Order Code IB10088
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Federal Research and Development:
Budgeting and Priority-Setting Issues,
109th Congress
Updated October 31, 2005
Genevieve J. Knezo
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
R&D Budgets
FY2004 Budget
FY2005 Budget
FY2006 Budget Request
Priority-Setting Issues
Trends in R&D Support Patterns
Observations on the Role of the Federal Government in Supporting R&D
Priorities Among Fields of Federally Funded Research
Congressional Views About the Balance in Federal R&D Funding
Professional Groups’ Views About Balance
Legislative Proposals to Broaden Incentives for Private R&D
NSF Funding
Homeland Security R&D Funding
Federal R&D Priority-Setting Structures
Unified Federal Science and Technology (FS&T) Budget
Interagency R&D Initiatives
Proposals to Coordinate Federal R&D
Legislation on Technology Assessment
Earmarking
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and Performance Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)

---

IB10088
10-31-05
Federal Research and Development:
Budgeting and Priority-Setting Issues, 109th Congress
SUMMARY
Federal research and development
slightly, about 5% over FY2004 and about
(R&D) funding priorities change over time,
0.3% for nondefense R&D. Final appropria-
reflecting Presidential policies and national
tions action showed the largest increases were
needs. Defense R&D predominated in the
for R&D in DHS, NIH, DOD, Agriculture, and
1980s, decreasing to about 50% of federal
DOT.
R&D in the 1990s. In non-defense R&D,
space R&D was important in the 1960s as the
Estimated FY2003 expenditures for na-
nation sought to compete with the Soviet
tional (public and private) R&D of $283.8
Union; energy R&D was a priority during the
billion continue to grow. Federal R&D expen-
energy-short 1970s, and, since the 1980s,
ditures, at $85.2 billion, have grown, but de-
health R&D has predominated in non-defense
clined to 30% of the total. Debates focus on
science. Defense R&D and homeland security
which fields of federal R&D should be in-
R&D funding are also now prominent.
creased, how to set priorities, and how to
“balance” health and nonhealth fields. There
Requested at $132.3 billion of budget
are proposals to increase incentives for indus-
authority, the FY2006 R&D budget proposes
trial R&D, including H.R. 1454, H.R. 1736, S.
to keep both defense and non-defense R&D
14, S. 387, and S. 627, which would make
funding about the same as last year, which
permanent the R&D tax credit.
would reduce funding in terms of constant
dollars, if inflation is considered. About 57%
The FY2006 budget would fund three
of the request is for defense R&D and about
interagency R&D initiatives: networking and
21% is for biomedical R&D at the National
information technology; climate change sci-
Institutes of Health (NIH). Increases were
ence; and nanotechnology. There are proposals
requested for R&D in the Department of
to coordinate R&D, including a continuing
Transportation (DOT), the National Aeronau-
priority-setting mechanism; a cabinet-level
tics and Space Administration (NASA), the
S&T body; functional R&D budgeting; and
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the
reestablishment of a technology assessment
National Science Foundation (NSF), and NIH.
function.
The Defense Department’s (DOD) R&D
budget would be increased by 0.1%, but re-
The Administration opposes R&D
duced in constant dollars. Three appropria-
earmarking, estimated at $2.4 billion in budget
tions bills with R&D funding have been
authority for FY2005. The Administration is
passed: for the Departments of Homeland
using performance measures for R&D budget-
Security and the Interior, and for the Environ-
ing, including tools of the Government Perfor-
mental Protection Agency.
mance and Results Act and the Program As-
sessment Rating Tool. Some critics say better
FY2005 R&D appropriations totaled
data and concepts are needed to use perfor-
$131.8 billion, with 57% going to defense
mance budgeting for basic and applied re-
R&D. Because of pressures on the discretion-
search.
ary budget, R&D funding was increased
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10088
10-31-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Three appropriations bills with R&D funding have been passed: for the Departments
of Homeland Security and the Interior, and for the Environmental Protection Agency. The
House-passed appropriations bills for FY2006 put R&D funding at $2.8 billion more than
requested, with the increase largely for defense R&D. Total non-defense R&D funding was
essentially flat in the House, although the House increased non-defense R&D funding in five
agencies: the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Energy (DOE), the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and the Department of the Interior. Senate action increased R&D more than
the House, with, among the largest agencies, more funding for National Institutes of Health
(NIH) R&D and less for Department of Defense (DOD) R&D, but with major differences
between the House and Senate on specific R&D programs. A continuing resolution funds
FY2006 programs whose funding was not yet appropriated.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Federal R&D funding priorities have shifted over time, reflecting Presidential
preferences, congressional appropriations, and national priorities. Defense R&D
predominated in the 1980s but decreased to about 50% of total federal R&D in the 1990s,
reflecting the Clinton Administration policy. In non-defense R&D, space R&D was
important in the 1960s as the nation sought to compete with the Soviet Union in the space
race; energy R&D joined space as a priority during the 1970s; and since the 1980s, health
R&D funding has grown as the cohort of aged population increases and the promise of life
sciences and biotechnology affects national expectations. Defense and counterterrorism
R&D funding have been increased since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Together, DOD and NIH
funding total about 76% of the FY2006 R&D request. (See also CRS Report RL30905,
Federal Research and Development: Budgeting and Priority-Setting, 1993-2000, by
Genevieve J. Knezo.)
R&D Budgets
R&D budgets are developed over an 18-month period before a fiscal year begins. Often
advisory committees, influenced by professional scientific groups, recommend R&D
priorities to agencies, which use this information, internally generated information, and the
White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) guidance to determine priorities. Agencies and OMB negotiate
funding request levels during the preparation of the budget before it is sent to Congress.
After standing committees recommend budget levels for matters within their jurisdiction to
the budget committees, Congress is to pass a budget resolution, which sets spending levels
and recommends levels for each budget function that appropriations committees use in
setting discretionary (302b) spending allocations for each appropriations subcommittee. The
resolution also gives outyear projections based on budget and economic assumptions. Each
of the appropriations subcommittees is to report approved funding levels for agencies within
their jurisdiction; appropriations bills, which give agencies spending authority, are to be sent
to the floor, usually beginning in the summer.
FY2004 Budget. The President’s FY2004 R&D request totaled about $122.3 billion
of budget authority, about 4% more than the FY2003 appropriated level. Similar to FY2003,
CRS-1

---

IB10088
10-31-05
counter-terrorism spurred budget request increases in DOD R&D, at 7% more than FY2003,
and in DHS, at almost 50% more than FY2003. NIH’s requested increase was 3% over
FY2003; NSF’s budget request at 3% over FY2003 fell short of the 15% envisioned in 2002
legislation authorizing NSF’s budget to double over five years. In the Department of
Commerce (DOC), the President sought to eliminate the Advanced Technology Program
(ATP) and the (non-R&D) Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). Appropriations
action increased R&D funding to $127.0 billion, or 8% over FY2003, with 93% of the
increase going to DOD, DHS, and NIH. NSF’s R&D budget increased by 5% and DOE’s
by 6%. Other agencies had modest increases or cuts.
FY2005 Budget. Except for DHS and DOD, which were funded via separate
appropriations bills, FY2005 R&D funding was appropriated in P.L. 108-447, an omnibus
bill. The President’s FY2005 R&D request was about $131.7 billion of budget authority,
almost 5% more than the FY2004 appropriated level. Pressures on the discretionary budget
increased; final R&D appropriations totaled about $131.8 billion of budget authority, about
54% going to defense R&D. Non-defense R&D funding increased about 0.2%. The largest
increases went to R&D in NIH and DOD; smaller increases were made for R&D budget
authority in USDA, DHS, and DOT, NASA and NIH. Legislation was enacted in 2002 to
double NSF’s budget over five years (as had been done previously for NIH), but NSF’s
budget request at about 4% over FY2004 fell short of the amount envisioned in the
authorizing legislation and for FY2005 congressional action reduced NSF’s budget by 0.3%
below the FY2004 level. Congress appropriated less than the FY2004 level for R&D in the
Department of Education and EPA. In DOC, the President sought again to eliminate the
ATP, whose R&D component was funded at $134.0 million in FY2004. Congress increased
R&D funding for NOAA by 10%, and funded ATP R&D at $114.0 million, about 15% less
than in FY2004.
FY2006 Budget Request. The President’s FY2006 budget proposes flat funding for
non-defense discretionary programs. See the Appendix table. Federal R&D funding,
requested at $132.3 billion of budget authority, about 0.1% more than the FY2005 enacted
amount, would keep defense R&D funding flat and would increase non-defense R&D
funding by about 0.3%, which basically cuts these programs in terms of real dollars, if
inflation is considered. About 57% of the request is for defense R&D and about 22% is for
biomedical R&D at NIH. The largest increases would go to the Department of
Transportation (DOT), NASA, DHS, and NSF. After seven years of real dollar annual
growth, the Defense Department’s (DOD) R&D budget was proposed to be increased by
0.1%, but reduced in terms of constant dollars. Federal funding for total research (basic and
applied) would be reduced by almost 2%, with basic research funding reduced by about 1%.
NSF’s requested R&D budget increase of almost 3% would go largely to facilities; and the
average size of NSF’s research grants is projected to decrease again this year. NIH projects
a decline in the number of research project grants. FY2006 requested R&D funding was
decreased for three major interagency R&D activities: networking and information
technology; national nanotechnology initiative, and climate change science program.
Three appropriations bills with R&D funding have been passed: for the Departments
of Homeland Security and the Interior, and for the EPA. The House-passed appropriations
bills for FY2006 put R&D funding at $2.8 billion more than requested, with the increase
largely for defense R&D. Total non-defense R&D funding was essentially flat in the House,
although the House increased non-defense R&D funding in five agencies: USDA, DOE,
NASA, the EPA, and the Department of the Interior. Senate action increased R&D more
CRS-2

---

IB10088
10-31-05
than the House, with more funding for R&D in NIH, USDA, DOT, DOE, and the Commerce
Department, and less than the House for R&D in DOD, NASA, and NSF. The House and
Senate have major differences on specific R&D programs. A continuing resolution funds
FY2006 programs whose funding was not yet appropriated. Conference committee action
continues.
Priority-Setting Issues
Current priority-setting debates focus on the functions and size of federal R&D funding
as a part of national R&D and on how to balance priorities in the portfolio of federal non-
defense R&D, especially between health and nonhealth R&D.
Trends in R&D Support Patterns. National (public/private) R&D expenditures
have been rising over time to $283.8 billion in 2003 (expressed in absolute (or nominal)
dollars), the latest year for which data are available.1 Federal R&D expenditures as a part of
the total have also risen, to $85.2 billion, but have declined significantly from 46% in 1983
to about 30% in 2003. Funding patterns figure prominently in priority-setting debates.
Industry is the largest supporter and performer of the nation’s R&D; universities and
colleges are the second-largest performer. Industry funded 63% of all U.S. R&D performed
in 2003 and conducted 68%; industry funded about 98% of the R&D it conducted. The
amount of R&D supported by various industries varies; most industrial R&D is for near-term
applied work and product or prototype development. In 2003, industrial R&D expenditures
supported 81% of the nation’s development work; industry conducted 89% of the nation’s
development (the federal government supported 9% of the development industry conducted).
Industry allocated 5% of its R&D expenditures to the nation’s basic research and supported
17% of the basic research total. Federal support for development, which totaled about 35%
of federal R&D, goes largely for defense R&D performed by industry. The federal
government is the largest supporter of the nation’s basic and applied research (i.e., research
per se), and supplied 46% of total research expenditures in 2003. Industry provided 40% of
national research expenditures (exclusive of development), largely for applied research. The
federal government was the single largest supporter of the nation’s basic research, funding
61% of national basic research expenditures, largely in universities, and, thus, is the largest
contributor to sustaining the nation’s scientific knowledge base. Universities and colleges
conducted 55% of nationally funded basic research; the federal government funded about
67% of this university-performed basic research. About 43% of total federal research dollars
1 Data in this section are based on U.S. National Science Foundation, National Patterns of Research
and Development Resources: 2003, pp. 9-10, (NSF 05-308) and on Brandon Shackelford, “U.S.
R&D Projected to Have Grown Marginally in 2003,” NSF InfoBrief, Feb. 2004, NSF 04-307 and
NSF, Table 1B, National Patterns of R&D Resources: 2002 Data Update (current to October 2002).
Note: expenditure data, rather than budget authority data, need to be used to compare federal and
nonfederal funding levels. Shackelford acknowledges that the expenditure data he uses “differ from
Federal R&D funding totals reported by the Federal agencies that provide those funds. The
difference in the Federal R&D totals appears to be concentrated in the funding of industry R&D by
the Department of Defense.” Expenditures do not equal outlays or budget authority. See also Elisa
Eiseman, et. al., Federal Investment in R&D, RAND, Sept. 2002, MR-1639.0-OSTP. See also
Steven Parson and John Jankowski, “Sixth Year of Unprecedented R&D Growth Expected in 2000,”
NSF Data Brief, Nov. 29, 2000, p. 1. NSF 01-310.
CRS-3

---

IB10088
10-31-05
goes to universities and 23% to mission-oriented work in federal agency laboratories, largely
at DOD, NIH, and USDA.
OMB’s historical trend data indicate that in constant dollar terms, federal R&D funding
has declined from about 14% of total federal discretionary outlays in FY1965 to about 13%
today. In part because of economic pressures and budgetary caps, during the years FY1991
to FY2002, federal R&D funding was below the previous constant-dollar high of FY1990.
As a result of congressional action, constant-dollar R&D appropriations started to eclipse the
FY1993 level beginning with FY2001. However, concerns that had been raised about the
declines in federal R&D funding have not abated because of a return to deficit spending,
which can foreshadow reductions in discretionary R&D spending. Another issue is that as
constrained federal R&D budgets focus more on defense, homeland security, and biomedical
R&D, fewer resources may be available for other areas of R&D.
In recent commentaries and reports recommendations have been made to improve the
types and quality of econometric and research and development data used in making science
policies, with a focus on improving the information developed by NSF.2
Observations on the Role of the Federal Government in Supporting R&D.
As shown in funding data, federal government support for R&D serves primarily the
objectives of defense and homeland security, biomedical research, basic research knowledge
generation, and enhancement of academic research capacity (which some call the “seed corn”
of future scientific and technological development). Only a small percentage of federal non-
defense R&D supports industrial R&D and innovation directly. Some observers contend that
federal research support should be funded at increasingly higher levels as a public good and
that other actions should be taken to enhance the U.S. ability to advance scientifically; to
maintain the stature of U.S. academic institutions, science and engineering personnel, and
research capacity in an increasingly competitive global academic environment; and to
broaden the knowledge base that industry might use. For instance, these and other proposals
are made in Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a
Brighter Economic Future, a report released in 2005 by a National Academies committee in
response to congressional requests by members of the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources and the House Committee on Science.
Although there is controversy about it, some observers theorize that innovation and
technological development are as important or more important than labor and capital as
macro-economic drivers of economic growth. (See Congressional Budget Office, R&D and
Productivity Growth, June 2005, 41 p.) Some contend that industrial R&D and innovation
may benefit indirectly from federal investments in basic research and academic science and
that this funding should be increased. (See NSF, Science Indicators, 2004, p. 0-4.) For
example, President Bush’s FY2002 budget supported this view: “More than half of the
Nation’s economic productivity growth in the last 50 years is attributable to technological
innovation and the science that supported it” (p. 29). The President’s FY2006 budget
reported, “Basic research is the source of tomorrow’s discoveries and new capabilities and
this long-term research will fuel further gains in economic productivity, quality of life, and
homeland and national security” (Analytical Perspectives, p. 61).
2 Lawrence D. Brown, et. al., Measuring Research and Development Expenditures in the U.S.
Economy, National Academy of Sciences Press, 2004; John H. Marburger, “Wanted: Better
Benchmarks,”Science, May 20, 2005, p. 1087.
CRS-4

---

IB10088
10-31-05
Others say that data are inadequate to support the notion that basic research knowledge
leads directly to technological innovation as a crucial determinant of economic growth.
Because of the lack of credible data and disagreement among experts, policymakers lack
guidance to determine how much increased federal research support would enhance growth
and which R&D fields or programs warrant funding in order to promote technological
innovation.3 As a result, some say that federal policy for industrial innovation, and its likely
byproduct, economic growth, should focus more on improving the climate for industrial
R&D, such as by tax incentives, altered regulatory policies, and wider liability protections.
The benefits of federal R&D investments are likely to be discussed in the context of
long-term economic projections of deficits, decreasing outyear federal R&D budgets, and
reductions in domestic discretionary spending. Related issues are whether policies to
increase federal, state, and industrial support for academic research might overwhelm
academic research with pressure to conduct short-term applied studies.4 There is also the
issue of whether state-supported funding could supplant federal funding in some areas, as
evidenced by initiatives in California and other states to fund stem cell research and
biotechnology R&D.5 Other issues of debate focus on diversifying priorities for fields of
support since the R&D budget request stresses funding for defense, homeland security, and
health R&D spending and provides level or decreasing funding in most other areas of science
and R&D application. There are also issues of organization of the government to fund and
generate research knowledge, modifying funding mechanisms, and enhancing accountability
for federal R&D investments. For instance, a 2005 report of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, entitled Waiting for Sputnik: Basic Research and Strategic
Competition, discussed such options to increase federal basic research funding as redirect
funds from development and testing of defense technologies; have Congress dedicate a
percentage of R&D funding for basic research in physical sciences; make basic research
funding an entitlement, not discretionary; increase tax credits for increased industrial support
of academic basic research; establish independent consortia for basic research supported by
both government and private resources; create a special class of Treasury bonds dedicated
to basic research; or create a loan-guarantee program for third party bonds (issued by states,
for example) to finance basic research (pp. 29-31.)
Priorities Among Fields of Federally Funded Research
Important questions are what should be the balance among fields of federally supported
research, and specifically, since health/life sciences research has in recent years consistently
received priority in the non-defense area, should more non-defense R&D funding go to
support other fields of science? Some critics are concerned that the emphasis on health R&D
may presage a scarcity of knowledge in physical sciences, math, and engineering.6 They
3 William B. Bonvillian, “Meeting the New Challenge to U.S. Economic Competitiveness,” Issues
in Science and Technology, Oct. 1, 2004.
4 NSTC, Implementation of the NSTC Presidential Review Directive-4: Renewing the Federal
Government-University Research Partnership...., Jan. 2001.
5 The NAS held “Planning Meeting on the Role of State Funding of Research,” July 13, 2001. See
RAND/OSTP, Discovery and Innovation: Federal R&D Activities in the Fifty States, June 2000.
6 In 2003, the National Science Board released a related report, The Science and Engineering
(continued...)
CRS-5

---

IB10088
10-31-05
maintain that funding should be increased for all R&D fields, and others cite the need to
reallocate more federal funding from health R&D to nonhealth R&D. As shown in Figure
1, health sciences R&D has grown as a priority for about the last 20 years. Over the period
FY1995 to FY2006, requested R&D funding at NIH increased 112% in constant dollars
compared to DOD, 64%; NSF, 42%; USDA, 13%; DOE, 1%; and NASA, -0.2%. R&D
funding decreased in constant dollars for EPA and the Departments of the Interior,
Transportation and Commerce. For FY2006, it is estimated that federally funded health-
related R&D, primarily at NIH, would receive over 51% of the non-defense R&D budget.
In terms of funding by field, federal obligations for life sciences increased from $9.9 billion
in FY1992 to an estimated $22.2 billion in FY2002, or about 125%, while at the same time,
between those years funding for physical sciences increased 16%; mathematics and computer
sciences, 125%; and engineering, 41%. (Based on NSF data and AAAS data.)
Congressional Views About the Balance in Federal R&D Funding. There
are various perspectives on the issue of balance, focusing on both types and fields of R&D
supported. As already noted, funding for biomedical research has been a priority in recent
years. In 1998, an amendment to S.Con.Res. 86, the FY1999 Senate budget resolution,
expressed the sense of the Senate that the NIH budget should double within the next five
years, which occurred by FY2004. (The doubling is not complete in constant dollar terms.)
Critics allege that other fields of science have received inadequate federal attention as a result
of the health science emphasis. Partially in reaction, P.L. 107-368, the NSF authorization
bill for FY2003, authorized increases for NSF (which supports all areas of research) that
would double its budget by 2008. NSF funding has not been appropriated at a rate to meet
this target since and its FY2006 R&D funding request is less than 1% greater than in
FY2003.
6 (...continued)
Workforce/Realizing American’s Potential, NSB-03-69.
CRS-6

---

IB10088
10-31-05
Figure 1. AAAS Data on Trends in Non-defense R&D by Function, FY1953 -
2006
Trends in Nondefense R&D by Function, FY 1953-2006
outlays for the conduct of R&D, billions of constant FY 2005 dollars
Health
50
Space
40
Energy
30
20
Other
10
=
Nat. Res.
0
/Env.
1953
1960
1967
1974
1981
1988
1995
2002
Gen. Science
Source: AAAS, based on OMB Historical Tables in Budget of the United States
Government FY 2006. Constant dollar conversions based on GDP deflators. FY
2006 is the President's request.
Note: Some Energy programs shifted to General Science beginning in FY 1998.
FEB. '05 © 2005 AAAS
(AAAS granted CRS permission to use Figure 1.)
House Science Committee Chairman Boehlert in a statement on February 16, 2005
recognized the need for austerity in the FY2006 R&D budget, but questioned the wisdom of
reduced funding for NSF’s science education activities and DOE’s science activities. A
bipartisan “Views and Estimates” analysis released by the House Science Committee on
March 7, 2005, noted,
...The proposed funding for basic research is insufficient. Funding short-term
development at the expense of longer-term basic and applied research is not advisable,
and neglects those portions of R&D where government support is most crucial. The ...
budget must fully consider appropriate balances between defense and non-defense R&D
spending and between biomedical and non-biomedical spending. ... The R&D budgets of
DOD and ... NIH account for more than 75 percent of the total R&D budget. Further, the
increase for defense development ... amounts to almost twice the overall increase in
R&D. While fully acknowledging the important constrictions of defense and biomedical
R&D, the Committee urges that similar attention be given to other important R&D
agencies, such as NSF, DOE, and NIST” (p. 2).
Professional Groups’ Views About Balance. While some professional groups
argue for increased federal health sciences funding,7 others contend that more balance or
support for other fields is needed. For instance, 32 Nobel laureates and industrialists wrote
to President Bush in April 2003, urging more balance and increased funding for physical
sciences, mathematics, and engineering in the 2005 budget. In response to language in
appropriations reports, in November 2004, the NIH and NSF held a conference on “Research
7 For instance, see Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, Federal Funding for
Biomedical and Related Life Sciences Research, FY2006, 27 p.
CRS-7

---

IB10088
10-31-05
at the Interface of the Life and Physical Sciences: Bridging the Sciences,” to identify
opportunities, challenges, and issues at the interface of the life and physical sciences that
could result in major advances and to develop approaches for bridging the separate fields.
Nongovernmental scientists attending the meeting recommended more funding for this
interdisciplinary work and are preparing a follow-up report for the government.8 The
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released Assessing the
U.S. R&D Investment, January 2003. The draft of this report, which was issued in August
2002, called for doubling federal budgets for physical sciences and electrical, mechanical,
chemical, and metallurgical and materials engineering, and endorsed doubling the NSF
budget. Reportedly, the OSTP director objected to singling out any agency or field for
doubling,9 so the report recommended targeting physical sciences and engineering to bring
“them collectively to parity with the life sciences over the next 4 budget cycles” in order to
better balance budget allocations. The U.S. Commission on National Security 21st Century,
in Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change, The Phase III Report, 2001
concluded that threats to the nation’s scientific and educational base endanger U.S. national
security. It recommended doubling the federal R&D budget by 2010 and improving the
competitiveness of less capable U.S. academic R&D institutions. The Alliance for Science
and Technology Research in America supports increased R&D funding for all fields.10
Arguments have also been made to give more attention to industrial R&D. The Council
on Competitiveness, in a December 2004 report, Innovate America, included proposals to
increase to an average of 3% the amount of federal agency budgets for basic research, to
improve the regulatory climate for corporations, to increase federal investment in selected
areas of applied research, and to improve science and engineering education. A National
Academy of Engineering report, Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate
Education, 2001, recommended that the Administration and Congress should evaluate
federal research funding by field, assess implications for knowledge generation and industrial
growth, and increase budgets for underfunded disciplines. Similar recommendations were
made in New Foundations for Growth: The U.S. Innovation System Today and Tomorrow,
released by the National Science and Technology Council on January 10, 2001.
Legislative Proposals to Broaden Incentives for Private R&D. Legislation
has been introduced again in the 109th Congress to make permanent the Research and
Experimentation (R&E) tax credit that provides credits for industrially funded R&D support
in industry and universities that was due to expire on June 30, 2004.11 The Administration
sought to have it made permanent and estimated it would cost about $30.0 billion over the
period 2005-2009. P.L. 108-311, enacted in 2004 extended the research tax credit through
December 31, 2005. In the 109th Congress, S. 14, the “Fair Wage, Competition and
Investment Act,” introduced January 24, 2005, and S. 387, the “Climate Change Technology
Tax Incentives Act,” would make the credit permanent. S. 3, “Protecting America in the War
on Terror Act of 2005,” would allow tax credits for vaccine and countermeasures research
8 Jeffrey Mervis, “What Can NIH Do for Physicists?” Science, Nov. 26, 2004, p. 1463.
9 “PCAST Releases Report on U.S. R&D Investment,” CFR Weekly Wrapup, Feb. 14, 2003.
10 See [http://www.aboutastra.org/_images/pdfs/astrabriefs205.pdf] and David Malakoff, “Perfecting
the Art of the Science Deal,” Science, May 4, 2001, pp. 830-835.
11 See CRS Report RL31181, Research Tax Credit: Current Status, Legislative Proposals, and
Policy Issues, by G. Guenther.
CRS-8

---

IB10088
10-31-05
and manufacturing. Proposals to provide incentives for pharmaceutical research focusing
on liability protection and/or tax incentives include H.R. 417 and S. 95. Other proposals
include H.R. 1454, H.R. 1736, and S. 627.
NSF Funding. NSF funds research across all disciplines and is the main federal
source for most non-health related academic research. P.L. 107-368, the NSF authorization
bill for FY2003, authorized increases in NSF’s budget by 15% for each of FY2003, FY2004,
and FY2005, which according to the sponsors, would “put the NSF on the track to double
its budget within five years” (FY2008), similar to the NIH doubling track. Another objective
was to increase federal support for science fields which in recent years have not experienced
the larger percentage increases which have gone to biomedical R&D. The law also required
increased oversight of NSF facilities programs; a report was prepared by the National
Science Board (NSB).12 Congress appropriated about $4.1 billion in budget authority for
NSF’s FY2004 R&D funding, almost 5% more than FY2003, and about $1.0 billion less than
envisioned in the authorization act. For FY2005, congressional action reduced NSF’s budget
authority below the FY2004 level. The FY2006 requested R&D budget increase of almost
3% would go largely to facilities. P.L. 107-368 also required the NSB, which governs NSF
together with the Director, to report on how NSF’s increased funding should be used. In a
2003 report, Fulfilling the Promise: A Report to Congress on the Budgetary and
Programmatic Expansion of the National Science Foundation (NSB-2004-15), the Board
recommended meeting unmet needs by funding NSF annually at $18.7 billion, including
about $12.5 billion for R&D, and outlined priorities for support. Prominent among groups
which have recommended increased funding for NSF is the Coalition for National Science
Funding (CNSF), which represents many universities and professional science associations,
and recommended for FY2006, a 15% increase for NSF over the FY2004 level in order to
fund all the “very good to excellent”and “excellent” proposals that NSF receives.13 Senator
Kay Bailey Hutchison, chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science and
Space, in September 2005, recommended that NSF “focus firmly” on “the hard sciences,”
– biology, chemistry, and physics, and not direct additional resources to support social
sciences research (“Ensuring a Health Future America,” Sept. 30, 2005,
[http://hutchison.senate.gov/cchealthfuture.htm]).
Homeland Security R&D Funding. Homeland security R&D funding is becoming
an increasingly larger component of the federal non-defense R&D budget and is a significant
issue in priority-setting for R&D. It grew from 3.7% of the non-defense R&D budget in
FY2003 to 6.5% of the FY2006 requested non-defense R&D budget. OMB’s term
“combating terrorism” R&D includes homeland security R&D and overseas combating
terrorism R&D.14 An appendix to OMB’s FY2006 Analytical Perspectives budget request
volume includes data on homeland security funding, but these data do not clearly identify
R&D funding. Unpublished OMB data on all agencies’ homeland security R&D funding
show a 15% increase from the estimate of the enacted FY2005 level to $4.0 billion of budget
12 The draft NSB report is at [http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2005/large_facilities_draft.pdf].
13 See [http://cnsfweb.org/FY2006.StatementFinal.Color.pdf].
14 For additional information on homeland security R&D data availability and quality, see CRS
Report RL32481, Homeland Security Research and Development Funding and Activities in Federal
Agencies: A Preliminary Inventory, by Genevieve J. Knezo, and CRS Report RL32482, Federal
Homeland Security Research and Development Funding: Issues of Data Quality, by Genevieve J.
Knezo.
CRS-9

---

IB10088
10-31-05
authority requested for FY2006. See Table 1. The largest FY2006 programs are in NIH
largely for bioterrorism R&D and for containment facilities. This is followed in size by the
requests for DHS, DOD, NSF, and the Department of Justice. Other programs are in USDA,
DOC’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), DOE, EPA, Treasury, and
DOT. P.L. 107-296, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, mandated DHS to coordinate these
programs. The law also consolidated some federal homeland security R&D programs in
DHS. The OMB data in Table 1 show that DHS’s FY2006 R&D budget request is about $1.2
billion, almost 4% more than the enacted FY2005 level. DHS’s R&D funding has about
quintupled since FY2002 and is the largest percentage increase for any non-defense federal
agency R&D mission since FY2002. About 35% of DHS’s FY2006 R&D budget would be
for basic and applied research, up 30% from FY2004. For additional details, see CRS Report
RS21270, Homeland Security Research and Development Funding, Organization, and
Oversight, by Genevieve J. Knezo; on homeland security R&D funding data quality issues,
see CRS Report RL32481, Homeland Security Research and Development Funding and
Activities in Federal Agencies: A Preliminary Inventory, by Genevieve J. Knezo; and CRS
Report RL32482, Federal Homeland Security Research and Development Funding: Issues
of Data Quality, by Genevieve J. Knezo. Appropriations action so far reduced DHS R&D
funding below the requested level; see the appendix table.
Table 1. Non-published OMB Data on Homeland Security (HS)R&D
Funding by Agency, Budget Authority, Supplemented by AAAS Data
(dollars in millions)
2004
2005
AAAS Estimate,
Agency
2003 Enacted
2006 Request
Estimate
Estimate
Includes Facilities
USDA
$12
$22
$31
$67
$172
DOC
16
17
59
62
82
DOD
212
267
362
394
394
DOE
19
19
32
52
81
DHHS
834
1,643
1,608
1,766
1,802
DHS
619
816
1,017
1,227
1,287
DOJ
161 + 25
49
61
109
—
supplemental
DOT
4
—
0
1
0
Treasury
—
3
3
3
—
EPA
53
30
25
40
94
NSF
269
318
324
328
329
All other
—
—
—
—
92
Total R&D
2,223
3,185
3,522
4,048
$4,425
Total Non-defense
$2,011
$2, 918
$3,160
$3,654
—
HS R&D
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. All columns except the last are based on data provided by OMB.
FY2003 data provided Jan. 2004; other years’ data provided Feb. 2005. In 2004, OMB characterized these data
as “discretionary budgetary resources,” which, according to OMB staff, is “budget authority.” Data exclude
facilities, construction, and overseas combating terrorism R&D funding. AAAS data in the last column include
facilities. The symbol — means not available. AAAS data are at [http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/hs06.htm].
Federal R&D Priority-Setting Structures
Some observers recommend more centralized R&D priority-setting in Congress and in
the executive branch. Others say that congressional jurisdiction for R&D is split among a
number of committees and subcommittees, preventing examination of the R&D budget as
a whole. This means that R&D funding can serve particular local or program interests, but
CRS-10

---

IB10088
10-31-05
may not be appropriate for a national R&D agenda. But opponents see value in a
decentralized system in which budgets are developed, authorized, and appropriated
separately by those most familiar with the needs of specific fields of R&D — the department
or agency head and the authorizing and appropriations subcommittees with jurisdiction.
Other issues center on interagency initiatives, R&D policy coordination, developing a
technology assessment capacity, earmarking, and R&D funding accountability.
Unified Federal Science and Technology (FS&T) Budget. In a 1995 report,
Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology, the National Academies (NAS)
recommended that Congress consider, the R&D budget as a unified whole before its separate
parts for each agency are considered by individual congressional committees. It
recommended that R&D budget request data be reconfigured as an S&T budget, excluding
defense development, testing and evaluation activities, to denote basic and applied R&D and
the creation of new knowledge. Since the FY2002 budget request, OMB has used a modified
version of this format and has identified a “Federal Science and Technology (FS&T) budget
table,” which, for FY2006, includes less than half of total federal R&D spending and some
non-R&D funding, such as education and dissemination of information.15 OMB’ s table
projects a decrease in FS&T funding of about 1% from FY2005 to FY2006 as requested.
Continued use of this alternative format may pave the way for congressional consideration
of a realigned and unified S&T budget. S.Amdt. 2235 to the Senate budget resolution
(S.Con.Res. 86) for FY1999 expressed the sense of the Senate that for FY2000-2004, all
federal civilian S&T spending should be classified under budget function 250. In 2004,
Senator Jeff Bingaman said: “It would be valuable to have joint hearings across the relevant
committees in the Senate on the overall shape of our S&T spending. It might be worth
considering whether the functional nature of the budget itself should be revised to put the
entire federal S&T budget in one place, so that there is much more transparency as to what
the real trends are....”16
Interagency R&D Initiatives. Executive Order 12881, issued by President Clinton,
established the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) with cabinet-level status.
Located in the Executive Office of the President, it recommends agency R&D budgets to
help accomplish national objectives, advises OMB on agency R&D budgets, and coordinates
presidential interagency R&D initiatives. Beginning with the FY1996 budget request, NSTC
identified interagency R&D budget priorities. The FY2006 budget identified agency funding
for two interagency R&D initiatives whose reporting is required by statute, “Networking and
Information Technology R&D,” requested at $2.1 billion, a 7% decrease from the estimated
FY2005 amount, and “Climate Change Science Program,” which incorporated the U.S.
Global Change Research Program, totaling $1.9 billion, a 1% decrease from the estimated
FY2005 amount. Another priority interagency initiative is for nanotechnology, requested at
$1.1 billion, a 2% decrease from the FY2005 amount. Other FY2006 interagency R&D
initiatives include combating terrorism R&D and hydrogen R&D.
Proposals to Coordinate Federal R&D. The 2001 National Science Board (NSB)
report, Federal Research Resources: A Process for Setting Priorities, (NSB 01-160)
recommended a “continuing advisory mechanism” in Congress and the executive branch and
15 Sec. 5, FY2006 Budget, Analytical Perspectives.
16 “Bingaman: A Revitalized Science and Technology Policy Badly Needed,” Feb. 11, 2004, Office
of Sen. Bingaman.
CRS-11

---

IB10088
10-31-05
strengthening the OMB/OSTP relationship to coordinate R&D priorities. It said that federal
R&D funding should be viewed as a five-year planned portfolio, rather than as the sum of
the requirements and programs of departments. AAAS President Mary Good, recommended
creating a cabinet-level post for S&T to help achieve balance in R&D and coordinate federal
R&D and handle research policy issues.17 The aforementioned Commission on National
Security recommended empowering the President’s science advisor to establish “functional
budgeting,” to identify non-defense R&D objectives that meet national needs, strengthen the
OSTP, NSTC and PCAST, and improve coordination with OMB to enhance stewardship of
national R&D. The congressional science policy report, Unlocking Our Future, 1998,
spearheaded by Representative Vernon Ehlers, called for balance in the federal research
portfolio and said that while OMB can fulfill the coordination function in the executive
branch, “no such mechanism exists in the Congress. ...[I]n large, complex technical
programs, ... committees should ... consider holding joint hearings and perhaps even writing
joint authorization bills” (p. 7).
Legislation on Technology Assessment. The aforementioned NSB report also
recommended that Congress develop “an appropriate mechanism to provide it with
independent expert S&T review, evaluation, and advice” (p. 16). Some believe that this
could pertain to reestablishing the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which was
active between 1972 and 1995 as a congressional support agency. It prepared in-depth
reports and discussed policy options about the consequences of applying technology.
Sometimes congressional committees used these reports to set R&D priorities in
authorizations and appropriations processes. OTA was eliminated as part of the reductions
Congress made in a FY1996 appropriations bill. Several meetings have been held to assess
ways to “resurrect” OTA or variants of it. Advocates cite the need for better congressional
support for S&T analysis.18 The OTA is still authorized, but funds would have to be
appropriated for it. The pros and cons of reviving OTA or re-creating a similar body have
been examined since its termination. During the 107th Congress, H.R. 2148, a bipartisan bill,
would have authorized OTA funding at $20.0 million annually for five years. Since 2002,
at congressional direction, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has conducted three
pilot technology assessments, Technology Assessment: Using Biometrics for Border Security,
GAO-03-174, 2002, Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure Protection, GAO-04-321, and
Protecting Structures and Improving Communications During Wildland Fires, GAO-05-380,
and has one underway, on port security. Legislative action in the 108th Congress included
proposals to restore OTA’s funding (H.R. 125); to create a Science and Technology
Assessment Service to conduct assessments for Congress (H.R. 6 as passed in the Senate);
to conduct technology assessments in GAO (report language on H.R. 2657 and on H.R.
4755); and to create a technology assessment capability in GAO (S. 2556) or under its
direction (H.R. 4670, which would create a Center for Scientific and Technical Assessment).

17 Rebecca Spieler, “AAAS President Concerned About Imbalances in Nation’s R&D Portfolio...,”
Washington Fax, Feb. 21, 2001.
18 Wil Lepkowski, “The Mummy Blinks,” Science and Policy Perspectives, June 25, 2001; D.
Malakoff, “Memo to Congress: Get Better Advice,” Science, June 22, 2001: 2229-2230; and M.
Davis, “A Reinvented Office of Technology Assessment May Not Suit Congressional Information
Requirement...,” Washington Fax, June 18, 2001; M. Granger Morgan and John M. Peha, Science
and Technology Advice for Congress, Washington, Resources for the Future, 2003, pp. 208-227.
CRS-12

---

IB10088
10-31-05
In FY2005 Legislative Branch Appropriations action, Representative Holt offered
H.Amdt. 667 to H.R. 4755, to add $30 million to GAO’s account for a Center for S&T
Assessment; the House rejected the amendment on July 12, 2004. The House Legislative
Branch Appropriations report (H.Rept. 108-577) encouraged GAO to retain its core
capability to conduct technology assessments. S.Rept. 108-307, to accompany S. 2666,
indicated that while the Senate Appropriations Committee supported GAO doing technology
assessments, it did not intend to appropriate specific funding for this purpose and that GAO
should conduct assessments that are supported by both House and Senate leadership and that
address issues of national scope. The report instructed GAO to consult with the committee
regarding definitions and procedures to conduct technology assessment. Issues under debate
have included the need for assessments, funding, utility of GAO’s reports, and options for
institutional arrangements. See also CRS Report RS21586, Technology Assessment in
Congress: History and Legislative Options, by Genevieve J. Knezo.
Earmarking. There is controversy about congressional designation of R&D funding
for specific projects, also called earmarking. When using this practice, Congress, in report
language or law, directs that appropriated funds go to a specific performer or designates
awards for certain types of performers or geographic locations. Typically an agency has not
included these awards in its budget request and often such awards may be made without prior
competitive peer review. Critics say that earmarking undermines the authorization process
and distorts agency R&D priorities. Supporters believe the practice helps to develop R&D
capability in a wide variety of institutions, that it compensates for reduced federal programs
for instrumentation and facilities renewal, and that it generates economic benefits in targeted
regions since R&D capacity may generate industrial growth. OMB’s earmarking data (called
“research performed at congressional direction”), show that $2.4 billion was appropriated for
FY2005, 4% of total federal research funding. AAAS, reported that for FY2005 R&D
earmarks were mainly for projects in DOD, DOE, USDA, and NASA in that order.19 The
Administration seeks to discourage earmarking, saying that it distorts agency priorities and
seldom is an effective use of taxpayer funds.
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and Performance
Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 (GPRA), P.L. 103-62, is intended to produce greater efficiency, effectiveness, and
accountability in federal spending and to ensure that an agency’s programs and priorities
meet its goals. It also requires agencies to use performance measures for management and,
ultimately, for budgeting. Recent actions have required agencies to identify more precisely
R&D goals and measures of outcomes. As underscored in The President’s Management
Agenda, beginning in FY2001 and in each year thereafter, the Bush Administration has
emphasized the importance of performance measurement, including for R&D. In a
memorandum dated June 5, 2003, signed jointly by the Directors of OSTP and OMB
regarding planning for the FY2005 R&D budgets, the Administration announced that it
would expand its effort to base budget decisions on program performance (OMB M-03-15).
OMB referred to this memo again in the FY2006 R&D budget guidance, which reiterated the
importance of performance assessment for R&D programs (OMB M-04-23). According to
section 5 of Analytical Perspectives, FY2006, agencies were required to use OMB criteria
to measure research outcomes, focusing on relevance, quality, and performance. R&D
performed by industry is to meet additional criteria relating to the appropriateness of public
19 AAAS, “R&D Funding Update,” Nov. 29, 2004 [http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/upd1104.htm].
CRS-13

---

IB10088
10-31-05
investment and to identification of decision points to transition the activity to the private
sector. The Administration has assessed some R&D programs with the Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART), which uses the OMB R&D criteria and other measures. PART results
for 84 R&D programs were used when making FY2006 budget decisions. OMB’s Analytical
Perspectives volume reported that 25 programs were effective, 31 were moderately effective
and the other 28 programs ranked below these levels, with 19 ranked ineffective or results
not demonstrated. Commentators have pointed out that it is particularly difficult to define
priorities for most research and to measure the results quantitatively, since research outcomes
cannot be defined well in advance and often take a long time to demonstrate, probably
precluding use of performance measures to recommend budget levels for most R&D. Some
observers say that many congressional staff are not yet comfortable with using performance
measurement data to make budget decisions and prefer to use traditionally formatted budget
information, which focuses on inputs, rather than outputs.20 Congress may increase attention
to the use of R&D performance measures in authorization and appropriations actions
especially as constraints grow on discretionary spending. In June 2005, the OMB sent
Congress draft legislation to authorize results commissions to evaluate programs and
recommend restructuring or termination of those deemed ineffective
[http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0605/063005a1.htm]. (See CRS Report RL32164,
Performance Management and Budgeting in the Federal Government: Brief History and
Recent Developments, by Virginia A. McMurtry.)
The NAS’s most recent report advising on use of performance measures for research
is Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act for Research: A Status
Report, 2001. As for congressional interest, the House Science Committee’s science policy
report, Unlocking Our Future, 1998, commonly called the Ehlers report, recommended that
a “portfolio” approach be used when applying GPRA to basic research. The House adopted
a rule with the passage of H.Res. 5 (106th Congress) requiring all “committee reports [to]
include a statement of general performance goals and objectives, including outcome-related
goals and objectives for which the measure authorizes funding.”
20 Amelia Gruber, “Lawmakers Remain Skeptical of Linking Budget, Performance,” GovExec.com,
Jan. 13, 2004, and GAO, Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of OMB’s Program
Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget, GAO-04-174, Jan. 2004.
CRS-14

---

Appendix Table. R&D in the Budget, by Agency, Based Largely on AAAS Data
(Budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
SELECTED AGENCIES & PROGRAMS
actual
actual
actual
actual
actual
estimate
request
House
Senate
Conference
Dept. of Agr. Total
$1,776
$2,181
$2,112
$2,334
$2,222
$2,403
$2,051
$2,225
$2,373
(Agr. Res. Service)
—
(1,012)
(1,234)
(1,294)
(1,165)
(1,306)
(1,079)
(1,141)
(1,289)
(CSREES)
—
(594)
(532)
(608)
(616)
(650)
(520)
(624)
(625)
(Forest Service)
—
(245)
(265)
(265)
(312)
(314)
(318)
(331)
(323)
Dept. of Commerce Total
1,174
1,030
1,328
1,200
1,137
1,148
983
911
1,273
(NOAA)
(643)
(561)
(611)
(666)
(640)
(650)
(534)
(501)
(693)
(NIST)
(471)
(413)
(460)
(491)
(457)
(461)
(416)
(379)
(537)
(ATP) ((Within NIST))
(116)
(118)
(150)
(153)
((134))
((114))
((0))
((0)) ((114))
Dept. of Defense Total
39,959
42,740
49,877
59,296
65,948
71,566
71,009
73, 633
72,448
(S&T (6.1-6.3+ medical))
(8,632)
(9,365)
(10,337)
(11,186)
(12,377)
(13,630)
(10,691)
(13,484)
(12,695)
Dept. of Education
238
264
265
282
299
297
261
261
262
Dept. of Energy Total
6,956
7,733
8,078
8,312
8,763
8,614
8,393
8,576
8,882
(Atomic/Defense)/(NNSA+Defense)
(3,201)
(3,462)
(3,855)
(4,049)
(4,198)
(4,138)
(4,031)
(3,986)
(4,131)
(Energy & Science)
(3,755)
(4,271)
(4,224)
(4,263
(4,565)
(4,476)
(4,363)
(4,653)
(4,751)
Dept. of HHS Total
18,182
21,045
23,696
27,411
28,521
29,084
29,139
29,050
29,961
(NIH)
(17,234)
(19,807)
(22,714)
(26,398)
(27,248)
(27,784)
(27,925)
(27,922)
(28,804)
Dept. of Homeland Security*
—
—
266
737
1,028
1,243
1,287
1,259
1,266
1,276
Dept. of the Interior Total
618
621
641
643
627
615
581
620
616
620
(U.S. Geological Survey)
—
(566)
(583)
(550)
(553)
(541)
(515)
(553)
(550)
(555)
Dept. of Transportation Total
607
718
778
700
665
744
807
727
742
(FAA)
(220)
(301)
(359)
(271)
(248
(263
(233)
(246)
( 285)
(FHA)
(261)
(294)
(275)
(291)
(332)
(337)
(445)
(345)
(319)
(NHTSA)
(51)
(58)
(59)
(61)
(7)
(61)
(62)
(62)
(60)
CRS-15

---

IB10088
10-31-05
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
SELECTED AGENCIES & PROGRAMS
actual
actual
actual
actual
actual
estimate
request
House
Senate
Conference
Dept. of Veterans Affairs
645
719
756 819
866
744
786
786
805
Environmental Protection Agency
558
574
592
567
662
572
568
579
552
579
NASA Total
9,494
9,887
10,224
10,681
10,803
10,750
11,497
11,542
11,464
(Space Flight)
(3,014)
(2,901)
(2,461)
(3,613)
—
—
—
—
—
(Science, Aeronautics, Tech.)
(6,481)
(7,024)
(7,840)
(7,386)
—
—
—
—
—
(Exploration Capabilities)**
—
—
—
—
(1,829)
(1,676)
(2,232)
(1,816)
(1,703)
(Science, Aeronautics, Exploration)**
—
—
—
—
(8,974)
(9,019)
(9,264)
(9,726)
(9,761)
National Science Foundation
2,931
3,320
3,525
3,926
4,123
4,057
4,170
4,163
4,124
All other R&D
630
702
912
391
724
727
713
677
742
TOTAL
83,769
91,534
102,899
117,439
126,389
132,560
132,246
135,042
135,563
Non-Defense 40,609
45,332
49,167
54,552
56,046
56,528
56,867
57,048
58,707
Non-Defense Minus NIH
23,374
25,525
26,453
28,243
28,798
28,744
28,942
29,127
29,824
Defense/Energy Defense
43,160
46,202
53,731
62,887
70,344
76,032
75,379
77,958
76,579
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Data include conduct of R&D and R&D facilities. Not all subagency R&D data is given, therefore the sums may not equal the agency
total. Based largely on data in tables prepared by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), including data from “Congress Provides Flat or Declining Funding
for Most R&D Programs, Boosts Space and Defense R&D,” AAAS, July 7, 2005 and related tables and agency updates.[http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/].Data from previous years’ tables
appear at [http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/]. AAAS bases its tables on OMB data, agency budget justifications, information from agency budget offices, and appropriations action. Data
in italics in parentheses are parts of the total and have been included in agency totals. See also CRS Report RL32799, Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2006, by Michael
E. Davey (coordinator). The final FY2005 figures include adjustments to reflect across-the-board reductions in the FY2005 omnibus bill.
*FY2002 data for comparison purposes only. DHS begin operations in FY2003. DHS figures include programs that were transferred from other agencies. DHS figures are based on
revised AAAS estimates made Feb. 24, 2005 at [http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/dhs06p.htm].
**Categories were changed after FY2003.
CRS-16

---