13.154 billion. The enacted omnibus bill ( P.L. 114-113 ) provided $13.680 billion. (See Table 11 for details.) The request for the DOE Office of Science was $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 did 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 was 47% more than its FY2006 baseline. The House bill would have provided $5.100 billion, 40% above the baseline. The Senate bill would have provided $5.144 billion, 42% above the baseline. The final bill provided $5.350 billion, 47% above the baseline. The Office of Science includes six major research programs. The request for the largest program, Basic Energy Sciences (BES), was $1.849 billion, an increase of 6.7%. Within BES, a proposed increase of $62 million for continued construction of the Linac Coherent Light Source II (LCLS-II) was slightly less than previously projected; however, the projected future cost of completing the project in FY2017 through FY2019 increased. A proposed increase of $35 million for Scientific User Facilities was to support increased operating hours at multiple BES research facilities. Energy Frontier Research Centers were to increase by $10 million to support up to 10 new centers. The House bill would have provided $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 have provided the requested amount for LCLS-II construction, but $5 million less than the request for the remainder of the program. As requested, the final bill provided $1.849 billion for BES. This total included the requested amount for LCLS-II construction and $15 million more than the request for Scientific User Facilities. The explanatory statement was silent regarding Energy Frontier Research Centers. The request for High Energy Physics was $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) was slightly less than was previously projected; however, the projected future cost of completing the project in FY2017 through FY2019 increased. In the program's three major experimental research areas, proposed increases for cosmic frontier physics and energy frontier physics were approximately offset by a proposed decrease for physics at the intensity frontier. The House bill would have provided $12 million less than the request, including $9 million less for accelerator stewardship. The Senate bill would have provided 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 have funded Mu2e construction at the requested level. The final bill provided $795 million, an increase of $7 million above the request. This total included the requested amount for Mu2e construction and $10 million more than the request for construction of the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility. The request for Nuclear Physics was $625 million, an increase of 4.9%.The proposed increases were to be spread across most areas of research and operations. The House bill would have provided $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 have provided $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 final appropriation was $617 million, or $8 million less than the request. The total included the requested amount for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams. The explanatory statement also "encouraged" DOE to fund "optimal operations" at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. The request for Biological and Environmental Research (BER) was $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 included an increase of $31 million for climate and Earth system modeling. The House bill would have provided $74 million less than the request. The House committee report did not specify how its recommended funding for Biological and Environmental Research should be allocated. It expressed support for the Biological Systems Science program and for climate modeling in academia in collaboration with NASA, but it was silent regarding the remainder of the Climate and Environmental Sciences program. The Senate bill would have provided $2 million less than the request, with the entire reduction allocated to Climate and Environmental Sciences. The final bill provided $609 million, or $3 million less than the request. The explanatory statement stated that this total included the requested funds for Bioenergy Research Centers within Biological Systems Science, and "urged" DOE to "give priority to optimizing the operation of BER user facilities," but explicitly declined to give any other direction regarding BER. The request for Advanced Scientific Computing Research was $621 million, an increase of 14.8%. Essentially the entire increase was to 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 have provided $83 million less than the request for Advanced Scientific Computing Research. Although the House committee report expressed support for the exascale initiative, it stated that its recommendation included only $99 million for this purpose within the Office of Science. The Senate bill would have provided the requested amount for Advanced Scientific Computing Research. The Senate committee report "strongly supported" the exascale initiative and stated that its total recommendation for that purpose in the Office of Science was $158 million. The final bill provided $621 million as requested, including $158 million for the exascale initiative. The request for Fusion Energy Sciences was $420 million, a decrease of 10.2%. Construction funding for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) was to 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. All other major program areas in Fusion Energy Sciences were to decrease under the Administration's request. The Alcator C-MOD facility was to cease operations at the end of FY2016. The House bill would have provided $48 million more than the request. This increase would have gone entirely to the domestic portion of the program, as House funding for ITER would have been the same as the request. The Senate bill would have provided no funding for ITER, but the requested amount for the domestic program. The Senate committee report directed the Secretary of Energy "to work with the Department of State to withdraw from the ITER project." The final bill provided $438 million, including $35 million less than requested for ITER and $53 million more than requested for the domestic program. The bill required that not later than May 2, 2016, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report recommending either that the United States remain a partner in the ITER project after October 2017 or terminate participation, which shall include, as applicable, an estimate of either the full cost, by fiscal year, of all future Federal funding requirements for construction, operation, and maintenance of ITER or the cost of termination. The request for DOE national security R&D was $4.488 billion, a 9.0% increase from $4.119 billion in FY2015. In the Weapons Activities account, Advanced Simulation and Computing was to increase by $25 million, and Advanced Manufacturing Development was to increase by $23 million. Funding for the Naval Reactors program was to rise by 11.5%, including increases for technology development, systems development, and facility operations and maintenance. Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D was to increase by $26 million, but this was to 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 have provided $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 have provided $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 have provided $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 have provided $75 million less than the request for Naval Reactors, including $14 million less for Development and $59 million less for two construction projects. The final bill provided $4.451 billion, or $37 million less than the request. It provided the requested amount for Naval Reactors and Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D. Within Weapons Activities, it provided the requested amounts for Advanced Simulation and Computing and for Advanced Manufacturing Development. The FY2016 request for DOE energy R&D was $4.350 billion, up 26.0% from $3.453 billion in FY2015. The request proposed to 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 proposed increases were 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 was to support the establishment of two additional Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institutes (see " National Network for Manufacturing Innovation "). The proposed increase for Nuclear Energy reflected a rescission of unobligated prior-year balances in FY2015; without this rescission, the FY2016 request for Nuclear Energy would have been a $6 million decrease. The request for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability R&D included 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) was to increase by 16.1%. The balance of ARPA-E project funding was to 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 have rejected the Administration's proposed large increases in EERE programs, although the Senate bill would have provided more than the FY2015 enacted amount for most major EERE programs (with the exception of Wind Energy). Both bills would have provided more than the request for Fossil Energy R&D, more for Nuclear Energy, and less for ARPA-E. The final bill provided a total of $3.879 billion. Within this total, it provided more than either the House or Senate bill for EERE, but still less than the request, and more than the House or Senate bill or the request for Fossil Energy R&D, Nuclear Energy and Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability R&D. For ARPA-E, the final bill provided $291 million, the same as the Senate bill. 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." 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. 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 . Division B of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ) provides NSF with a total of $7.463 billion for FY2016, $119 million (2%) more than for FY2015 and $260 million (3%) less than the request. The Obama Administration had requested $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 have increased by $253 million or 4%. EHR would have grown by nearly $100 million (11%). In its budget documents NSF indicated 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 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 included 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. As passed by the House, H.R. 2578 (Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016) would have provided a total of $7.394 billion to NSF in FY2016. This amount was $50 million (1%) more than the FY2015 estimated funding level and $329 million (4%) less than the Administration request. The House bill would have kept most NSF accounts at FY2015 levels. The $50 million increase in total NSF funding would have accrued to RRA. (A small increase in funding for the OIG would have been 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 directed 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 have provided close to the FY2015 estimated funding levels to all major NSF accounts in FY2016. RRA and MREFC would have received slightly less than their FY2015 funding levels; OIG would have received 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 . P.L. 114-113 provides $6.034 billion for RRA for FY2016, $100 million (2%) more than in FY2015 and $153 million (2%) less than requested by the President. RRA directorate funding levels are not specified in the act and an NSF spending plan had not been submitted to the Appropriations committees at the time of this report's publication. The explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 114-113 directs that "in lieu of House language regarding funding percentages for certain activities … funds for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences shall be up to the fiscal year 2015 level [$272.2 million]." The act provides no less than $160.0 million for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) program, $10 million less than requested and essentially the same as for FY2015. In addition, the act provides $147 million for neuroscience and cognitive science research under the NSF's Understanding the Brain activity, a part of the multi-agency Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative, equal to the amount recommended in the House report. The Obama Administration had requested 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 have provided $5.984 billion to this account in FY2016. As amended and reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 2578 would have provided $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 sought 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). Nevertheless, more than half of the total requested increase for RRA in FY2016 (54% of $253 million) would have gone to BIO, CISE, ENG, and MPS. H.R. 2578 , as passed by the House, would have provided a total of $5.984 billion to RRA in FY2016—about $50 million more than the FY2015 estimate. The House report further directed 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 have 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 have split $1.795 billion. This amount was $257 million or -13% less than the combined total these accounts received in FY2015 ($2.052 billion). Other House report provisions further directed 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 have gone to OISE, IA, and USARC, while GEO and SBE would have split $1.320 billion. GEO and SBE received $1.577 billion (combined) in FY2015, which is $257 million (16%) more than they would have received in FY2016 under the House report. If NSF distributed these funds proportionally, which the House report did not require but has been past practice at NSF in some instances, the 16% decrease in funding would have reduced support for GEO by $212 million (from $1.304 billion in FY2015 to $1.092 billion in FY2015) and would have reduced support for SBE by $44 million (from $272 million in FY2015 to $228 million in FY2016). Other RRA provisions in the House report would have provided $147 million for the 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 have provided $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 was silent on the question of the distribution of funding by major subaccount within RRA. Provisions in the Senate report included $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 have provided $160 million for the EPSCoR program; the Senate report would have provided just under this amount. The Administration requested $170 million for EPSCoR in FY2016, $10 million (6%) more than the FY2015 estimated funding level of just under $160 million. Education . P.L. 114-113 provides $880 million for EHR, $14 million (1.6%) more than in FY2015 and $153 million (2.5%) less than the request. EHR FY2016 funding includes $35 million for the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP), equal to the House recommended level, and $3 million more than the FY2015 level, the FY2016 request, and the Senate committee-recommended level. The act also provides $46 million for the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP) and $14 million for the Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (T-CUP), an amount equal to the FY2015 level, the FY2016 request, and the House, and Senate committee-recommended levels. The act also provides $63 million for the Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) program for FY2016, $8 million (13.6) more than in FY2015 and $3 million (4.2%) more than the request. The act also includes $50 million for CyberCorps: Scholarships for Service, $5 million (11.1%) more than the FY2015 and request levels. The FY2016 request for EHR was $963 million, or $97 million more than the FY2015 estimated level of $866 million. Most of the requested increase ($81 million or 83%) would have gone to activities classified as R&D. This additional investment in R&D would have further shifted the balance between R&D and education and training within EHR. The President's FY2016 request for EHR allocated 49% to R&D activities. 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. It is not entirely clear what has driven these changes or how these changes have affected program activities and constituencies. By program, the largest increase in the FY2016 EHR request was for Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE). The Administration requested $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 have received $15 million in FY2016 RRA co-funding (from GEO, ENG, and BIO). The second-largest increase in the FY2016 EHR request was for EHR Core Research (ECR): STEM Learning, within the Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings. The FY2016 request for ECR:STEM Learning was $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 was $338 million, $4 million (1%) over the FY2015 estimated level of $333 million. GRF funding have been split equally between RRA and EHR, which would each have contribute $169 million. The FY2016 request for NRT was $62 million, which is essentially the same as the FY2015 estimate. Funding for the NRT would not have been evenly split between EHR and RRA. The RRA contribution would have been $27 million, $7 million below the FY2015 estimate of $33 million. The EHR contribution would have been $35 million, $7 million above the FY2015 estimate of $28 million. EHR would have provided the majority of NRT program funding for the first time in at least five fiscal years. The House-passed and Senate Committee on Appropriations-reported versions of H.R. 2578 agreed on topline funding for EHR in FY2016. Each would have provided $866 million. This amount was equal to the FY2015 estimate and $97 million below the request. Provisions in the House report included $66 million for the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program—an amount equal to the FY2015 funding level, FY2016 request, and Senate report recommendation. The House report also recommended $65 million for AISL, $10 million more than the FY2015 estimate and $5 million more than both the FY2016 request and Senate report recommendation. The Senate report recommended $61 million for the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program, equal to the FY2015 level and the FY2016 request; $45 million for Cybercorps: Scholarships for Service, an amount equal to the 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 was silent on these programs. Broadening participation provisions in the House report would have provided $35 million for HBCU-UP. This amount was $3 million more than the FY2015 estimated funding level, the FY2016 request, and the Senate report recommendation. The House report also recommended $46 million for LSAMP and $14 million for T-CUP. These amounts were equal to the FY2015 estimated funding levels, FY2016 requests, and Senate report recommendations for these two programs. The Senate report recommended $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 were the same as both the FY2015 estimated funding levels and FY2016 requests for these programs. The House report did not specify funding for these programs. With respect to Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), the Senate report would have provided $5 million for NSF to implement an HSI program. The House report would have required NSF to report on targeted funding opportunities (of at least $30 million) for HSIs. The budget request pledged 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. P.L. 114-113 provides $200.3 million for MREFC, an amount approximately the same as the FY2015 and request levels. The Administration requested $200.3 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). Both the House-passed and Senate Committee on Appropriations-reported versions of H.R. 2578 would have provided approximately $200 million to MREFC in FY2016. Other accounts . The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 provides $330 million for AOAM, $5 million (2%) more than the FY2015 level and $25 million (7%) less than the request; $4 million for the NSB, equal to the FY2015 and request levels; and $15 million for the OIG, $1 million (6%) above the FY2015 level and equal to the request. The Administration requested $355 million, $4 million, and $15 million for AOAM, NSB, and OIG (respectively). Funding for AOAM would have been $30 million or 9% greater in FY2016 than it was in FY2015 ($325 million, estimated). The increase for AOAM was 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 have changed 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 agreed on funding for AOAM ($325 million) and the NSB ($4 million); they differed slightly on funding for OIG. The House would have provided $15 million to OIG in FY2016, about $700,000 more than the Senate committee. The FY2016 NSF budget request included 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 was about the same as the FY2015 estimate, NITRD would have increased by $31 million, and USGCRP would have received an additional $10 million in FY2016. 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 requested $17.282 billion for NASA R&D in FY2016. This amount was 3.0% more than the $16.784 billion NASA received for R&D in FY2015. The House bill ( H.R. 2578 as passed by the House) would have provided $17.275 billion. The Senate bill ( H.R. 2578 as reported in the Senate) would have provided $17.143 billion. The final appropriation included $18.094 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 was $5.289 billion, an increase of 0.8%. The House bill would have provided $5.238 billion. The Senate bill would have provided $5.295 billion. The final appropriation was $5.589 billion. In Planetary Science, the request included $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. 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. 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." The House bill would have provided $140 million for a Europa mission. Other Planetary Science increases in the House bill (relative to the request) included 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 the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The Senate bill would have provided $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. The final bill included $175 million for a Europa mission; the explanatory statement "clarified that this mission shall include an orbiter with a lander that will include competitively selected instruments and that funds shall be used to finalize the mission design concept with a target launch date of 2022." Overall, the final bill provided $270 million more than the Administration had requested for Planetary Science. Also in the Science account, the Administration requested an increase of 9.9% for Earth Science to 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 budget request also proposed development of 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, and initiation of a technology development program to inform the future design of Landsat 10. The House bill would have provided $264 million less than the request for Earth Science, with no funds for the Thermal Infrared Free Flyer and $33 million for Landsat 9. The Senate bill would have provided $16 million less than the request for Earth Science. Like the House bill, it would have provided no funds for the Thermal Infrared Free Flyer, but it included $100 million for Landsat 9. The final bill included $26 million less than the request for Earth Science overall, including no funds for the Thermal Infrared Free Flyer but $100 million for Landsat 9. In Astrophysics, also funded in the Science account, the request included $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 113 th 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 have provided the requested amount for SOFIA. The House bill would have prohibited NASA from using FY2016 funds to shut down SOFIA or prepare to shut it down. The final bill also provided the requested amount; the explanatory statement noted (and supported) NASA's decision not to include SOFIA in its FY2016 senior review, the process by which NASA determines whether to extend or terminate long-standing programs. The FY2016 request for Aeronautics was $571 million, a decrease of 12.3%. This request followed 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. The proposed FY2016 budget for Aeronautics was to support new activities aligned with the research thrust areas identified in the strategic vision. The House bill would have provided $600 million for Aeronautics. The Senate bill would have provided $525 million. The final appropriation was $640 million. The FY2016 request for Space Technology was $725 million, an increase of 21.6%. The request included 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 was repeated for FY2016. The House bill would have provided $625 million, including $25 million for icy satellite surface technology and $20 million for nuclear propulsion. The Senate bill would have provided $600 million, including $150 million for on-orbit satellite servicing and $20 million for the Flight Opportunities program. The final bill provided $687 million, including up to $20 million for nuclear propulsion, $133 million for satellite servicing, and $15 million for Flight Opportunities. The explanatory statement noted that $25 million for icy satellite surface technology was included in its provision for Planetary Science. The FY2016 request for Exploration was $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 previously funded development of a commercial crew transportation capability for future U.S. astronaut access to the International Space Station. The House bill would have provided $4.759 billion. The Senate bill would have provided $3.831 billion (not counting $900 million for the commercial crew program, which the Senate and final bills included in another account, as part of their funding for the International Space Station). The final bill provided $4.030 billion (not counting up to $1.244 billion for commercial crew). Within Exploration, the request of $2.863 billion for Orion, the SLS, and related ground systems (known collectively as Exploration Systems Development) was a decrease of 11.8%, while the request of $1.244 billion for commercial crew was an increase of 54.5%. Other recent Administration budgets 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 was again evident in the House and Senate bills for FY2016: the House bill would have provided $3.409 billion for Exploration Systems Development and $1.000 billion for commercial crew, while the Senate bill would have provided $3.510 billion for Exploration Systems Development and $900 million (in a different account, as noted above) for commercial crew. The pattern was less clear in the final bill, which provided $3.680 billion for Exploration Systems Development in the Exploration account and "up to" the requested amount for commercial crew in a different account. NASA argued that the requested amount for commercial crew was necessary to maintain the scheduled availability of commercial crew transportation to the International Space Station (ISS) starting in 2017. It noted that without a U.S. commercial capability, it will need to pay Russia for additional Soyuz flights to transport U.S. ISS crews (although it has also stated that it will likely purchase some additional Soyuz flights in any case). It asserted that the schedule for initial operation of Orion and the SLS (NASA plans a first crewed test flight for 2023) 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 argued that those programs have not received the funds they need to stay on schedule. Lastly, the Administration's FY2016 request included $3.106 billion for the ISS. 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 have provided $3.076 billion. The Senate bill would have provided $3.952 billion. As noted above, $900 million of the Senate provision for the ISS would have been for the commercial crew program, which was funded under Exploration in FY2015, the FY2016 request, and the FY2016 House bill. In the final bill, up to $1.244 billion of the ISS provision was for commercial crew, and the total amount for the ISS was not specified. 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. 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. Division B of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ) funds NIST at $964 million for FY2016, $100.1 million (11.6%) more than for FY2015 and $155.7 million (13.9%) below the request. The President's budget request would have provided $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 have provided 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 was $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. P.L. 114-113 funds STRS at $690.0 million for FY2016, $14.5 million (2.1%) more than it received for FY2015 and $64.7 million (8.6%) less than the request. The President's request included $754.7 million for R&D in the STRS account for FY2016, $79.2 million (11.7%) above FY2015 funding. According to NIST, activities in this account for which increased funding is requested 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. The proposed increase for advanced manufacturing included 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 have provided $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 ) recommended $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 encouraged NIST to continue existing work in 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 ), recommended $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 expressed 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 recommended 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 encouraged 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. P.L. 114-113 funds ITS at $155.0 million for FY2016, $16.9 million (12.2%) more than it received for FY2015 and $151.0 million (49.3%) less than the request. The appropriation includes $130 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, equal to FY2015 funding and $11 million (7.8%) less than the request, and $25 million for the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) which did not receive funding in FY2015. The explanatory statement accompanying the act directs NIST to merge the activities of the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech) program into the NNMI. The President requested $306.0 million for the ITS account for FY2016, up $167.9 million (121.6%) from FY2016. The President's ITS request included $141.0 million for the MEP program (up $11.0 million, 8.5%, from FY2015), $15.0 million for AMTech, up $6.9 million, 85.2%, from FY2015, and $150.0 million for the NNMI. 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 included 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 have provided $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 have provided $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 have provided no funding for the 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 was $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 included $130.0 million for the MEP program and $15.0 million for the AmTech program. Within the funds provided for AmTech, the Senate committee recommended $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 have provided no funds for the establishment of any NIST-led NNMIs in FY2016. Construction of Research Facilities. P.L. 114-113 funds CRF at $119.0 million for FY2016, $68.7 million (136.6%) more than it received for FY2015 and $60.0 million (101.7%) more than the request. Of the appropriated amount, NIST is to use $60.0 million "to begin the design and renovation of its outdated and unsafe radiation physics infrastructure." The President requested $59.0 million for the NIST CRF account, up $8.7 million (17.3%) over FY2015. The House-passed bill would have provided $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 directed 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 was $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 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 ." 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. 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." NOAA's Research Council has developed a five-year plan (2013-2017) to guide the agency's R&D efforts. R&D efforts support the long-term goals and enterprise objectives of NOAA's Next Generation Strategic Plan . The strategic plan is organized into four categories of long-term goals including (1) climate adaptation and mitigation, (2) a weather-ready nation, (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 requested $911.7 million in R&D funding for NOAA, an increase of $219.8 million (31.8%) above the FY2015 enacted level of $691.9 million. P.L. 114-113 funds NOAA R&D at $806.4 million, $105.3 million (11.5%) less than the FY2016 request and $114.5 million (16.5%) more than the FY2015 enacted funding level. In FY2016, R&D accounts for 14.0% of NOAA's total funding. R&D funding for FY2016 consists of $478.7 million for research (59.4% of total R&D funding), $81.3 million for development (10.1%), and $246.3 million for R&D equipment (30.5 %). Most of the $98.0 million increase for R&D equipment will 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, the FY2016 request, and FY2016 enacted. The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research is the primary center for R&D within NOAA. In FY2016, OAR accounts for 54.7% of NOAA's total R&D funding. P.L. 114-113 provides OAR with $441.4 million to fund R&D, an increase of $29.9 million (7.3%) above the FY2015 enacted funding level of $411.5 million. 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 have funded 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 have funded 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 have funded 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. P.L. 114-113 funds the cooperative institutes with a total of $168.0 million, $6.0 million (3.7%) more than the Senate committee-reported bill, $13.0 million (8.4%) more than the House - passed bill, $2.4 million (1.4%) more than the FY2016 request, and $11.0 million (7.0%) 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 have provided 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 have funded 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 have funded 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. P.L. 114-113 funds Sea Grant with a total of $73.0 million, $0.2 million (0.3%) more than the Senate committee-reported bill, $8.2 million (12.7%) more than the House - passed bill, $4.5 million (6.6%) more than the FY2016 request, and $5.7 million (8.5%) more than the FY2015 enacted funding level. 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). For FY2016, the USDA research mission area receives $2.936 billion in the omnibus appropriation, an increase of $211 million over FY2015. Most of the increase is for ARS buildings and facilities ($167 million) and the flagship NIFA competitive grant program ($25 million), while most other accounts are held constant or nearly constant compared to FY2015. The enacted appropriation, like the House and Senate bills, does not follow most of the proposed changes in priorities in the Administration's request. (See Table 16 .) 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 enacted appropriation provides $1.144 billion for ARS salaries and expenses, an increase of $11 million over FY2015 (1%). The President had requested a 5% increase for salaries and expenses. 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. The explanatory statement for the omnibus and the individual committee reports address deficient animal welfare conditions that were uncovered at ARS research facilities, particularly at the ARS Meat Animal Research Center in Nebraska. In the appropriations act and via report language, Congress instructs 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. Also, via explanatory statements for the Office of the Secretary, all House and Senate requirements on this issue are to be followed, thus including House report language that 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 the ARS buildings and facilities account, the enacted appropriation provides $212 million, an increase of $167 million over FY2015 for an account which had received no appropriation for several years. As in FY2015, the funding is to be used for priorities that are identified in the "USDA ARS Capital Investment Strategy." ARS' top facilities priorities are the construction of a biocontainment laboratory at its poultry research facility in Athens, GA ($145 million); a foreign disease-weed science facility in Frederick, MD ($70 million); and an animal science, human nutrition and bee research center in Beltsville, MD ($33 million). 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. Federal funds enhance capacity at universities and institutions by statutory formula funding, competitive awards, and grants. For FY2016, the enacted appropriation provides $1.327 billion for NIFA, an increase of $37 million over FY2015 (2.9%). The President had requested $1.503 billion for NIFA. 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—receives $350 million, an increase of $25 million over FY2015 but less than the $125 million increase requested by the President. Formula-funded programs are held constant, with the exception of Evans-Allen funding for historically black colleges and universities, which receive a $1.7 million increase (3%). The omnibus rejects an Administration's proposal that would have added a competitive portion to the normally formula-funded "capacity awards" programs such as the Hatch Act. The House report noted a lack of state matching funding for some historically black colleges and universities and directed USDA to develop a plan to work with the states to meet the matching requirements. The explanatory statement continues 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 $80 million to establish two new "Innovation Institutes" at USDA as part of its multiagency National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. (For additional information, see " National Network for Manufacturing Innovation .") These public-private institutes were to research challenges such as biomanufacturing and nanocellulosics. Like last year, the enacted appropriation ignores 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. (See " Reorganization of STEM Education Programs .") The appropriation rejects that proposal and continues to fund the programs in USDA at FY2015 levels. The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) conducts the Census of Agriculture and provides official statistics on agricultural production and indicators of the economic and environmental status of the farm sector. For FY2016, the appropriation provides NASS $168 million, a decrease of 4 million (2%) from FY2015. The President's request was $180 million, which would have been an increase of 5% over FY2015. 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 appropriation provides ERS $85 million, which is the same as FY2015. USDA had requested $86 million. 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. The Administration requested $1.075 billion in DOI R&D funding for FY2016, which was $140.2 million (15.0%) above its FY2015 enacted level of $934.6 million. 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. Of the R&D funding requested for FY2016, 5.6% was for basic research, 81.4% was for applied research, and 13.0% was for development. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the only DOI component that conducts basic research. Division G of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ) provides DOI $963.5 million for FY2016, $26.7 million (2.9%) more than for FY2015 (actual) and $111.3 million (10.4%) below the request. 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. 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 including R&D and non-R&D activities. USGS R&D is conducted under seven SIR activity/program areas: Ecosystems; Climate and Land Use Change; Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health; Natural Hazards; Water Resources; Core Science Systems; and Science Support. Division G of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 provides USGS $676.9 million for FY2016, $11.1 million (1.7%) more than in FY2015 (actual) and $84.2 million (11.1%) less than the request. The President's total FY2016 budget request for USGS (i.e., SIR account) was $1.104 billion. Requested SIR funding included $761.1 million for R&D, an increase of $95.3 million (14.3%) over the FY2015 level of $665.8 million. This total included $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%). 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) was $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 was $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. In addition to the USGS, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 provided R&D funding for the following DOI components: Bureau of Reclamation (BOR): $88.6 million in applied research and development funding for FY2016, $11.7 million (15.2%) more than in FY2015 (actual) and $2.7 million (3.1%) more than the FY2016 request. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM): $72.8 million in applied research and development funding for FY2016, $1.2 million (1.7%) less than FY2015 (actual) and $3.5 million (5.1%) more than the FY2016 request. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): $32.5 million in applied research funding for FY2016, equal to the FY2015 (actual) level and $17.2 million (34.7%) less than the FY2016 request. Bureau of Land Management (BLM): $23.5 million in applied research and development funding for FY2016, $3.3 million (16.4%) more than in FY2015 (actual) and $7.5 million (24.1%) less than the FY2016 request. National Park Service (NPS): $27.0 million in applied research and development funding for FY2016, equal to the FY2015 (actual) level and $1.2 million (4.3%) less than the FY2016 request. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE): $26.7 million in applied research funding for FY2016, $1.9 million (7.6%) more than in FY2015 (actual) and equal to the FY2016 request. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): $9.5 million in applied research for FY2016, equal to the FY2015 (actual) level and $3.0 million (24.0%) less than the FY2016 request. Wildland Fire Management (WFM): $6.0 million in applied research for FY2016, equal to the FY2015 level and the request. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE): received no funding for R&D in FY2016 or in FY2015; President Obama had requested $4.4 million in applied research for FY2016. Table 17 summarizes FY2015 R&D funding, the President's FY2016 R&D funding request, House and Senate Committee actions, and final FY2016 enacted appropriations for DOI components. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal regulatory agency responsible for implementing a number of environmental pollution control laws, funds a broad range of R&D activities to provide scientific tools and knowledge that support decisions relating to preventing, regulating, and abating environmental pollution. Beginning in FY2006, Congress has funded EPA through the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations. Funding for EPA R&D is generally included in line items that also include non-R&D activities; therefore, it is not possible to identify precisely how much of the funding provided in appropriations laws is allocated to R&D specifically unless funding is provided at the precise level of the request (see discussion later in this section). In general, R&D funding levels are known only after EPA allocates its appropriations to specific activities and reports those figures. The agency's Science and Technology (S&T) account funds much of EPA's scientific research activities. These activities include R&D conducted by the agency at its own laboratories and facilities, and R&D and other related scientific evaluations conducted by universities, foundations, and other non-federal entities that receive EPA grants. The S&T account receives a base appropriation and a transfer from the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) account. The transferred funds are for research on more effective methods to clean up contaminated sites. Title II of Division G of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ; H.R. 2029 ) provides $753.5 million for the EPA S&T account for FY2016 including transfers ($18.8 million) from the Superfund account, the same as enacted for the S&T account for FY2015. Including transfers, the FY2016 total for the S&T account, which represents 9.3% of the $8.14 billion for the agency overall for FY2016 appropriations, is $31.8 million (4.0%) less than the $785.3 million requested for FY2016. No bill providing regular appropriations for FY2016 for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies was passed in the House or Senate. On June 18, 2015, the House Appropriations Committee reported the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations Act, 2016, H.R. 2822 ( H.Rept. 114-170 ). The reported bill would have provided $721.1 million for FY2016 for EPA's S&T account, including transfers from the Superfund account ($16.2 million). The House suspended floor consideration of H.R. 2822 on July 8, 2015, and no final vote on its passage occurred. The Senate Committee on Appropriations' June 23, 2015, reported bill, S. 1645 ( S.Rept. 114-70 ), would have provided $720.2 million for EPA's S&T account, including transfers from the Superfund account ($16.2 million). S. 1645 was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar but was not considered on the floor. Table 18 at the end of this section presents the FY2016 amounts for program activities within EPA's S&T account as enacted compared to H.R. 2822 and S. 1645 as reported by the House and the Senate Committees on Appropriations, the President's FY2016 budget request, and the FY2015 enacted level. As indicated in the explanatory statement and table in the December 17, 2015, Congressional Record the enacted FY2016 base amount for the S&T account includes mostly decreases for individual EPA program and activity line items below the account level compared to the FY2016 request. 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. The FY2016 enacted amount for S&T account overall is identical to the FY2015 enacted level. The only exception in program funding was a $10.0 million increase for "Research: National Priorities" for FY2016, offset by a reduction of $10.0 million for "Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities." The total National Priorities funding includes $4.1 million in funding for competitively awarded extramural research grants to fund high-priority water quality and availability research by not-for-profit organizations the same as FY2015. The additional $10.0 million is distributed as specified in the explanatory statement: $3.0 million (including $2.0 million for extramural funding) for further EPA research on oil and gas development in the Appalachian Basin; and $7.0 million for certification and compliance activities related to vehicle and engine emissions. As in previous requests, the President's FY2016 budget request did not include funding for these "national priorities." As indicated in Table 18 the total amount proposed in the House and Senate committee-reported bills would have provided less funding overall compared to the President's FY2016 request and FY2015 enacted, including reductions in funding for most programs and activities as requested, and several as enacted in FY2015. The House committee-reported bill was $64.2 million (8.2%) less than the President's FY2016 budget request for EPA's S&T account, including transfers and 4.3% below for FY2015 enacted level. The total amount proposed in the Senate committee-reported was 8.3% less than the President's FY2016 budget request for EPA's S&T account, including transfers and 4.4% below the appropriated amount for FY2015. Title IV of Division G, "General Provisions," contains several provisions (referred to by some as "riders") that 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. Many of these provisions have been included in previous recent appropriations. The House and Senate reported bills had proposed a number of additional administrative provisions, but most were not included in the FY2016 consolidated appropriations. The proposed 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. 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. Division L of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ) provides appropriations for the Department of Transportation. Funding for research and development is generally included in accounts with non-R&D funding. Accordingly, R&D funding is generally not known until the agency reports how much of the appropriated funds will be used for R&D. P.L. 114-113 provides DOT with $883.1 million for R&D and R&D facilities for FY2016, $118.7 million (15.5%) more than the FY2015 enacted level of $764.4 million, and $162.5 million (15.5%) less than the requested level of $1,045.6 million. 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 and R&D facilities funding for FY2016. President Obama had requested $1,045.6 million for DOT R&D and R&D facilities in FY2016, an increase of $281.2 million (36.8%) from the FY2015 enacted level. (See Table 19 .) 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. P.L. 114-113 provides the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with $379.2 million for R&D and R&D facilities for FY2016, $137.2 million (57.9%) above the FY2015 enacted level of $237.0 million, and $27.3 million (7.3%) below the requested level of $374.2 million. Under the President's request, the FAA would have received $374.2 million for R&D and R&D facilities in FY2015, an increase of $137.2 million (57.9%) above the FY2015 enacted level. The FY2016 request included $342.0 million for research and development, an increase of $86.7 million (34.0%), and $32.3 million for R&D facilities, an increase of $7.0 million (27.7%). Of the FY2016 request, $166.0 million constituted 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 have provided $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 recommended $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. P.L. 114-113 provides the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) with $322.4 million for R&D and R&D facilities for FY2016, $42.2 million (11.6%) less than the FY2015 enacted level of $364.6 million, and $130.9 million (28.9%) less than the FY2016 requested level of $453.3 million. Under the President's request, the FHWA would have received $453.3 million in R&D funding in FY2016, an increase of $88.7 million (24.3%) above the FY2015 enacted level. The President's request would have provided $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. Allocations for these activities are not specified in the House and Senate bills. A number of other DOT components also fund research and development. P.L. 114-113 provides: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with $86.6 million for R&D and R&D facilities for FY2016, $23.3 million (36.8%) above the FY2015 enacted level of $63.3 million and $10.0 million (13.0%) above the requested level of $76.6 million. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) with $43.1 million for R&D and R&D facilities for FY2016, $0.3 million (0.8%) above the FY2015 enacted level of $42.8 million and $22.2 million (34.0%) below the requested level of $65.3 million. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) with $21.5 million for R&D and R&D facilities for FY2016, $0.3 million (1.3%) above the FY2015 enacted level of $21.2 million and $0.5 million (2.4%) below the requested level of $22.0 million. Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) with $13.9 million for R&D and R&D facilities for FY2016, $2.5 million (22.2%) above the FY2015 enacted level of $11.4 million and $1.5 million (9.6%) below the requested level of $15.4 million. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) with $8.9 million for R&D and R&D facilities for FY2016, $2.8 million (45.9%) above the FY2015 enacted level of $6.1 million and $1.7 million (16.3%) below the requested level of $10.6 million. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) with $7.5 million for R&D and R&D facilities for FY2016, $10.5 million (58.3%) below the FY2015 enacted level of $18.0 million and $20.7 million (73.4%) below the requested level of $28.2 million. Table 19 summarizes R&D funding for the DOT components. 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 requested $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%). 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. Division J of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) provides appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs for FY2016. Funding for VA R&D is generally included in appropriations line items that also include non-R&D activities; therefore, it is not possible to know precisely how much of the funding provided for in appropriations laws will be allocated to R&D unless funding is provided at the precise level of the request. In general, R&D funding levels are known only after the VA allocates its appropriations to specific activities and reports those figures. The House passed H.R. 2577 , which provides appropriations for VA for FY2016, 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 21 provides amounts to be spent in Designated Research Areas (DRAs), which VA describes as "areas of particular importance to our veteran patient population." 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.

Summary: President Obama's budget request for FY2016 included $145.694 billion for research and development (R&D), an increase of $7.625 billion (5.5%) over the estimated FY2015 R&D funding level of $138.069 billion. The request represented the President's R&D priorities. Funding for R&D is concentrated in a few departments and agencies. Under President Obama's FY2016 budget request, seven federal agencies would have received 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 have gone 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 requested increases for these accounts, as it did in the President's 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 continued 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 continued support for the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative, the Materials Genome Initiative, and the National Robotics Initiative. The President 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 proposed $1.9 billion in mandatory funding for the establishment of 29 additional institutes between FY2017 and FY2024. In addition, the FY2016 budget proposed 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 December 2015, Congress passed, and the President signed, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) providing discretionary appropriations for all federal agencies for FY2016. For some federal agencies it is possible to discern R&D funding levels directly from this act and its accompanying explanatory statement. In these cases, this report reflects the results of P.L. 114-113. For other federal agencies, R&D is included in appropriations accounts with non-R&D activities and it is not possible to determine specific R&D funding levels until reported by these agencies. As in recent years, the annual appropriations process was 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.