Order Code RL33511
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Federal Research and Development:
Budgeting and Priority-Setting Issues,
109th Congress
June 30, 2006
Genevieve J. Knezo
Specialist in Science and Technology
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Federal Research and Development: Budgeting and
Priority-Setting Issues, 109th Congress
Summary
This report summarizes current research and development (R&D) priority-
setting issues — in terms of expenditures; agency, topical, or field-specific priorities;
and organizational arrangements to determine priorities. It will be updated as
needed. Federal R&D funding priorities reflect presidential policies and national
needs. Defense R&D predominated in the 1980s, decreasing to about 50% of federal
R&D in the 1990s. In non-defense R&D, space R&D was important in the 1960s as
the nation sought to compete with the Soviet Union; energy R&D was a priority
during the energy-short 1970s, and, since the 1980s, health R&D has predominated
in non-defense science. This Administration’s R&D priorities include weapons
development, homeland security, space launch vehicles, and, beginning in 2006,
more support for physical sciences and engineering. For FY2007, R&D is requested
at almost $137 billion of budget authority, about 1.8% more than enacted in FY2006.
The request would increase funding for physical sciences and engineering programs
in the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office
of Science, and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories
as part of the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) to enhance
innovation. Funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s
(NASA) R&D would increase by about 8% largely to develop human space vehicles,
but cuts would be made in aeronautics, life sciences, and other research activities.
Continuing previous emphases, the budget would slightly increase in real dollar
terms support for defense development. National Institutes of Health (NIH) R&D
funding would be flat and R&D funding for all other agencies would decrease from
FY2006 enacted levels.
The latest estimated expenditure for national (public and private) R&D is
$312.1 billion for FY2004. Federal R&D expenditures, at $93.4 billion, have grown,
but have declined to 30% of the total, with industrial expenditures increasing.
Proposals to increase incentives for industrial R&D include H.R. 1454, H.R. 1736,
S. 14, S. 627, S. 2199, and S. 2720, which would make permanent the R&D tax
credit. The tax reconciliation measure H.R. 4297, would have extended the credit
through the end of 2007, but conferees excluded language relating to this topic.
Debates continue about which fields of federal R&D should be increased and how
to set priorities. The FY2007 budget would fund three interagency R&D initiatives:
networking and information technology; climate change science; and
nanotechnology. Proposals to coordinate R&D include a continuing priority-setting
mechanism; a cabinet-level S&T body; functional R&D budgeting; and
reestablishment of a technology assessment function. The Administration opposes
R&D earmarking, estimated at $2.4 billion in budget authority for FY2006. The
Administration is using performance measures for R&D budgeting, including the
Government Performance and Results Act and the Program Assessment Rating Tool.
Some critics say better data and concepts are needed before performance budgeting
can be used to identify priorities for research and development. This report replaces
CRS Issue Brief IB10088.

Contents
Background and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
R&D Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2005 Budget Action Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2006 Budget Action Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FY2007 Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Priority-Setting Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Trends in R&D Support Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Observations on the Role of the Federal Government in Supporting
R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Priorities Among Fields of Federally Funded Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Congressional Views About the Balance in Federal R&D Funding . . . 9
Professional Groups’ Views About Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Legislative Proposals to Broaden Incentives for Private R&D . . . . . . 10
NSF Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Homeland Security R&D Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Federal R&D Priority-Setting Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Unified Federal Science and Technology (FS&T) Budget . . . . . . . . . 13
Interagency R&D Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Proposals to Coordinate Federal R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Legislation on Technology Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Earmarking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and
Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
List of Figures
Figure 1. AAAS Data on Trends in Non-defense R&D Funding by Function,
FY1953-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
List of Tables
Table 1. Funding for Homeland Security R&D and R&D Facilities . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix Table. R&D in the Budget, by Agency, Based Largely on
AAAS Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Federal Research and Development:
Budgeting and Priority-Setting Issues,
109th Congress
Background and Analysis
This report, which replaces CRS Issue Brief 10088, summarizes current research
and development priority-setting issues — in terms of spending priorities, topical or
field-specific priorities, and organizational arrangements to determine priorities.
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 Clinton Administration policies. In non-defense R&D, space 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 77% of the FY2007 R&D
request. (See Figure 1 and the Appendix table.)
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.
FY2005 Budget Action Summary. For FY2005, R&D appropriations
totaled about $131.8 billion of budget authority, about 54% going to defense R&D.

CRS-2
Non-defense R&D funding was 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, DOT, NASA, and NIH. 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 the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). In the Department of Commerce (DOC), the President
sought again to eliminate the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), whose R&D
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. (See the Appendix table.)
FY2006 Budget Action Summary. For FY2006, Congress enacted R&D
budget authority of about $134.8 billion, $2.2 billion more than in FY2005. More
than 90% of the increase went to DOD research, development, testing, and evaluation
(RDT&E), largely for weapons development, and the rest to NASA, largely for space
exploration. DOT received a 14% increase for R&D. Other agencies’ R&D budgets
were reduced or flat if inflation is considered. Congress also enacted a 1% across-
the-board cut for all discretionary R&D, in effect lowering enacted appropriations
amounts. Of the major R&D support agencies, FY2006 appropriations action
reduced R&D funding below the FY2005 level for NIH, USDA, and DOE. (See the
Appendix table.)
FY2007 Budget Request. For FY2007, R&D was requested at almost $137
billion of budget authority, about 1.8% more than enacted in FY2006. The request
seeks to double funding over 10 years (for a total of about $50 billion) for three key
federal agencies that support basic research in physical sciences and engineering, that
is for NSF, DOE’s Office of Science (for advanced energy research), and for the
NIST laboratories, as part of the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI)
introduced in the 2006 State of the Union address to enhance U.S. innovation. Also,
funding for NASA R&D would be increased by about 8% largely for a development
program called Constellation Systems to develop human space vehicles to replace the
Space Shuttle. Cuts would be made in NASA research programs in aeronautics, life
sciences, and other research activities. Continuing previous emphases, the budget
would slightly increase over FY2006 support in real dollar terms for defense
development. NIH funding would be flat and R&D funding for all other agencies
would be decreased from FY2006 enacted levels. Over the next five years, the
Administration’s budget projects reducing budget deficits by cutting discretionary
spending, so that while NASA and the three ACI-emphasized agencies would
continue to receive increases, other R&D funding agencies would be subject to real
dollar cuts after adjusting for expected inflation rates. (See the Appendix table.) The
ACI initiative would also make the R&D tax credit permanent, and increase support
for mathematics and science education teacher training and curricula.
On March 16, 2006, the Senate passed S.Con.Res. 83, its version of the FY2007
congressional budget resolution. The resolution included higher discretionary
spending levels than requested by the President and did not include any reconciliation
instructions to reduce mandatory spending or to reduce taxes. On May 18, 2006, the
House passed its version of the resolution. Notable differences between the two
resolutions have prevented agreement.

CRS-3
House Appropriations Committee action so far would increase funding above
inflation for DOE’s Office of Science and for NSF; and would generate small
increases for the U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Veterans Affairs and the
Department of Commerce . Cuts proposed for USDA R&D would be smaller than
proposed; proposed cuts would be reversed for DOT and EPA R&D. DOD R&D
funding would be increased above the requested levels. Cuts proposed in NIH and
DHS appropriations would be sustained. (See the Appendix table.)
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. The NSF projects that national (public
+ private) R&D expenditures will total $312.1 billion for FY2004, the latest year for
which data are available, and about 51% more than in 1990.1 Federal R&D
expenditures as a part of the total have also risen, to $93.4 billion (mostly to fund
work performed in non-governmental sectors), but have declined significantly as a
part of the total from 46% in 1983 to about 30% in 2004. The United States
performs over twice as much R&D as the second largest funding nation, Japan.
However, in terms of the ratio of R&D expenditures to gross domestic product
(GDP), the United States ranks sixth, at 2.7%, following Israel, Sweden, Finland,
Japan, and Iceland. 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. It is estimated that industry funded
64% of all U.S. R&D performed in 2004 and conducted 70%; industry funded about
89% 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 2004, industrial R&D expenditures supported 82% of the nation’s
development work and provided 36% of national research expenditures (exclusive
of development), largely for applied research. Industry allocated 5% of its R&D
expenditures to basic research, and supported 17% of the nation’s total basic
research. Federal support for development, which totaled about 34% 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 49% of total national basic research expenditures in 2004. The
federal government was the single largest supporter of the nation’s basic research,
funding 62% of national basic research expenditures, largely in universities, and,
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 Continues to Rebound in 2004,” NSF InfoBrief, Jan. 2006, NSF
06-306. 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 are not the same as R&D funding totals reported by the Federal agencies. The
largest difference appears concentrated in DOD-supported funding of industry R&D.
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.

CRS-4
thus, is the largest supporter of the nation’s scientific knowledge base. Universities
and colleges conducted 55% of nationally funded basic research; the federal
government funded about 65% of this university-performed basic research. About
42% of total federal research dollars goes to universities and 22% to mission-oriented
work in intramural federal agency laboratories, largely at DOD, NIH, and USDA.
OMB’s historical trend data indicate that in constant dollar terms, federal R&D
funding declined from about 18% of total federal discretionary outlays in FY1965 to
about 16% 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. Subsequently, 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, and likely future
reductions in discretionary R&D spending. 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. National defense-related R&D outlays
constituted 55% of federal R&D outlays in FY2000 and are requested at an amount
which would constitute 59% in FY2007. (It should be noted that recommendations
have been made to improve the types and quality of econometric and research and
development data used in making science policies, especially the information
developed by NSF.2)
Observations on the Role of the Federal Government in Supporting
R&D. As shown in the preceding 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
spending supports industrial R&D and innovation directly. Some observers contend
that federal research support should be funded at increasingly higher levels to
generate knowledge as a public good. Some contend that other actions should be
taken to enhance the U.S. ability to advance scientifically; to enhance the stature of
U.S. academic institutions; to increase scientific literacy, the number of science and
engineering personnel, and research capacity in an increasingly competitive global
environment where countries like China, India, Korea, and Japan are challenging
U.S. output in knowledge generation and innovative industrial production
capabilities. For instance, these issues and proposals to deal with them were
discussed 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;
in an American Electronics Association report, Losing the Competitive Advantage?
The Challenge for Science and Technology in the United States
, 2005; and at the
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-5
“The National Summit on Competitiveness: Investing in U.S. Innovation,” December
6, 2005, a meeting of industrial, academic, and governmental leaders.
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.3 Some contend that
industrial R&D and innovation benefit indirectly from federal investments in basic
research and academic science4 and that such funding should be increased. For
example, President Bush’s FY2002 budget supported the view that “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.”5
Others say that data are inadequate to support the notion that basic research
knowledge leads to technological innovation as a crucial determinant of economic
growth. Because of the lack of credible data and disagreement among experts,
policymakers do not know exactly how much increased federal research support
would enhance growth and which R&D fields or programs warrant funding in order
to promote technological innovation.6 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. There are other
related issues. For instance, will federal, state, and industrial policies to increase
support for academic research — but often for short-term applied studies —
overwhelm traditional academic research which traditionally has tended toward the
conduct of basic research studies?7 Could state-supported funding supplant federal
funding in some areas, as evidenced by initiatives in California and other states to
fund stem cell research and biotechnology R&D?8 Other issues of debate focus on
diversifying priorities for fields of support. There are also issues of organizing the
government to fund and generate research knowledge, modifying funding
3 See Congressional Budget Office, R&D and Productivity Growth, June 2005, 41 p.
4 See NSF, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006, pp. 4-7 and 4-19.
5 OMB, Analytical Perspectives, FY2006, p. 61.
6 William B. Bonvillian, “Meeting the New Challenge to U.S. Economic Competitiveness,”
Issues in Science and Technology, Oct. 1, 2004.
7 NSTC, Implementation of the NSTC Presidential Review Directive-4: Renewing the
Federal Government-University Research Partnership....
, Jan. 2001.
8 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.

CRS-6
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, stressed the need to
increase federal basic research funding and discussed options, such as redirecting
funds from development and testing of defense technologies; dedicating at least a
minimum percentage of R&D funding for basic research in physical sciences; making
basic research funding an entitlement, not discretionary; increasing tax credits for
increased industrial support of academic basic research; establishing independent
consortia for basic research supported by both government and private resources;
creating a special class of Treasury bonds dedicated to basic research; or creating a
loan-guarantee program for third party bonds (issued by states, for example) to
finance basic research (pp. 29-31).
Among the legislative responses in the first session of the 109th Congress to the
various expert reports and recommendations were: outlining of a “Democratic
Innovation Agenda,” by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (to increase funding
for NSF and physical sciences research, and to create research centers of excellence);
introduction of the “National Innovation Act of 2005,” S. 2109, a bipartisan bill,
which would double NSF funding, create a Presidential Council on Innovation, and
encourage agencies to devote 3% of their R&D budgets to high-risk research
(associated bill H.R. 4654); introduction of a package of several innovation
enhancing bills, including Democratic leadership proposals, H.R. 4434 to increase
the number of U.S. mathematics and science teachers; H.R. 4435 to create an energy-
related Advanced Project Agency; and H.R. 4596 to increase basic research funding
and support high-risk, high-payoff research.
Arguments have been made to give more attention to education. 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. A 2006 National
Science Board report, America’s Pressing Challenge-Building A Stronger
Foundation
, published by the NSF in conjunction with release of the NSF’s Science
and Engineering Indicators, 2006
, called for a series of “drastic changes within the
Nation’s science and mathematics classrooms,” to avoid “... raising generations of
students and citizens who do not know how to think critically and make informed
decisions based on technical and scientific information.” 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.

CRS-7
During the second session of the 109th Congress, the President’s “American
Competitiveness Initiative” (ACI) emphasizes funding for basic physical sciences
and engineering research at NSF, NIST, and DOE’s Office of Science to enhance
U.S. innovative capacity and ability to compete internationally. (This is described
above in the section on the FY2007 budget.) ACI would also support additional
training in mathematics and science education at the pre-college level and training
for part-time science and math teachers.9 Several bills have been introduced in the
second session of the 109th Congress to address these issues, including the bipartisan-
supported “Protecting America’s Competitive Edge” (PACE) Acts; that is, S. 2197,
focusing on the DOE and creation of an Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy
(amended, with written report, Senate Rept. 109-249 on April 24, 2006) from the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; S. 2198, focusing on education,
on which hearings were held; and S. 2199 (regarding the R&D tax credit for
industry). The House Science Committee held hearings on March 9, 2006 regarding
the energy advanced research projects agency. Related bills are S. 2390, S. 2357,
H.R. 4845, and H.R. 5502. Democratic members of the House Science Committee
have critiqued the President’s proposals contending that additional programs warrant
funding.10 On June 7, 2006, the House Science Committee marked up H.R. 5358,
Science and Mathematics Education for Competitiveness Act; H.R. 5356, Early
Career Research Act; and H.R. 5357, Research for Competitiveness Act. H.R. 4734
and S. 3502 would give urgency to initiating education programs similar to national
defense education acts of the past, which focused on improving education to deal
with space and defense challenges posed by the former Soviet Union.
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 received priority, 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.11 They
maintain that funding should be increased for all R&D fields, and others cite the need
to allocate more federal funding to nonhealth R&D.
9 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33434, Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) Education Issues and Legislative Options
, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi,
Christine M. Matthews, and Bonnie F. Mangan.
10 House Science Committee, “Science, Competitiveness Shortchanged In Administration
Budget,” Minority Committee Office, Press Release, Feb. 15, 2006,
[http://sciencedems.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1042].
11 NSB, The Science and Engineering Workforce/Realizing American’s Potential, NSB-03-
69, 2003.


CRS-8
Figure 1. AAAS Data on Trends in Non-defense R&D Funding by
Function, FY1953-FY2007
AAAS granted CRS permission to use this figure.
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 FY2007 as requested, R&D funding in
constant dollars, will have increased at NIH by 103% compared to DOD, 65%; NSF,
48%; USDA, 6%; DOE, 11%; and NASA, 1%. R&D funding decreased in constant
dollars for EPA and the Departments of the Interior, Transportation, and Commerce.
For FY2007 as requested, it is estimated in terms of constant dollars that federally
funded health-related R&D, primarily at NIH, would receive over 54% of the federal
non-defense R&D budget. In terms of constant dollar funding by field, federal
obligations for life sciences increased from $13.4 billion in FY1994 to an estimated
$29.3 billion in FY2004, or about 119%, while at the same time, between those years
funding for physical sciences increased 7%; mathematics and computer sciences,
83%; and engineering, 40%. 12
The issue of whether the National Science Foundation should support social and
behavioral sciences research was addressed in the 1950s shortly after the agency was
established and also again in the 1980s during the first Reagan Administration.
Questions were raised about whether these fields were scientific and if support for
these topics would detract from support for chemistry, physical sciences, life sciences
and mathematics.13 NSF started to support the social sciences under its “permissive
12 Based on NSF data and AAAS data. See AAAS, “Guide to R&D Funding Data-Historical
Data,” at [http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm].)
13 For an overview of this history, see Chapter II of U.S. Congress, House, Committee on
Science and Technology, Research Policies for the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Science
(continued...)

CRS-9
authority” to support “other sciences” and, in 1968, was given explicit authority to
support these fields (P.L. 90-407), although some Members of Congress continued to
question this function in NSF. In September 2005, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison,
chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science and Space that has
authorizations jurisdiction for NSF, and a member of the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies that appropriates
funds for NSF, again questioned the propriety of NSF’s support for social sciences
research and recommended that NSF “focus firmly” on “the hard sciences,” —
biology, chemistry, and physics, and not direct additional resources to support social
sciences research.14 She reiterated her concerns in 2006, specifically raising questions
about the appropriateness of some specific NSF social sciences awards and about
whether the social sciences should benefit from the doubling in NSF’s research budget
proposed in President Bush’s ACI initiative or whether such doubling should be
limited to the other fields of science NSF supports.15 According to news reports, a
draft of S. 2802, the FY2007 NSF authorizations bill would have limited NSF’s
budget increase to support physical sciences research but subsequently after
amendment, a compromise was reached, which the full authorizations committee
reported on May 18, 2006. It included language which would not restrict NSF funding
for areas of research that the agency deems to be consistent with its mandate.16 Full
Senate action has not yet occurred.
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. 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 FY2003, although the budget has started to
decrease from FY2003 in terms of constant dollars.17 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.
13 (...continued)
Policy Study Background Report No. 6), Report prepared by the Congressional Research
Service, Library of Congress, transmitted to the Task Force on Science Policy. September
1986, 99th Congress, 2nd session.
1 4 “ E n s u r i n g a H e a l t h y F u t u r e A m e r i c a , ” S e p t . 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 ,
[http://hutchison.senate.gov/cchealthfuture.htm].
15 Jeffrey Mervis, “Senate Panel Chair Asks Why NSF Funds Social Sciences,” Science,
May 12, 2005, p. 829.
16 Jeffrey Mervis, “Senate Panel Backs Social Sciences at NSF,” Science, May 26, 2006, p.
1117.
17 For additional information, see the section on NIH by Pamela Smith, in CRS Report
RL33345, Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2007, by Michael E. Davey
(coordinator).

CRS-10
Professional Groups’ Views About Balance. Some professional groups
argue for increased federal health sciences funding18 and 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.19 In response to language in appropriations reports, in November 2004, the
NIH and NSF held a conference on “Research 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.20 The President’s Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released Assessing the U.S. R&D
Investment
, January 2003,21 that 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 Alliance for
Science and Technology Research in America supports increased R&D funding for
all fields.22
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&D) tax credit that provides credits for industrially
funded R&D support in industry and universities that expired on December 31,
2005.23 Some proposals are H.R. 1454, H.R. 1736, S. 14, S. 627, S. 2199, and S. 2720.
The credit is intended to spur innovative research that companies might not pursue
because of the lack of immediate market rewards. The Administration has sought to
have the credit made permanent. H.R. 4297, a tax reconciliation measure passed by
the House and amended and passed in the Senate, would have extended the credit
through the end of 2007. Conferees did not include language dealing with the tax
credit. However, it was reported in Congress Daily, that “ If pension conferees are
able to reach a deal [on H.R. 2830, the “Pension Security and Transparency Act of
2005”], there is already an understanding between the two chairmen that the
conference report will include one-year extensions of expiring tax provisions
including the research and development credit ....”24 There is analysis indicating that
if the credit were extended for a year and expanded, the cost to the Treasury could be
about $10 billion and that instead the credit should focus more on supporting basic
18 For instance, see Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, Federal
Funding for Biomedical and Related Life Sciences Research, FY2007
.
19 “Nobel Laureates and Corporate Leaders Urge Higher FY 2005 S&T Funding,” FYI, The
AIP Bulletin of Science Policy News,
No. 58, Apr. 25, 2003
20 Jeffrey Mervis, “What Can NIH Do for Physicists?,” Science, Nov. 26, 2004, p. 1463.
21 “PCAST Releases Report on U.S. R&D Investment,” CFR Weekly Wrapup, Feb. 14, 2003.
22 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.
23 See CRS Report RL31181, Research Tax Credit: Current Status, Legislative Proposals,
and Policy Issues
, by G. Guenther.
24 Martin Vaughan, “Taxes - Push On Pension Bill Could Leave Charity Reforms Behind,”
Congress Daily, June 12, 2006.

CRS-11
and applied research and less on product development which is claimed by some
companies under the credit.25 Legislative proposals containing tax incentives for
bioterror countermeasures research and manufacturing include S. 3, S. 975, S. 1873,
and S. 1880.26 Proposals to provide incentives for pharmaceutical research focusing
on liability protection and/or tax incentives include H.R. 417 and S. 95.
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).27 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 President’s FY2006 budget requested an R&D budget
increase of almost 3% that would go largely to facilities support. Appropriations
action increased NSF’s FY2006 R&D budget authority by about 1.6%, and up to the
level enacted for FY2004. The FY2007 request would increase NSF’s R&D budget
by 8.3% over the FY2006 level.
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. Because
the budget levels recommended in that report had not been attained, the National
Science Board released a final report in January 2006, 2020 Vision for the National
Science Foundation
(NSB 05-142), which identified four main investment principles,
attainment goals, and enabling strategies. Prominent among groups which in the past
recommended increased funding for NSF is the Coalition for National Science
Funding (CNSF), which represents many universities and professional science
associations.
Homeland Security R&D Funding. Homeland security R&D funding has
grown from about 2.5% of the FY2002 federal non-defense R&D budget to about
6.8% of the FY2007 request for non-defense R&D budget authority. See Table 1 for
trends based on data compiled by the American Association for the Advancement of
25 “Revisiting the R&D Credit,” National Journal’s Congress Daily, Jan. 26, 2006. AM
edition.
26 See Frank Gottron, CRS Report RS21507, Project BioShield.
27 The draft NSB report is at [http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2005/large_facilities
_draft.pdf].

CRS-12
Science (AAAS). Homeland security R&D funding is becoming an increasingly
significant issue in priority-setting discussions. OMB’s term “combating terrorism”
R&D includes homeland security R&D and overseas combating terrorism R&D.28 An
appendix to OMB’s FY2007 Analytical Perspectives budget request volume includes
data on homeland security funding, but these data do not clearly identify R&D
funding. The largest FY2007 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, USDA, EPA, NASA, DOE, and the DOC’s NIST.
P.L. 107-296, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, mandated DHS to coordinate
federal agency homeland security R&D programs. The law also consolidated some
federal homeland security R&D programs in DHS. DHS’s R&D funding has almost
quintupled since FY2002 but for FY2007, DHS R&D would be reduced about 10%
below the FY2006 budget, according to AAAS (which reports it corrected mistakes
in OMB’s data after examining DHS budget documents). DHS is emphasizing support
of development over research, with the result that basic and applied research in DHS
would be reduced by about 20% for FY2007.29
Table 1. Funding for Homeland Security R&D and R&D Facilities
(Budget authority dollars in millions)
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Agency
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Request
USDA
$175
$155
$40
$161
$105
$100
DOC
20
16
23
59
62
68
DOD
259
212
267
1,079
1,166
1,074
DOE
50
48
47
67
68
71
DHHS
177
1,653
1,724
1,795
1,899
2,014
(NIH)
(162)
(1,633)
(1,703)
(1,774)
(1,878)
(1,993)
DHS
266
737
1,028
1,240
1,281
1,149
DOT
106
7
3
2
3
1
EPA
95
70
52
33
52
92
NASA
73
73
88
89
93
83
NSF
229
271
321
326
329
371
All other
48
47
32
42
41
47
Total R&D
1,499
3,290
3,626
4,893
5,099
5,070
Total Non-
defense
1,240
3,078
3,359
3,814
3,933
3,996
HS R&D
Note: Data in italics are non-additive. Totals may not add due to rounding. Based on data in a table
entitled “Federal Homeland Security R&D by Agency,” prepared by AAAS, Feb. 21, 2006, available
at [http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/hs07p.pdf], a link found at “Guide to R&D Funding Data-R&D in the
FY2007 Budget,” [http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guify07.htm]. According to AAAS, the data are “...
28 For additional details, see CRS Report RS21270, Homeland Security Research and
Development Funding, Organization, and Oversight
; CRS Report RL32481, Homeland
Security Research and Development Funding and Activities in Federal Agencies: A
Preliminary Inventory
; and CRS Report RL32482, Federal Homeland Security Research
and Development Funding: Issues of Data Quality
, all by Genevieve J. Knezo.
29 AAAS, “DHS R&D Falls in 2007 Budget,” [http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/dhs07p.htm].

CRS-13
based on OMB data from OMB’s 2003 Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism and Budget of
the U.S. Government FY2007.
Figures [are] adjusted from OMB data by AAAS to include conduct
of R&D and R&D facilities, and revised estimates of DHS R&D. Figures do not include non-R&D
homeland security activities. DOD has expanded its reporting of homeland security spending
beginning in 2005. Funding for all years includes regular appropriations and emergency supplemental
appropriations.”
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, split
as it is among a number of committees and subcommittees, prevents examination of
the R&D budget as a whole. This means that R&D funding can serve particular local
or program interests, but 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
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 FY2007, includes less than half of
total federal R&D spending but also some non-R&D funding, such as education and
dissemination of information.30 Table 5-2 of Analytical Perspectives projects a
decrease in FS&T funding of about 1% from FY2006 to FY2007 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....”31
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
30 Section 5, FY2006 Budget, Analytical Perspectives.
31 “Bingaman: A Revitalized Science and Technology Policy Badly Needed,” Feb. 11, 2004,
Office of Sen. Bingaman.

CRS-14
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 FY2007 budget identified agency funding for two interagency R&D initiatives
whose reporting is required by statute, “Networking and Information Technology
R&D,” requested at $3.1 billion, a 2% decrease from the estimated FY2006 amount,
and “Climate Change Science Program,” requested at $1.7 billion, a level flat with the
FY2006 estimate. Another priority interagency initiative is for nanotechnology,
requested at $1.3 billion, a 2% decrease from the FY2006 amount. Other FY2007
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 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.32 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. Proponents
of “resurrecting” OTA or variants of it cite the need for better congressional support
for S&T analysis.33 The OTA is still authorized, but funds would have to be
32 Rebecca Spieler, “AAAS President Concerned About Imbalances in Nation’s R&D
Portfolio...,” Washington Fax, Feb. 21, 2001.
33 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
(continued...)

CRS-15
appropriated for it. The pros and cons of reviving OTA or re-creating a similar body
have been examined since its termination and several proposals were introduced
during the 107th Congress and 108th Congresses to address this issue.34 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. During the 109th Congress no legislative action has occurred on the topic of
re-creating an OTA-like agency. Issues under debate relating to restoring a technology
assessment capability have included questions about the need for assessments, funding
arrangements, the utility of GAO’s assessment reports, and options for institutional
arrangements, including conducting technology assessments simultaneously with
conducting R&D.35
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. The
Administration seeks to discourage earmarking, saying that it distorts agency R&D
priorities and seldom is an effective use of taxpayer funds. 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, and that
it generates R&D-generated industrial and economic growth in targeted regions.
OMB did not publish funding data on R&D earmarks in the FY2007 budget request,
although it had done so in the past. It reported that AAAS-accumulated data show that
$2.4 billion was appropriated for earmarked R&D for FY2006, an increase of 13%
over the estimate for FY2005. This would constitute 1.7% of total federal R&D
funding for FY2006.36 According to AAAS, FY2006 R&D earmarks were mainly for
projects in DOD, DOE, USDA, NASA, DOC (NIST), and DOT, in that order.
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,
33 (...continued)
Morgan and John M. Peha, Science and Technology Advice for Congress, Washington,
Resources for the Future, 2003, pp. 208-227.
34 For additional information, see CRS Report RS21586, Technology Assessment in
Congress: History and Legislative Options
, by Genevieve J. Knezo.
35 On this point, see Michael Rodemeyer, Daniel Sarewitz, and James Wilsdon, The Future
of Technology Assessment
, Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, Dec. 2005, non-
paginated.
36 Based on data in Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Earmarks, Research and
Development Funding in the President’s 2007 Budget,” Press release, [Feb. 2006]. See also
[http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/earm06c1.pdf].

CRS-16
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,
since FY2001, 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 it would expand its effort to base budget
decisions on program performance (OMB M-03-15). OMB referred to this
memorandum again in the FY2007 R&D budget guidance, which reiterated the
importance of performance assessment for R&D programs (Joint OMB/OSTP M-05-
18). According to Section 5 of Analytical Perspectives, FY2007, 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 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 102 R&D programs evaluated over the past four years
were used when making budget decisions. OMB’s Analytical Perspectives volume
reported that of these, at least 29 programs were effective and 41 were moderately
effective. 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, possibly 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.37 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, OMB sent Congress draft legislation to
authorize results commissions to evaluate programs and recommend restructuring or
termination of those deemed ineffective.38
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
37 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.
38 Available at [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0605/063005a1.htm]. See also CRS
Report RL32671 Federal Program Performance Review: Program Assessment and Results
Act and Other Developments
, by Virginia A. McMurtry.

CRS-17
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.”

CRS-18
Appendix Table. R&D in the Budget, by Agency, Based Largely on AAAS Data
(Budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007
% Change
House
FY06-FY11
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Apps.
Selected agencies & programs
actual
actual
actual
actual
actual
actual
estimate
request
Comm.
Current $ Constant $
Department of Agriculture total
$1,776
$2,181
$2,112
$2,334
$2,222
$2,410
$2,411
$2,012
$2,312
-20.2%
-28.2%
(Agr. Res. Service)

(1,012)
(1,234)
(1,294)
(1,165)
(1,310)
(1,288)
(1,027)
(1,216)


(CSREES)

(594)
(532)
(608)
(616)
(654)
(667)
(540)
(635)


(Forest Service)

(245)
(265)
(265)
(312)
(316)
(313)
(302)
(321)


Department of Commerce total
1,174
1,030
1,328
1,200
1,137
1,121
1,074
1,064
1,190
13.9
2.5
(NOAA)
(643)
(561)
(611)
(666)
(640)
(646)
(617)
(578)
(509)
(-10.0)
(-19.1)
(NIST)
(471)
(413)
(460)
(491)
(457)
(444)
(423)
(450)
(445)
(49.9)
(34.9)
(ATP) ((Within NIST))
(116)
(118)
(150)
(153)
((134))
((111))
((60))
((0))
((0))


Department of Defense Total
39,959
42,740
49,877
59,296
65,948
70,269
72,485
74,076
76,208
-1.7
-11.6
(S&T (6.1-6.3+ medical))
(8,632)
(9,365)
(10,337)
(11,186)
(12,377)
(13,564)
(13,778)
(11,214)
(13,688)


Department of Education
238
264
265
282
299
308
302
299
-5.1
-14.6
Department of Energy total
6,956
7,733
8,078
8,312
8,763
8,620
8,721
9,047
9,326
19.3
7.3
(Atomic/Defense)/(NNSA+Defense)
(3,201)
(3,462)
(3,855)
(4,049)
(4,198)
(4,009)
(4,062)
(3,975)
(4,057)
(5.9)
(-4.8)
(Energy & Science)
(3,755)
(4,271)
(4,224)
(4,263)
(4,565)
(4,611)
(4,659)
(5,072)
(5,269)


Dept. of HHS Total
18,182
21,045
23,696
27,411
28,521
29,161
29,111
29,062
28,997
-2.5
-12.3
(NIH)
(17,234)
(19,807)
(22,714)
(26,398)
(27,248)
(27,875)
(27,805)
(27,810)
(27,714)
(-2.3)
(-12.1)
Dept. of Homeland Security*


266
737
1,028
1,240
1,281
1,149
1,081
6.1
-4.6
Dept. of the Interior Total
618
621
641
643
627
621
635
595
631
-10.2
-19.2
(U.S. Geological Survey)

(566)
(583)
(550)
(553)
(546)
(559)
(532)
(595)


Dept. of Transportation Total
607
718
778
700
665
707
838
767
846
-9.5
-18.6
(FAA)
(220)
(301)
(359)
(271)
(248)
(263)
(310)
(235)
(305)


(FHA)
(261)
(294)
(275)
(291)
(332)
(304)
(380)
(397)
(397)


(NHTSA)
(51)
(58)
(59)
(61)
(7)
(61)
(58)
(61)
(55)



CRS-19
FY2007
% Change
House
FY06-FY11
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Apps.
Selected agencies & programs
actual
actual
actual
actual
actual
actual
estimate
request
Comm.
Current $ Constant $
Department of Veterans Affairs
645
719
756 819
866
742
765
765
790
-2.5
-12.3
Environmental Protection Agency
558
574
592
567
662
641
600
557
608
-8.2
-17.4
NASA Total
9,494
9,887
10,224
10,681
10,803
10,618
11,295
12,202
57.3
41.5
(Space Flight)
(3,014)
(2,901)
(2,461)
(3,613)






(Science, Aeronautics, Tech.)
(6,481)
(7,024)
(7,840)
(7,386)






(Other)**




(1,829)
(1,567)
(1,574)
(1,811)


(Science, Aeronautics,




(8,974)
(9,051)
(9,721)
(10,524)


Exploration)**
National Science Foundation
2,931
3,320
3,525
3,926
4,123
4,102
4,175
4,523
4,522
42.5
28.2
All other R&D
630
702
912
391
724
729
773
767
-1.7
-11.6
Total
83,769
91,534
102,899
117,439
126,389
131,289
134,465
136,885
5.5
-5.1
Non-Defense
40,609
45,332
49,167
54,552
56,046
56,648
57,565
58,496
14.6
3.1
Non-Defense Minus NIH
(23,374)
(25,525)
(26,453)
(28,243)
(28,798)
(28,773)
(29,760)
(30,686)


Defense/Energy Defense
43,160
46,202
53,731
62,887
70,344
74,641
76,900
78,388
-1.2
-11.2
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 “AAAS
Analysis of R&D in the FY2007 Budget — Revised (Part 2 of 2) — Tables,” Revised March 8, 2006, at [http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/prev07tb.htm]. 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 RL33345, Federal
Research and Development Funding: FY2007
, 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 began operations in FY2003. DHS figures include programs that were transferred from other agencies.
** Categories were changed after FY2003. Other includes largely space station exploration capability funding.