The National Science Foundation:
Background and Selected Policy Issues

Heather B. Gonzalez
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
June 5, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43585


The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

Summary
The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports both basic research and education in the non-
medical sciences and engineering. Congress established the foundation as an independent federal
agency in 1950 and directed it to “promote the progress of science; to advance the national health,
prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.” The NSF is a
primary source of federal support for U.S. university research, especially in certain fields such as
mathematics and computer science. It is also responsible for significant shares of the federal
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education program portfolio and
federal STEM student aid and support.
The NSF is an independent federal agency. Although governed by the budget and oversight
processes, NSF’s independent status has provided it with greater institutional autonomy than
some other federal agencies. Some analysts assert that autonomy protects NSF’s scientific
mission. However, it may also be perceived as existing in tension with other public values, such
as accountability. The tension between independence and accountability is an enduring policy
theme for the NSF. It is reflected in debates over the foundation’s authorization period and the
role (if any) of Congress in grant-making and research prioritization.
NSF is the second-largest source of federal funding for basic research. Since FY2007, increases
in the NSF budget have been driven by the doubling policy for physical sciences and engineering
(PS&E) research. The PS&E doubling policy sought to double funding for targeted accounts at
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy’s Office of
Science, and NSF (total). Although this policy was authorized and reauthorized in the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) and America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-
358), and was pursued by both the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations, actual
appropriations have not met authorized levels in most fiscal years. (Funding increased, just not to
authorized levels.) PS&E doubling provisions expired in FY2013. President Obama did not seek
funding for a PS&E doubling in FY2014 or FY2015. Bills to reauthorize NSF and other targeted
accounts in the 113th Congress (specifically, H.R. 4186 and H.R. 4159) would authorize funding
for some or all of the targeted accounts at growth rates that are below the paces set by the
COMPETES acts.
In addition to its research responsibilities, NSF is the only federal agency whose primary mission
includes education across all fields of science and engineering. (In this respect, NSF has a dual
mission: research and education.) Funding for STEM education activities at NSF typically
constitutes about a third of the total federal STEM education effort. Key questions for the 113th
Congress focus on the Obama Administration’s overall effort to reorganize the federal STEM
education effort and the consequences of those changes for STEM education programs at NSF;
the direction of the overarching federal STEM education strategy and NSF’s role therein; as well
as funding for STEM education at the foundation, as a percentage of total NSF appropriations.
NSF received $7.172 billion in funding (estimated) in FY2014. Typically, about 80% of the NSF
budget supports the main research account, 12% supports the main education account, 3% to 5%
supports facilities and construction, and the remainder supports administrative and related
activities. Since FY2006, NSF appropriations have usually been included in annual Commerce,
Justice, Science and Related Agencies appropriations acts. Major NSF authorizations expired in
FY2013. At least two bills to reauthorize the foundation have been introduced in the 113th
Congress (H.R. 4186 and H.R. 4159).
Congressional Research Service

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Structural Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 1
Leadership and Staff ........................................................................................................................ 2
Mission Activities ............................................................................................................................ 4
Grant-Making .................................................................................................................................. 9
Scientific Facilities, Instruments, and Equipment ......................................................................... 11
Major Constituencies ..................................................................................................................... 12
Selected Authorizations ................................................................................................................. 13
Legislative Origin .................................................................................................................... 13
America COMPETES ............................................................................................................. 17
Reauthorization Activity in the 113th Congress ....................................................................... 22
Budget and Appropriations ............................................................................................................ 22
FY2015 .................................................................................................................................... 22
FY2014 .................................................................................................................................... 23
FY2013 .................................................................................................................................... 24
Concluding Observations ............................................................................................................... 24

Figures
Figure 1. Distribution of Funding for NSF Mission Activities ........................................................ 5

Tables
Table 1. NSF Appropriations by Decade: FY1951 to FY2010 ...................................................... 19
Table A-1. Selected NSF Authorizations Acts ............................................................................... 26
Table B-1. NSF Authorizations, Budget Requests, and Appropriations ........................................ 27
Table B-2. NSF Obligations by Major Account: FY2003-FY2013 ............................................... 29

Appendixes
Appendix A. NSF Authorizations Acts .......................................................................................... 26
Appendix B. NSF Funding History ............................................................................................... 27

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 30

Congressional Research Service

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

Introduction
The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports both basic research and education in the non-
medical sciences and engineering. Congress established the foundation as an independent federal
agency in 1950 and directed it to “promote the progress of science; to advance the national health,
prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.”1 The NSF is a
primary source of federal support for U.S. university research, especially in certain fields such as
mathematics and computer science. It is also responsible for significant shares of the federal
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education program portfolio and
federal STEM student aid and support.
This report includes information about the NSF for readers seeking an introduction to the
foundation and its work. It is intended to provide background and institutional context for
ongoing congressional consideration of NSF policy and fiscal issues.
Structural Characteristics
Certain NSF structural characteristics set the foundation apart from other federal agencies and
strongly influence its relationship with
Congress. In particular, inventories of various
A Central Tension
federal agencies classify the NSF as an
In varying ways and to varying degrees, Congress has
“independent agency.” Two of the
grappled with the tension between scientific
characteristics that contribute to this
independence and public accountability at the NSF since
classification include NSF’s position within
the foundation was established in 1950. (See section on
“Legislative Origin.”) This tension has remained a central
the executive branch—it is freestanding, not
policy theme for the NSF throughout its history. It is
within an executive department—and its
embedded in the very nature of the NSF as a federal
leadership arrangement.2 The NSF (unlike
entity and it underpins a wide variety of NSF policy
many other federal agencies) is governed by a
debates—such as the debate about the length of
24-member board and a director, each of
foundation authorization periods (three years? five years?
one?) and the debate about the NSF’s grant-making
whom are appointed by the President to fixed,
process and merit-review criteria, which Congress has
six-year terms.3 Further, the foundation’s
sought to influence on a number of occasions. Some
organic act specifically establishes it as an
policy makers assert that the foundation can best
“independent agency.”4 This independence,
accomplish its scientific purposes if free from undue
however, is not absolute. For example, the
political influence, while others seek to ensure
accountability in the expenditure of public funds. Each
NSF’s authorizing statute expressly references
Congress has the opportunity to revisit this tension and
the President’s authority to remove the
to redefine the relationship between the NSF and
director. Further, both Congress and the
Congress.
President retain the power to govern the NSF

1 P.L. 81-507.
2 See David E. Lewis and Jennifer L. Selin, Sourcebook of United States Executive Agencies, 1st ed. (Washington, DC:
Administrative Conference of the United States, March 2013), p. 54; J. Merton England, “National Science
Foundation,” in Government Agencies, ed. Donald R. Whitnah (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1983), pp. 367-372;
and Harold Seidman, “A Typology of Government,” in Federal Reorganization: What Have We Learned, ed. Peter
Szanton (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, Inc. 1981), pp. 43-44.
3 The NSF director must also be confirmed by the Senate.
4 42 U.S.C. 1861, §2.
Congressional Research Service
1

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

through the budget, appropriations, and oversight processes.
Policy makers express a variety of rationales for establishing independent agencies, including the
belief that independence will facilitate better decision-making (particularly with respect to
complex, ostensibly apolitical technical issues) or the desire to free agencies from the control and
direction of the executive.5 In the NSF’s case, one NSF historian has observed, “Although the
director was subject to removal by the President, his six-year statutory term, like that of the board
members, showed a desire to insulate the agency from politics [emphasis added].”6 Some analysts
find trade-offs to agency independence though, noting that (in general), “autonomy can be a
means of helping [agencies] accomplish democratic purposes … however, [it] also shields them
from direct accountability.”7 As a practical matter, legislators seeking to apply various federal
assets toward specific national goals may find both benefits and barriers in the foundation’s status
as an independent agency.
Leadership and Staff
Consistent with the foundation’s purposes, NSF leadership and staff include highly trained
scientists and engineers from across the United States. More than half of NSF employees have
earned at least a master’s degree, over a quarter have a doctorate, and about 15% have completed
post-doctorate education. In FY2012, about three-quarters of NSF staff held permanent
appointments and about a quarter held non-permanent positions.
Leadership. The National Science Foundation is governed jointly by the NSF director and the 24-
person National Science Board (NSB).8 The director oversees the day-to-day activities of the
foundation, including staff and management, program creation and administration, grant-making
and merit review, planning, budget, and operations.9 The board identifies issues critical to NSF’s
future, approves the foundation’s strategic budget direction, approves annual budget submissions
to the Office of Management and Budget, ensures balance between initiatives and core programs,
and approves new major programs and awards.10 The board also serves as an independent body of
advisors to Congress and the President. NSF’s director is an ex officio member of the board. NSB
members typically come from industry and academia and represent a variety of STEM

5 For more information about independent agencies—including rationales for, historical origin of, and accountability
in—see the section titled, “Background and Context” in CRS Report R43391, Independence of Federal Financial
Regulators
, by Henry B. Hogue, Marc Labonte, and Baird Webel.
6 England, p. 367.
7 Lewis and Selin, p. 59.
8 More information about NSF leadership and staff may be found in Stephen Horn (panel chair), et al., National Science
Foundation: Governance and Management for the Future
, National Academy of Public Administration, April 2004, p.
xv, at http://www.napawash.org/2004/1539-national-science-foundation-governance-and-management-for-the-
future.html.
9 National Science Foundation, “About the National Science Foundation: Who We Are,” National Science Foundation
Website, accessed February 7, 2014, at http://www.nsf.gov/about/who.jsp.
10 National Science Board, “About the NSB,” National Science Board Website, accessed February 7, 2014,
http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/about/; and National Science Foundation, “Introduction,” Proposal and Award Policies and
Procedures Guide
(NSF 13-1), January 13, 2013, at http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/
index.jsp. See also, the section titled “Grant-Making” in this report.
Congressional Research Service
2

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

disciplines.11 Historically, most NSF directors have come from the fields of physics or
engineering.12
Appointment and Terms of Office. The President appoints the NSF director with the advice and
consent of the Senate. The President also appoints the members of the National Science Board.
(In 2012 Congress enacted legislation removing Senate confirmation requirements for the
members of the NSB.)13 Both the NSF director and members of the National Science Board serve
six-year terms. NSB terms are staggered such that one-third of the board is appointed every two
years.
Deputy Director. 42 U.S.C. 1864a provides statutory authority for the NSF-wide deputy director
and provides the deputy director with the power to act as NSF director in the event of a vacancy,
disability, or absence. The deputy director also performs other duties as determined by the
director.14 Since the mid-1990s the deputy director has served as NSF’s Chief Operating Officer.
The President appoints the NSF deputy director with the advice and consent of the Senate. The
position includes no statutorily prescribed term of office.
Assistant Directors. The leaders of NSF’s directorates carry the title “assistant director.” The
assistant director position is not currently statutorily authorized, but it has been in the past. In
FY2014, there were eight assistant directors. Assistant director duties vary by directorate and in
some cases have changed over the years. In general, assistant directors lead directorate programs
and initiatives and are responsible for planning and implementing programs, priorities, and
policies. Assistant directors are often non-permanent staff. In previous years, this position
required presidential appointment and Senate confirmation.
Division Directors. Division directors are responsible for long-range planning and budgetary
stewardship within their research areas. They also oversee the grant-making process and, in many
cases, make the final programmatic decision to approve (or decline) awards to NSF grant-seekers.
Program Directors. Program directors are subject matter experts. They conduct the scientific,
technical, and programmatic review and evaluation of proposals, including peer reviewer
recruitment and management of the proposal review process. They manage program budgets and
provide award oversight. Program directors make funding recommendations to division directors.
Rotators. The NSF workforce is made up of permanent, temporary, and “rotating” staff. Unlike
permanent and temporary staff, most rotating staff are hired under the authority of the
Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (IPA, P.L. 91-648) and are not considered federal
employees. IPA rotators typically come from institutions of higher education, but they may come
from other organizations as well (e.g., state and local government, Indian tribal government, non-
profit entities). IPA rotators retain ties to their home institutions—including pay and benefits—
and may serve the NSF for no more than four years. Unlike its practices for permanent and
temporary staff, NSF uses program funds to provide salary reimbursement, living expenses, and

11 Board members must be “eminent in the fields of the basic, medical, or social sciences, engineering, agriculture,
education, research management or public affairs….” (42 U.S.C. 1863(c)(1)).
12 National Science Foundation, “List of NSF Directors, 1950-Present,” National Science Foundation Website,
accessed February 7, 2013, at http://www.nsf.gov/od/nsf-director-list/nsf-directors.jsp.
13 Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-166, §2 (s)).
14 A list of NSF deputy directors is available at http://www.nsf.gov/od/nsf-director-list/nsf-deputys.jsp.
Congressional Research Service
3

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

travel expenses for IPA rotators. Overall, IPA rotators comprised 12% of NSF’s total workforce in
August 2012. Further, of the 512 program directors at NSF in FY2012, 262 (51%) were
permanent employees, 172 (34%) were IPA rotators, 39 (8%) were temporary employees, and 39
(8%) were visiting scholars.
NSF Rotators: Pros and Cons
Policy analysts debate NSF’s use of rotators.15 NSF asserts that rotators bring fresh, cutting-edge insight to foundation
programs and that rotators increase knowledge transfer between the research community and the foundation. A
2004 National Academy of Public Administration panel largely substantiated these claims.16 But NSF’s Inspector
General notes that IPA rotators are more expensive than federal employees and contends that NSF could enhance
oversight and management of its rotator programs.17
Mission Activities
NSF’s dual mission is to support basic research18 and education in the non-medical sciences and
engineering. NSF is the second-largest source of federal funding for basic research, and a top
three source of federal funding for research in the fields of environmental sciences, life sciences,
mathematics and computer sciences, physical sciences, social sciences, and other sciences.19
Funding for STEM education activities at NSF typically constitutes about a third of the total
federal STEM education effort.
The foundation currently divides its mission activities among seven directorates, which are
mainly organized by academic discipline.20 Until FY2013, the largest directorate (measured by
budget authority) was Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS, $1.312 billion in FY2011
actual) and the smallest was Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE, $247.3 billion in

15 For example, see Jeffrey Mervis, “Special Report: Can NSF Put the Right Spin on Rotators? Part 1,” Science Insider,
October 10, 2013, http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2013/10/special-report-can-nsf-put-right-spin-rotators-part-1; and
Jeffrey Mervis, “Special Report: Can NSF Put the Right Spin on Rotators? Part 2,” Science Insider, October 24, 2013,
at http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2013/10/special-report-can-nsf-put-right-spin-rotators-part-2.
16 Stephen Horn (panel chair), et al., National Science Foundation: Governance and Management for the Future,
National Academy of Public Administration, April 2004, p. xv, at http://www.napawash.org/2004/1539-national-
science-foundation-governance-and-management-for-the-future.html.
17 Memorandum from Assistant Inspector General for Audit Dr. Brett M. Baker, National Science Foundation, Office
of Inspector General to Deputy Director Dr. Cora B. Marrett, National Science Foundation, dated March 20, 2013, at
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/13-2-006.pdf.
18 OMB Circular A-11, Schedule C, defines basic research as “systematic study directed toward fuller knowledge or
understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications towards
processes or products in mind. Basic research, however, may include activities with broad applications in mind.” Basic
research differs from applied research, which is “systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to
determine the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met;” and from development, which is the
“systematic application of knowledge or understanding, directed toward the production of useful materials, devices,
and systems or methods, including design, development, and improvement of prototypes and new processes to meet
specific requirements.” See, Office of Management and Budget, “Character Classification (Schedule C),” OMB
Circular A-11
(2013), at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/a11_current_year/s84.pdf.
19 Based on preliminary FY2012 data from Tables 29 and 22 of the National Science Foundation, National Center for
Science and Engineering Statistics, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2010-12, NSF 13-326
(July 2013).
20 NSF’s organizational chart is available at http://www.nsf.gov/staff/orglist.jsp. In addition to the research and
education directorates, NSF also has two administrative offices: the Office of Budget, Finance, & Award Management
and the Office of Information & Resource Management.
Congressional Research Service
4


The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

FY2011 actual). NSF adjusted its organization chart in FY2013, placing some previously free-
standing offices into existing directorates. As a result of these changes, the Directorate for
Geosciences became the largest directorate at NSF. SBE remained the smallest. (See Figure 1.)
Figure 1. Distribution of Funding for NSF Mission Activities
FY2013 Actual, by Directorate

Source: Congressional Research Service, based on FY2013 actual funding levels reported in NSF’s FY2015
Budget Request to Congress
, available at http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2015/toc.jsp.
Notes: The term “SBE” refers to the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences; “BIO” refers to
the Directorate for Biological Sciences; “CISE” refers to the Directorate for Computer and Information Science
and Engineering; “EHR” refers to the Directorate for Education and Human Resources; “ENG” refers to the
Directorate for Engineering; “GEO” refers to the Directorate for Geosciences; and “MPS” refers to the
Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences.
NSF directorates are divided into divisions—with between four and six divisions per directorate,
typically—that manage programs. The main appropriations account for all but one directorate is
NSF’s Research and Related Activities (RRA) account. The Directorate for Education and Human
Resources is the exception to this rule; its main source of appropriations is the Education and
Human Resources (EHR) account. Many NSF programs or projects are co-funded (i.e., they
receive funding from two or more foundation accounts) or involve coordination and cooperation
between programs and disciplines.
Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO). BIO’s mission “is to enable discoveries for
understanding life. BIO-supported research advances the frontiers of biological knowledge,
increases our understanding of complex systems, and provides a theoretical basis for original
research in many other scientific disciplines.”21 BIO divisions include Molecular and Cellular

21 National Science Foundation, Directorate for Biological Sciences, “About Biological Sciences,” National Science
Foundation Website
, accessed February 11, 2014, at http://www.nsf.gov/bio/about.jsp. See also, National Science
Foundation, Understanding Life: Biological Sciences, NSF 14-804 (March 2014), at https://www.nsf.gov/about/
congress/reports/bio_research.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

Biosciences; Integrative Organismal Systems; Environmental Biology, Biological Infrastructure;
and Emerging Frontiers. In FY2013, BIO received $679 million in funding (actual).
Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE). CISE “supports
investigator-initiated research in all areas of computer and information science and engineering,
fosters broad interdisciplinary collaboration, helps develop and maintain cutting-edge national
computing and information infrastructure for research and education, and contributes to the
development of a computer and information technology workforce with skills essential for
success in the increasingly competitive global market.”22 CISE divisions include Advanced
Cyberinfrastructure, Computing and Communication Foundations, Computer and Network
Systems, Information and Intelligent Systems, and Information Technology Research. FY2013
actual funding for CISE was $858 million.
Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR). EHR seeks to “achieve excellence in
U.S. science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education at all levels and in all
settings (both formal and informal) in order to support the development of a diverse and well-
prepared workforce of scientists, technicians, engineers, mathematicians and educators and a
well-informed citizenry that have access to the ideas and tools of science and engineering.”23
EHR has four divisions: Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings, Graduate
Education, Human Resource Development, and Undergraduate Education. FY2013 actual
funding for EHR was $835 million.
Directorate for Engineering (ENG). ENG “investments in engineering research and education
aim to build and strengthen a national capacity for innovation that can lead over time to the
creation of new shared wealth and a better quality of life.”24 ENG divisions include Chemical,
Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems; Civil, Mechanical, and Manufacturing
Innovation; Electrical, Communications, and Cyber Systems; Engineering Education and Centers;
Industrial Innovation and Partnerships; and Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation.
FY2013 actual funding for ENG was $820 million.
Directorate for Geosciences (GEO). GEO’s mission is “to support research in the atmospheric,
earth, and ocean sciences.”25 GEO divisions include Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, Earth
Sciences, Integrative and Collaborative Education and Research, Ocean Sciences, and Polar
Programs. FY2013 actual funding for GEO was $1.250 billion.

22 National Science Foundation, Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering, “CISE—About,”
National Science Foundation Website, accessed February 11, 2014, at http://www.nsf.gov/cise/about.jsp. See also,
National Science Foundation, Enhancing Our Lives through Computing: Computer & Information Science &
Engineering
, NSF 14-807 (February 2014), at https://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/reports/cise_research.pdf.
23 National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, “About Education and Human
Resources,” National Science Foundation Website, accessed February 11, 2014, at http://www.nsf.gov/ehr/about.jsp.
See also, National Science Foundation, Inspiring STEM Learning: Education & Human Resources, NSF 12-800
(September 2013), at https://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/reports/ehr_research.pdf.
24 National Science Foundation, Directorate for Engineering, “General Information about ENG,” National Science
Foundation Website
, accessed March 25, 2014, at http://www.nsf.gov/eng/about.jsp. See also, National Science
Foundation, Making Future Technologies Possible: Engineering, NSF14-808 (April 2014), at https://www.nsf.gov/
about/congress/reports/eng_research.pdf.
25 National Science Foundation, Directorate for Geosciences, “About GEO,” National Science Foundation Website,
accessed February 11, 2014, at http://www.nsf.gov/geo/about.jsp. See also, National Science Foundation, Unraveling
Earth’s Complexity: Geoscience
s, NSF 13-801 (September 2013), at https://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/reports/
geo_research.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS). MPS’s mission is to “harness the
collective efforts of the mathematical and physical sciences communities to address the most
compelling scientific questions, educate the future advanced high-tech workforce, and promote
discoveries to meet the needs of the Nation.”26 MPS divisions include Astronomical Sciences,
Chemistry, Materials Research, Mathematical Sciences, and Physics. FY2013 actual funding for
MPS was $1.274 billion.
Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE). SBE’s mission is “to promote
the understanding of people and their lives by supporting research that reveals basic facets of
human behavior; to encourage research that addresses important societal questions and problems;
to work with other scientific disciplines to ensure that basic research and solutions to problems
build upon the best multidisciplinary science; and to provide mission-critical statistical
information about science and engineering (S&E) in the U.S. and the world through the National
Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES).”27 In addition to the NCSES, SBE
divisions include Social and Economic Sciences, as well as Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences.
FY2013 actual funding for SBE was $243 million.






26 National Science Foundation, Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, “About Directorate for
Mathematical and Physical Sciences,” National Science Foundation Website, accessed February 11, 2014, at
http://www.nsf.gov/mps/about.jsp. See also, National Science Foundation, Enriching the Language of Discovery:
Mathematical & Physical Sciences
, NSF 14-805 (March 2014), https://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/reports/
mps_research.pdf.
27 National Science Foundation, FY2015 Budget Request to Congress, March 10, 2014, p. SBE-1. See also, National
Science Foundation, Exploring What Makes Us Human: Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences, NSF 14-803 (March
2014), at https://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/reports/sbe_research_2.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
7

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

Funding for Social Science?
Congress has grappled with the question of funding for the social sciences since NSF was established. The debate
general y centers on the question of public benefit. Those who seek to reduce funding for research in the social,
behavioral, and economic (SBE) sciences typically assert that federal dollars should focus on fields perceived to be
more closely associated with national security, health, or economic interests, such as the physical and life sciences.
Some opponents also question certain NSF SBE grants—such as the “study of human-set forest fires 2,000 years ago
in New Zealand”—which may be perceived as frivolous or wasteful.28 Supporters, on the other hand, typical y dispute
the notion that SBE research does not serve the national interest, citing research that is perceived to provide broad
public benefit, such as research to improve disaster response, facilitate kidney matching between donors and patients,
and research that informs innovation.29 Supporters maintain that SBE grants can yield critical innovations (though they
may appear frivolous) or assert that NSF’s peer-review process assures that only meritorious proposals are funded.
The floor debate over H.Amdt. 734—which amended H.R. 4660 (Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, FY2015) to reduce funding for NSF’s SBE directorate by $15.4 million and to redirect the funds
to physical sciences and engineering—offers an example of this policy debate in the 113th Congress.30 Similar debates
have occurred in the context of deliberations over H.R. 4186 (Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science, and
Technology Act of 2014), which (among other things) seeks to prioritize funding for physical sciences and engineering
research at the NSF. H.R. 4186 was reported favorably from the House Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology on May 28, 2014.
Legislators have also focused more narrowly on the specific question of funding for NSF’s Political Science program,
which is part of SBE. Some legislators assert that political science research is extraneous to NSF’s central mission and
a waste of federal dollars.31 Legislators who hold this view introduced several provisions limiting funding for political
science at NSF in the 112th and 113th Congresses. Most of these provisions have not been enacted. However, one
provision limiting funding for NSF’s Political Science program in FY2013 (Section 543 of P.L. 113-6, Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013) became law.32
Some of those who objected to Section 543 asserted that it threatened NSF’s independence and therefore the
integrity of the research the foundation supports.33 They also contended that Section 543 put the decision about what
research to fund in the hands of Congress rather than in the hands of the scientists who lead and manage NSF (and
who are, they argue, better able to judge the intellectual merit of various research proposals). Similar provisions
limiting funding for political science were not enacted in FY2014. Average annual funding for NSF’s Political Science
program is typically in the $9 million to $10 million range.

28 Rep. Lamar Smith, “Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015,” remarks in the
House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 160 (May 29, 2014), pp. H4958.
29 National Science Foundation, Bringing People into Focus: How Social, Behavioral and Economic Research
Addresses National Challenges
, at https://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/reports/sbe_research.pdf. See also, Jameson M.
Wetmore, “The Value of the Social Sciences for Maximizing Public Benefits of Engineering,” The Bridge: Linking
Engineering and Society
, vol. 42, no. 3 (Fall 2012), p. 41.
30 Smith, ibid., pp. H4957-H4960.
31 For example, see Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D., “Dr. Coburn Offers Amendments to 587-Page, $1 Trillion Continuing
Resolution to Fund the Government,” press release, March 13, 2103, at http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm/rightnow?ContentRecord_id=1167a7ba-31a0-4873-b5c9-a2acd77eb72b.
32 As adopted, Section 543 prohibited NSF from using FY2013 appropriations to carry out the functions of the Political
Science Program, except for projects that promote U.S. national security and economic interests. Section 543 further
required the NSF to certify that political science projects met this requirement, to publish the reason for each
certification on its website, and allowed NSF to use any unobligated balances from the Political Science Program for
other research.
33 For example, see American Political Science Association, “Senate Delivers a Devastating Blow to the Integrity of the
Scientific Process at the National Science Foundation,” press release, March 20, 2013, at http://www.prnewswire.com/
news-releases/senate-delivers-a-devastating-blow-to-the-integrity-of-the-scientific-process-at-the-national-science-
foundation-199221111.html.
Congressional Research Service
8

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

Grant-Making
Because most NSF funding is distributed to researchers and institutions outside of the foundation,
grant-making is (arguably) the heart of what NSF does.34 Grants can be either standard (i.e., full
funding up-front) or continuing (i.e., incremental funding on a multi-year basis). NSF receives
approximately 50,000 grant proposals annually.35 Of these, between 20% and 25% typically
receive funding. About 36,500 scientists and engineers participated in the merit review process as
panelists and proposal reviewers in FY2013.
The vast majority of NSF grants are awarded through a competitive, merit-based assessment
process.36 The peer review stage of this process—in which external “peer” reviewers with subject
matter expertise assess the merits of each grant proposal—is both widely lauded and closely
watched by policy analysts. Although peer review is perhaps the most well-known stage of NSF’s
grant-making process, peer review does not encompass the whole of the assessment process.
Rather, the typical grant-making process for most NSF awards follows three phases.
• Phase 1: opportunity announced, proposals submitted, proposals received.37
• Phase 2: reviewers selected, peer review, program officer recommendation,
division director review.38
• Phase 3: business review, award finalized.39
Put differently, most NSF proposals must survive at least five kinds of scrutiny. First, the initial
assessment is for application completeness and conformance with NSF requirements. Second, if a
proposal survives the initial assessment, then it is sent to three or more external subject matter
experts for peer review.40 Peer reviewers evaluate the proposal according to two broad criteria:
intellectual merit and broader impacts.41 According to the NSF,
“Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance
knowledge; and

34 NSF’s Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) describes the foundation’s grant-making
process and provides guidance to potential applicants.
35 PAPPG, “Introduction.”
36 One exception to this rule is the RAPID (Grants for Rapid Response Research) funding mechanism. RAPID grants
may be used for “proposals having a severe urgency with regard to availability of, or access to data, facilities or
specialized equipment, including quick-response research on natural or anthropogenic disasters and similar
unanticipated events.” Only internal merit review is required for RAPID grants. PAPPG, p. II-22.
37 More information on the proposal preparation and submission phase is available at http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/
policy/merit_review/phase1.jsp.
38 More information on the proposal review and processing phase is available at http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/
merit_review/phase2.jsp.
39 More information on the award processing phase is available at http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/
phase3.jsp.
40 Peer review can happen in a number of ways. Reviewers may be sought out on an individual basis (also known as ad
hoc review) or may participate in in-person or virtual panels. While a minimum of three reviewers is required, more
may participate.
41 In addition to these criteria, NSF solicitations may include additional criteria that meet the specific objectives of
programs or activities.
Congressional Research Service
9

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society
and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.”42
Peer reviewers provide information about the merit of the proposal to the program director, who
(third) considers the proposal in the context of the broader program portfolio and direction.
Program directors are not bound by the recommendations of peer reviewers. Rather, the program
director
reviews the proposal and analyzes the input received from the external reviewers. In addition
to the external reviews, Program [Directors] consider several factors in developing a
portfolio of funded projects. For example, these factors might include different approaches to
significant research and education questions; potential (with perhaps high risk) for
transformational advances in a field; capacity building in a new and promising research area;
or achievement of special program objectives. In addition, decisions on a given proposal are
made considering both other current proposals and previously funded projects.43
Fourth, after the portfolio assessment, the program director submits his or her award
recommendation to the division director, who examines the recommendations and typically
makes the final programmatic decision to fund (or not).
Fifth, if the proposal survives programmatic review (including initial, peer, program, and
division), it is sent to the Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management (BFA). Analysts
within the BFA conduct an assessment of the business, financial, and policy implications, and, if
called for, issue the grant.
In addition, larger or “sensitive” awards may require further layers of review beyond those
already described, including review by NSF senior management or the National Science Board.44
This rule applies to all Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) projects.
NSB also establishes average annual award amounts (for each directorate or office) that trigger
NSB review and approval requirements. Trigger amounts differ by directorate and ranged from
$6.88 million (BIO) to $12.66 million (GEO) in FY2014.45
Besides grants, NSF also awards funding though other mechanisms, such as cooperative
agreements, contracts, and competitions. In FY2013, NSF distributed 73% of its funding via
grants, 22% by cooperative agreement, and 5% by contract.46

42 More information about NSF’s merit review process and criteria is available at the NSF Merit Review FAQ
webpage, available at http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/facts.jsp; and in “Chapter III” of the PAPPG,
available at http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_3.jsp#IIIA2a.
43 National Science Foundation, “Phase II: Proposal Review and Processing,” National Science Foundation Website,
accessed February 11, 2014, http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/phase2.jsp.
44 The National Science Board resolution, “Delegation of Award-Approval Authority to the Director,” (NSB-11-2)
establishes the conditions under which the NSB delegates its authority to approve NSF awards to the NSF director.
Section (2)(B) states that the director may not make an award that “involves sensitive political or policy issues” without
Board approval.
45 The NSB Delegation of Award-Approval Authority to the Director” (Ibid. Section (1)) states that the NSF director
“may make no award involving an anticipated average annual amount of the greater of either 1 percent of more of the
awarding Directorate’s or Office’s prior year current plan or [emphasis original] 0.1 percent or more of the prior year
total NSF budget without the prior approval of the National Science Board.”
46 Contracts are used to acquire products, services, and studies (e.g., program evaluations).
Congressional Research Service
10

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

The Geography of Grants
University research is widely believed to contribute to state and regional economic development. As such, many
policy makers seek to increase research funding for their local col eges and universities. However, of the over 900
institutions reporting at least $150,000 in R&D in FY2012, the top 100 accounted for 79% of total academic science
and engineering R&D. This trend has held constant for at least two decades. In response, some policy makers have
sought mechanisms to reduce concentration in the geographic distribution of federal research grants, which make up
a large portion of academic R&D.47
To this end, Congress established the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) at NSF in
1978.48 EPSCoR is NSF’s only state-based program. It is designed to strengthen the research capacity of institutions
located within “EPSCoR Jurisdictions”—that is, those states that have historically received limited federal R&D
funding—so that they are able to compete more successful y for federal R&D funding. Since the NSF EPSCoR
program was established at least five other federal agencies have launched EPSCoR programs. The 2014 EPSCoR
Jurisdiction map from the EPSCoR Interagency Coordinating Committee, which NSF staffs and chairs, includes
between 23 and 31 eligible U.S. states and territories (depending on the agency).49
At the beginning of the EPSCoR program, some questioned the length of time required for a state to improve its
research infrastructure.50 A five-year limit was proposed, but that proved to be “... unrealistic, both substantively and
politically.”51 Questions remain concerning the length of time states should receive EPSCoR support. Some analysts
assert that some states and their institutions should assume more responsibility for building their research
infrastructure and become less dependent on EPSCoR funds. They argue that some researchers and states have
become comfortable with EPSCoR funding and are not being aggressive in graduating from the program. In three
decades no state has graduated from NSF’s EPSCoR program. The issue of graduation has generated considerable
congressional interest. In 2013, The National Academies published a study of federal EPSCoR programs, including
findings and recommendations related to graduation and other program aspects.52
Scientific Facilities, Instruments, and Equipment
NSF does not typically directly operate laboratories or scientific facilities. However, the
foundation provides operations and maintenance support to a wide array of scientific facilities,
instruments, and equipment. NSF funding supports the National Center for Atmospheric
Research, polar facilities and logistics, and the academic research fleet. More information about
NSF support for scientific facilities, instruments, and equipment is typically found in the
“Facilities” sections of NSF’s annual budget requests to Congress.

47 “Total academic R&D” includes funding from all sources. However, “the federal government provided the majority
of the S&E R&D funds that public and private institutions spent on R&D in FY 2012 (just under 60% and just over
70%, respectively).” National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2014, NSB-14-01 (Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation, 2014), p. 5-16 – 5-17.
48 Initial funding for EPSCoR was provided in P.L. 95-392 (Department of Housing and Urban Development-
Independent Agencies Appropriation Act, 1979). More information about EPSCoR is available at http://www.nsf.gov/
div/index.jsp?org=EPSC.
49 National Science Foundation, EPSCoR Interagency Coordinating Committee, “Eligible EPSCoR Jurisdictions by
Agency,” fact sheet, last updated May 17, 2012, at http://www.nsf.gov/od/iia/programs/epscor/EICC.pdf.
50 This paragraph adapted from CRS Report RL30930, U.S. National Science Foundation: Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)
, by Christine M. Matthews (retired).
51 Lambright, W. Henry, Syracuse University, Paper prepared for the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, Workshop on Academic Research Competitiveness, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, Building State Science: The
EPSCoR Experience
, October 1-3, 1999, at http://www.aaas.org/spp/rcp/epscor/lambright.htm, p.4.
52 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, Policy and Global
Affairs, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Committee to Evaluate the Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) and Similar Federal Agency Programs, The Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research
(Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013).
Congressional Research Service
11

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

NSF’s Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account also provides
funding for (typically) between four and six research facilities and equipment construction
projects. These projects include international activities, such as the Atacama Large Millimeter
Array (a large radio telescope located in northern Chile that was completed in 2013);53 as well as
U.S. projects, including certain ground-based astronomical telescopes and ecological and ocean
observatory networks (which connect geographically distributed scientific facilities and
instruments). MREFC funds typically support projects only during the construction phase. Project
planning and design, as well as post-construction operations and maintenance, comes from
Research and Related Activities (RRA).
Major Constituencies
Approximately three-quarters of NSF funds are awarded annually to colleges, universities, and
academic consortia. The remainder of NSF’s budget usually goes to private industry (about 13%),
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (around 3%), and other sources (about
3%). NSF typically provides about 50% (or more) of federal funding for academic basic research
in computer science, biology, environmental sciences, mathematics, and social sciences. Further,
about a third of all known federal funding for STEM education comes from NSF in a typical
budget year. The foundation is a primary source of support for graduate student fellowships in the
non-biomedical sciences and engineering.
In FY2013, NSF issued 10,844 new awards to 1,922 colleges, universities, and other institutions
in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and three U.S. territories. The foundation supported an
estimated 299,000 individuals, including researchers, postdoctoral associates, and other
professionals; undergraduate and graduate students; and elementary and secondary school
teachers and students. At least 212 Nobel laureates have received NSF support at some point in
their careers. NSF support for informal science education and scientific literacy reaches many
Americans—in museums, libraries, afterschool programs, and through the media—every year.









53 Readers who have seen the 1997 film Contact may also be familiar with the NSF-funded Very Large Array in
Soccorro, New Mexico. National Science Foundation, “Radio Telescopes in the New Movie ‘Contact’ Dish Up Real
Science,” press release (97-049), July 10, 1997, available at http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=
102822.
Congressional Research Service
12

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

Broadening Participation
The demographic profile of the U.S. student-age population is changing. The youth population is more racial y and
ethnical y diverse than previous generations of Americans. At the same time, women have attained majority status on
many col ege campuses. Yet, these groups may be underrepresented in certain STEM fields. Some analysts assert that
underrepresented groups are an underutilized resource, which could be tapped to help meet perceived demand for
STEM-competencies in the U.S. workforce.54
General agreement about the problems posed by racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in STEM education and
employment has not translated into widespread agreement on either the causes of underrepresentation or policy
solutions. Further, causes and solutions may be different for different population subsets. Broadening participation
issues include faculty diversity, the potential for bias in grant-making, and “family friendly” work environments for
scientists and engineers, as well as teacher quality in schools that serve minority students, parental involvement and
support for STEM-interested youth, and access to STEM-related education opportunities and support programs.
Broadening participation is not limited to race/ethnicity and gender, either. Studies have shown STEM achievement
gaps by income and level of urbanization (e.g., rural, suburban, urban) as well.
NSF operates several dozen programs that seek to broaden participation. The Science and Engineering Equal
Opportunities Act (P.L. 96-516), which was incorporated into the 1980 NSF reauthorization, (1) declared that it is
U.S. policy to encourage underrepresented populations to participate in STEM, and (2) authorized NSF to establish
programs for this purpose. As of FY2013, funding for NSF’s broadening participation programs was $755 million
(actual). Some of the most widely tracked NSF broadening participation programs provide funding to minority-serving
institutions of higher education.
Selected Authorizations
The following sections describe NSF’s legislative origins and the foundation’s two most recent,
enacted reauthorizations as part of the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) and the America
COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358). The 113th Congress has begun the
process of reauthorizing certain COMPETES provisions, including NSF provisions. (See section
titled, “Reauthorization Activity in the 113th Congress”.) Table A-1 includes a list of selected
NSF authorizations dating to the 1950s.
Legislative Origin
Many contemporary policy conversations about the NSF mirror the debate over the foundation’s
establishment. For example, the 113th Congress has debated the question of funding for social
science at the NSF. This issue was also debated during the establishment of the foundation.
Retelling the historical conversation, therefore, contextualizes today’s deliberations and provides
legislators with additional insight into the enduring nature of some of these conflicts. It also
provides insight into how previous generations of policy makers resolved similar questions.
Historical accounts of the NSF frequently peg the foundation’s genesis to a dialogue between two
men: Senator Harley M. Kilgore and Vannevar Bush.55 Senator Kilgore chaired the Senate

54 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, Committee on
Underrepresented Groups and the Expansion of the Science and Engineering Workforce Pipeline, Committee on
Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Policy and Global Affairs, Expanding Underrepresented Minority
Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads
, National Academies Press, 2011, at
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12984.
55 Historical narratives about the founding of the NSF typically focus on Sen. Kilgore and Bush but the 79th Congress
considered several bills focused on the question of post-war scientific research. See U.S. Senate, Committee on
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

Subcommittee on War Mobilization during and immediately after World War II. Bush was
director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (ORSD) as well as a science
advisor to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.56 Between 1942 and 1945, Senator Kilgore’s
subcommittee held a series of hearings on government support for scientific research. That effort
resulted in the July 23, 1945, introduction of S. 1297 (National Science Foundation Act of 1945),
which would have established a National Science Foundation. Bush, on the other hand, authored
an historic July 1945 report on post-war U.S. scientific research, Science: An Endless Frontier,
which called for the creation of a National Research Foundation. On July 19, 1945, Senator
Warren Magnuson introduced a bill, S. 1285 (National Research Foundation Act of 1945)—which
was drafted in consultation with Bush and hewed closely to the proposal outlined in Science—to
establish a National Research Foundation.57
Although Senator Kilgore and Senator Magnuson agreed on the goal of establishing a federal
agency for the support of scientific research and their bills shared certain similarities, they
promoted different approaches.58 There was agreement, for example, that the foundation should
provide scholarships, that it should support basic research, that it should have both a board and a
director, and that it should be independent from other executive branch agencies.59 Differences
focused on five broad themes that would be very familiar to an NSF observer today. These
include
• ownership of patents resulting from government research,
• inclusion of the social sciences,
• geographic distribution of funding,
• the extent to which the foundation should support applied research, and
• political and administrative control of the foundation.60

(...continued)
Military Affairs, Subcommittee on War Mobilization, Legislative Proposals for the Promotion of Science: The Texts of
Five Bills and Excerpts from Reports
, subcommittee print, 79th Cong., 1st sess., August 1945.
56 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt established the OSRD as an independent agency within the Office of
Emergency Management (Executive Order 8807). More information about OSRD, as well as holdings, is available on
the Library of Congress website at http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/trs/trsosrd.html.
57 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology, Task Force on Science Policy, “A History of Science
Policy in the United States, 1940-1985,” Science Policy Study Background Report No. 1, 99th Cong., 2nd sess.,
September 1986 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1986), p. 21-27; and, George T. Mazuzan, National Science Foundation: A
Brief History
, NSF 88-16 (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1988).
58 At the time, most stakeholders agreed with the general concept of a publically funded scientific research foundation.
One exception was Frank B. Jewett, then president of the National Academy of Sciences. Jewett expressed concern
about unwanted government control and interference in science and preferred private sources of funding. See J. Merton
England, A Patron for Pure Science: The National Science Foundation’s Formative Years, 1945-57 (Washington, DC:
NSF, 1982), pp. 35-36.
59 S. 1297 and S. 1285 differed with respect to the roles and authorities assigned to the director and board. S. 1297 gave
most of the power to the director (with the board in an advisory capacity); while S. 1285 put most of the authority in the
hands of the board, who appointed the director.
60 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology, Task Force on Science Policy, “A History of Science
Policy in the United States, 1940-1985,” Science Policy Study Background Report No. 1, 99th Cong., 2nd sess.,
September 1986 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1986), p. 21-27; and, J. Merton England, A Patron for Pure Science: The
National Science Foundation’s Formative Years, 1945-57
(Washington, DC: NSF, 1982).
Congressional Research Service
14

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

As drafted in August of 1945, S. 1297 and S. 1285 would have resolved these policy issues
differently. Senator Kilgore’s bill (S. 1297) envisioned a scientific foundation that was
administered by a publically appointed director and advised by a board, that distributed funding
and research findings broadly, and that defined the term “research and development” to include
both theoretical exploration as well as the extension of investigation
into practical application, including the preparation of plans, specifications, and standards for
various goods and services, the undertaking of related economic and industrial studies, the
experimental production and testing of models, and the building and operation of pilot
plants.61
Senator Magnuson’s bill (S. 1285), on the other hand, would have created a research foundation
led by a publically appointed board that would select, direct, and supervise a director. The powers
and duties of the foundation as described in S. 1285 include developing national science policies
and support of basic research in the fields of mathematical, physical, and biological sciences. The
bill does not include provisions for the broad distribution of funding, though it does authorize the
publication and dissemination of research findings.
The differences between these approaches were not resolved in the 79th Congress. However, after
two more years of debate Congress presented a bill to establish a National Science Foundation to
President Harry S. Truman on July 25, 1947 (S. 526, National Science Foundation Act of 1947).
Truman vetoed the bill. In his veto message Truman expressed two concerns. First, Truman
asserted that S. 526 violated his appointment powers and raised questions about accountability
because it did not provide for a presidentially appointed director. (S. 526 gave authority to
appoint a director to the foundation.) Second, the President expressed conflict-of-interest
concerns. As defined in S. 526, the foundation included 24 eminent scientists appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate. These 24 scientists would determine who
would receive foundation grants, which Truman perceived as a conflict of interest that “would
inevitably give rise to suspicions of favoritism.”62
In April 1950, Congress sent the President a new bill, S. 247 (National Science Foundation Act of
1950).63 President Truman signed S. 247, which became P.L. 81-507 (hereinafter referred to as
NSF’s “organic act”) on May 10, 1950.64 NSF’s organic act provided for an independent federal
agency administered by a presidentially appointed board and director. As established in its
organic act, NSF was empowered to develop and encourage a national policy for the promotion of
basic research and science education, to support basic research in the mathematical, physical,
medical, biological, engineering, and “other” (e.g., social) sciences. Section 3(b) addressed the
geographic distribution issue obliquely, stating that it

61 S. 1297, Title IV, Section 402 (a) as published in U.S. Senate, Committee on Military Affairs, Subcommittee on War
Mobilization, Legislative Proposals for the Promotion of Science: The Texts of Five Bills and Excerpts from Reports,
subcommittee print, 79th Cong., 1st sess., August 1945.
62 Harry S. Truman Library & Museum, Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman 1945-1953, “169.
Memorandum of Disapproval of the National Science Foundation Bill,” August 6, 1947, at
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1918.
63 S. 247 (National Science Foundation Act of 1950).
64 Harry S. Truman Library & Museum, Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman 1945-1953, “120. Statement
by the President Upon Signing Bill Creating the National Science Foundation,” May 10, 1950, at
http://trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=743..
Congressional Research Service
15

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

shall be one of the objectives of the Foundation to strengthen basic research and education in
the sciences, including independent research by individuals, throughout the United States,
including its Territories and possessions, and to avoid undue concentration of such research
and education.65
As with prior versions of the bill, NSF’s organic act specifically authorized the foundation to
provide for scholarships and fellowships, to foster information exchange among scientists in the
U.S. and abroad, to establish commissions, to act as a central clearinghouse for information about
scientific and technological personnel, and to establish research divisions. With respect to the
patent issues, P.L. 81-507 left these questions to the NSF to decide through the contract process.66
With one notable exception, Congress did not pass another NSF authorization act for the next 15
years. (NSF’s organic act provided the foundation with $500,000 in FY1951 and $15,000,000
annually thereafter. Congress amended the act in 1953 to provide “such sums as may be
necessary” (P.L. 83-223).)
The next major reauthorization of the NSF organic act came in 1968.67 In 1965, the House
Committee on Science and Astronautics, Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development
(chaired by Representative Emilio Daddario) undertook an extensive, three-year examination of
the foundation’s activities and legal authority. Some historians assert that renewed interest in the
NSF organic act stemmed from concern about U.S. science policy post-Sputnik.68 The result of
the Daddario committee’s work was P.L. 90-407 (An Act to Amend the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950). P.L. 90-407 made several critical changes to the NSF organic act that
harkened back to the establishment debates of the 1940s. In particular, the act expressly
authorized NSF activities in the social sciences and it specifically authorized support for applied
research.
P.L. 90-407 also changed NSF’s authorization cycle. The 1968 act repealed the indefinite
authorization established by P.L. 83-223 in 1953 and replaced it with an annual authorization. The
one-year authorization cycle established by P.L. 90-407 was in place (generally) from FY1969
until FY1989. It was not unchallenged, however. During the late 1970s and early 1980s Congress
debated whether to maintain the one-year authorization cycle for NSF. Some Members of
Congress preferred tighter oversight and control over the foundation and therefore argued for the
one-year authorization.69 Other Members asserted that longer authorization cycles would assist in

65 P.L. 81-507, Section 3(b).
66 For a broader treatment of federal patent issues, please see CRS Report R42014, The Leahy-Smith America Invents
Act: Innovation Issues
, by John R. Thomas.
67 Although not a reauthorization act per se, in 1962 President John F. Kennedy signed “Reorganization Plan No. 2 of
1962,” which established the Office of Science and Technology (OST) within the Executive Office of the President.
The plan transferred authority for national science policy making from NSF to OST and made other changes within
NSF. Congress had the power to disapprove of this plan, but did not do so, and thereby facilitated implementation. (For
more information about the reorganization process, see CRS Report R42852, Presidential Reorganization Authority:
History, Recent Initiatives, and Options for Congress
, by Henry B. Hogue.)
68 Many analysts and historians consider the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik, the world’s first artificial satellite, a
watershed moment in U.S. science (and science education) policy history. See CRS Report RL34263, U.S. Civilian
Space Policy Priorities: Reflections 50 Years After Sputnik
, by Deborah D. Stine.
69 Ken Hechler, Toward the Endless Frontier: History of the Committee on Science and Technology, 1959-79
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. House of Representatives/GPO, 1980), pp. 537-538.
Congressional Research Service
16

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

long-range planning, ensure stable funding, and facilitate “sound national science policy and
programs.”70 These legislators typically argued for at least two-year authorizations.
Since FY1989 NSF authorization cycles have generally extended beyond a single year. Enacted
authorizations for the NSF over the past two decades have typically fluctuated between three and
five years. (See Table A-1.)
America COMPETES
Since 2007, Congress has included language to reauthorize the NSF in broader bills that, among
other things, also authorized scientific research at the Department of Energy’s Office of Science
and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Known colloquially as the “COMPETES
acts,”71 these measures authorized FY2008 through FY2013 funding levels for selected federal
research accounts, authorized certain federal STEM education programs, and addressed various
other policy issues associated with innovation and national competitiveness. NSF provisions in
the 2007 and 2010 COMPETES acts included funding authorizations for most major foundation
accounts as well as policy provisions authorizing or amending specified policies and programs
related to research, STEM education, and broadening participation. Legislators in the 113th
Congress have begun considering the reauthorization of major provisions from the COMPETES
acts.
Doubling path. A primary policy question facing the next NSF reauthorization is whether to
continue authorizing funding increases for NSF as part of the COMPETES acts “doubling path”
policy. Under this policy, Congress and two successive Administrations sought to double—over
several years—combined funding for certain federal accounts72 (including NSF) that fund
substantial levels of physical sciences and engineering (PS&E) research.73 PS&E research is
widely believed to contribute to U.S. economic growth and national security by creating the
underlying knowledge that supports technological innovation. The COMPETES-authorized
PS&E doubling effort followed a successful effort to double funding for medical research at the
National Institutes of Health.74
As enacted in the 2007 America COMPETS Act, funding authorizations for the targeted accounts
set a pace for doubling over approximately seven years (as compared to the FY2006 baseline).
However, actual appropriations followed about an 11-year doubling pace during the FY2008 to
FY2010 authorization period. The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, which
authorized funding for the targeted accounts from FY2011 through FY2013, established a
doubling pace of about 11 years. (That is, the reauthorization followed a growth rate that was
consistent with the growth in actual appropriations during the first authorization period.)

70 S.Rept. 95-851, pp. 22-23.
71 America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) and America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358).
72 The targeted accounts included the NSF, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the Scientific and
Technical Research and Services (STRS) and Construction of Research Facilities (CRF) accounts at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
73 The largest funder of research in engineering is the Department of Defense. The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) also emphasizes engineering and the physical sciences research. See National Science Board,
Science and Engineering Indicators 2014, NSB-14-01 (Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2014), p. 4-38.
74 For more information about the NIH doubling, see CRS Report R43341, A History of NIH Funding, by Judith A.
Johnson.
Congressional Research Service
17

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

Appropriations to the targeted accounts decreased from the prior year in both FY2011 and
FY2013, and as a result, increased the doubling timeframe set by actual appropriations from
about 11 years to about 18 years.75
The idea of an NSF budget doubling did not originate with the COMPETES acts. President
Ronald Reagan proposed a five-year doubling of the NSF budget in January 1987.76 His FY1988
and FY1989 budget requests sought increases that were consistent with this approach. In October
1988, Congress enacted funding authorizations that sought to double NSF’s budget in
approximately five years as part of P.L. 100-570 (National Science Foundation Authorization Act
of 1988). Actual appropriations to the NSF increased by about 59% during this period.77 In 2002,
Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed, P.L. 107-368 (National Science
Foundation Authorization Act of 2002). P.L. 107-368 authorized increases in the NSF budget that
were consistent with a five-year doubling. However, the Bush Administration is reported to have
objected to the notion of doubling as an arbitrary goal for the NSF, and language referring to
doubling was removed from the final bill, though the authorization increases remained.78 Actual
appropriations to the NSF increased by about 22% during the P.L. 107-368 authorization period.79
President Bush later proposed a doubling similar to that authorized by the COMPETES acts—for
example, focused on the targeted accounts, not just NSF—in the 2006 American Competitiveness
Initiative.80
Viewed in appropriations by decade (e.g., FY1951 to FY1960, FY1960 to FY1970, etc.), the NSF
budget doubled (in current dollars) over the course of each of the five decades between the
foundation’s first budget in FY1951 and FY1990.81 (See Table 1.) Growth slowed from this pace
around the turn of the 21st century. Between FY1990 and FY2000, the NSF budget grew by about
88% in current dollars; between FY2000 and FY2010, it grew by about 76% in current dollars.82
In inflation-adjusted (constant) dollars, NSF’s budget doubled between FY1951 and FY1960, and
again between FY1960 and FY1970. The NSF budget has not doubled by decade (in constant
dollars) since then. Between FY1970 and FY1980, NSF’s budget grew at its lowest constant
dollar rate (16%). Between FY1980 and FY2010, NSF constant dollar funding increased by 38%
or more each decade. However, constant dollar funding for NSF was below FY2010 levels in

75 For more information about the PS&E doubling effort, see CRS Report R41951, An Analysis of Efforts to Double
Federal Funding for Physical Sciences and Engineering Research
, by John F. Sargent Jr.
76 President Ronald Reagan, “Radio Address to the Nation on Administration Goals,” radio address, January 31, 1987,
at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=34674.
77 NSF received $1.717 billion in appropriations in FY1988. P.L. 100-570 authorized NSF funding increases from
FY1989 ($2.050 billion) through FY1993 ($3.505 billion). Actual appropriations to NSF in FY1993 were $2.734
billion, or $1.017 million (59%) more than the FY1988 funding level.
78 Jeffrey Mervis, “Bush Signs NSF ‘Doubling’ Bill,” Science, December 20, 2002, at http://news.sciencemag.org/
2002/12/bush-signs-nsf-doubling-bill.
79 NSF received $4.823 billion in appropriations in FY2002. P.L. 107-368 authorized NSF funding increases from
FY2003 ($5.536 billion) to FY2007 ($9.839 billion). Actual appropriations to NSF in FY2007 were $5.890 billion, or
$1.067 million (22%) more than the FY2002 funding level.
80 Executive Office of the President, Domestic Policy Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy, American
Competitiveness Initiative: Leading the World in Innovation
, February 2006, at http://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/aci/aci06-booklet.pdf.
81 Other periods of time or funding units might produce different results. The decade-long perspective is largely
consistent with the 11-year doubling pace enacted in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-
358).
82 This growth estimate excludes American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) funding.
Congressional Research Service
18

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

FY2011, FY2012, FY2013, and FY2014, which shows that funding for NSF has not kept pace
with inflation this decade.
Table 1. NSF Appropriations by Decade: FY1951 to FY2010
In Millions, Current and Constant (FY2015) Dollars, Rounded
Current Constant
Year
($ millions)
(FY2015 $ millions)
FY1951 0
2
FY1960 153
963
FY1970 440
2,163
FY1980 992
2,500
FY1990 2,082
3,445
FY2000 3,912
5,266
FY2010 6,873
7,471
Source: Excerpted from Table B-1.
Should Congress continue to pursue the COMPETES doubling policy in FY2014 and beyond?
Many advocates assert that federal funding for PS&E basic research is inadequate (particularly in
light of other countries’ investments in R&D) and that more investment is needed to assure U.S.
national security and competitiveness.83 Continuing to provide increased authorizations for the
targeted accounts at some (to be determined) doubling rate might signal Congress’s continued
commitment to these accounts and to the doubling path policy. Further, some analysts have
argued that the PS&E doubling policy, although not fully realized, may have protected the
targeted accounts from reductions or slower growth during a period of constrained resources.84
On the other hand, it may be challenging for the scientific community to plan for large or long-
term projects without a clearer signal from Congress as to the actual budgetary resources they
might receive.85 Some policy makers who seek general reductions in federal expenditures may

83 This case is laid out more fully in National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of
Medicine, Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for America Science and
Technology, and Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Rising Above the Gathering Storm:
Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future
, National Academies Press, 2007,
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html.
84 Testimony of Boston University Associate Professor of Strategy and Innovation and National Bureau of Economic
Research, Research Associate Dr. Jeffrey L. Furman, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, Five Years of the America COMPETES Act: Progress, Challenges, and Next Steps, hearings, 112th
Cong., 2nd sess., September 19, 2012, at http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8687a045-
afdc-4b74-ac75-efca96893a88.
85 For example, a 2012 Science magazine report noted that the U.S. astronomical community had to revisit the priorities
laid out in the 2010 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, which was drafted under the assumption of an NSF
doubling, after it became clear that actual appropriations were not keeping pace with COMPETES act-authorized
funding levels. See Yudhijit Bhattacharjee, “Panel Says NSF Should Shutter Six U.S. Instruments,” Science, vol. 337,
August 24, 2012, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6097/899.summary. Additionally, a September 2013 Nature
editorial asserts that, at least in part due to the signal policy makers sent with the 2007 COMPETES act, NSF
committed to two large ocean science division construction projects. Once completed, those projects will require
operational support. Nature asserts that these operating costs will increase budget pressure on NSF’s ocean science
research account and that NSF should have anticipated that “big budgets would not last.” See “Counting the Cost,”
Nature editorial, September 25, 2013, at http://www.nature.com/news/counting-the-cost-1.13804.
Congressional Research Service
19

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

object to policies that seek to increase federal spending. However, other observers describe
federal funding for basic research (like that funded by the NSF) as the “seed corn” that supports
the U.S. economy.86 These analysts may perceive NSF funding as a vital investment. Another
view holds that federal funding for scientific research should be continued, but asserts that dollars
should be focused “where links between science and application are well established, to deliver
short- to medium-term benefits” rather than on the types of research NSF typically supports,
which may be perceived by some observers as less targeted or less immediately commercially
relevant.87
STEM education. Several inventories of the federal STEM education effort have highlighted
NSF’s important role—both in terms of funding and in the number and breadth of programs—in
the federal STEM education portfolio. The NSF is the only federal agency whose primary
mission includes supporting education across all fields of science and engineering. As such,
funding for STEM education at the NSF impacts not only the agency, but also the entire federal
STEM education effort.88
The COMPETES acts authorized increased funding for NSF’s main education account, Education
and Human Resources (EHR), and made various changes to specified NSF STEM education
programs. Actual appropriations to EHR have not typically reached COMPETES-authorized
levels. Further, Congress reduced enacted funding levels (from the prior year) for EHR in both
FY2011 and FY2012. These reductions followed several years of fluctuating funding, as well as
changes in the distribution of the foundation budget that reduced funding for EHR as a percentage
of the total NSF budget. FY2013 actual funding levels for EHR were close to FY2012 levels.89
In addition to funding authorizations, the COMPETES acts authorized and amended some NSF
STEM education programs.90 Among the amended programs were the Graduate Research
Fellowship (GRF) program and the Integrative Graduate Research and Education Traineeship
(IGERT). First, Section 510 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 sought to
require NSF to treat the GRF and IGERT equally by increasing or decreasing funding for these
programs at the same rates. This does not appear to have been implemented. Funding for the
IGERT was reduced from the prior year each fiscal year between FY2011 and FY2013 while
funding for the GRF increased each year. Second, Section 510 also directed NSF to draw from the
RRA account for at least half of the funding it provides to the GRF and IGERT programs. RRA
funding for the GRF and IGERT programs was close to 50% in FY2012 and FY2013.
The GRF was established in 1951 and is one of the oldest and most prestigious federal graduate
research fellowships. GRF fellows receive a three-year, portable stipend of $32,000 annually and

86 Jules Duga and Tim Studt. “Government Spending Continues to Drive R&D Growth.” R&D, vol. 47, no. 1 (2005),
pp. F3-F7,F10-F15.
87 Daniel Sarewitz, “Double Trouble? To Throw Cash at Science Is a Mistake,” Nature, vol. 468, no. 135 (November
10, 2010), http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101110/full/468135a.html; and Daniel Sarewitz, “Blue-Sky Bias Should
Be Brought down to Earth,” Nature, vol. 481, no. 7339 (January 4, 2012), at http://www.nature.com/news/blue-sky-
bias-should-be-brought-down-to-earth-1.9722.
88 For more information about the federal STEM education effort, see CRS Report R42642, Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: A Primer
, by Heather B. Gonzalez and Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
89 For more information about STEM education funding at NSF, see CRS Report R42470, An Analysis of STEM
Education Funding at the NSF: Trends and Policy Discussion
, by Heather B. Gonzalez.
90 Most NSF STEM education programs are operated under general authority.
Congressional Research Service
20

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

a $12,000 cost-of-education allowance for tuition and fees (paid to their institutions).91 The
IGERT, which began in 1997, is NSF’s flagship interdisciplinary training program.92 IGERT
funding is awarded to institutions of higher education, which may utilize IGERT funding for
student support or education research. In FY2013, NSF provided funding for 5,758 GRF fellows93
and 1,572 IGERT trainees.
After the expiration of major provisions in the 2010 COMPETES reauthorization, President
Obama proposed a major restructuring of federal STEM education programs as part of his
FY2014 budget request. Under the proposed reorganization, NSF would have become the lead
federal agency for undergraduate education and federal fellowships. For a range of reasons,
congressional appropriators largely rejected the plan.94 The Obama Administration released a
“fresh” reorganization plan as part of the FY2015 budget request.95 Congressional debate about
the reorganization of the federal STEM education effort is ongoing.
For many policy makers, the prospect of a reorganized federal STEM education effort raises the
question, “to what end?” The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 directed the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) to develop a strategy for federal STEM
education programs, including those at NSF. That strategy was published in May 2013, after
release of the Administration’s FY2014 proposed reorganization of federal STEM education
programs.96 Some policy makers perceived the strategy as insufficiently independent from the
FY2014 proposed reorganization;97 while others perceived it as a starting place for a new
conversation about the federal STEM education portfolio in lieu of the proposed reorganization.98
Policy makers’ interest in the form and function of the federal STEM education portfolio, as well
as the character of NSF’s role within that portfolio, continues.

91 National Science Foundation, Graduate Research Fellowship Program, “About the NSG Graduate Research
Fellowship Program,” National Science Foundation Website, accessed on February 20, 2014, at
http://www.nsfgrfp.org/about_the_program. NSF’s FY2015 Budget Request to Congress seeks to increase the GRF
stipend to $34,000. (Available at http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2015/index.jsp.)
92 National Science Foundation, Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship, “Introduction to the IGERT
Program,” National Science Foundation Website, accessed on February 20, 2014, at http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/igert/
intro.jsp.
93 The GRF program total includes fellows across multiple cohorts. On average, the GRF program issues about 2,000
new fellowships each year. E-mail communication between CRS and staff from the NSF Office of Legislative and
Public Affairs, dated February 21, 2014.
94 Different legislators rejected the proposal—which included changes across a wide variety of programs and
agencies—for different reasons. The “Joint Explanatory Statement” published in the January 15, 2014, Congressional
Record
, which accompanied P.L. 113-76 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014), asserts that “the proposal contained
no clearly defined implementation plan, had no buy-in from the education community, and failed to sufficiently
recognize or support a number of proven, successful programs.”
95 For more information about the proposed FY2015 STEM education reorganization, see CRS Report IF00013, The
President’s FY2015 Budget and STEM Education (In Focus)
, by Heather B. Gonzalez; and CRS Report IN10011, The
Administration’s Proposed STEM Education Reorganization: Where Are We Now?
, by Heather B. Gonzalez.
96 Among other things, Section 101 of P.L. 111-358 directs the NSTC to develop a strategy for federal STEM education
programs. NSTC published this strategy in June 2013. See Executive Office of the President, National Science and
Technology Council, Committee on STEM Education, Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) Education: 5-Year Strategic Plan
, May 2013, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/ostp/stem_stratplan_2013.pdf.
97 H.Rept. 113-171, p. 59.
98 House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson, “Committee
Discusses Proposed Reorganization of STEM Education Programs,” press release, June 4, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
21

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

Reauthorization Activity in the 113th Congress
Major provisions of the COMPETES acts, including provisions authorizing funding for the
National Science Foundation, expired in FY2013. The House Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology has begun the process of reauthorizing certain COMPETES provisions. On March
13, 2014, the Subcommittee on Research and Technology marked up and approved by voice vote
the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology (FIRST) Act (H.R. 4186).99 The
full committee marked up the FIRST Act on May 21, 2014, and voted on amendments on May
28, 2014. The ranking Member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has
introduced an alternative bill, H.R. 4159 (America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2014).
H.R. 4159 had not been marked up as of the date of this report. H.R. 4186 and H.R. 4159 differ
from each other, and from the COMPETES acts, in significant ways. These differences, however,
are beyond the scope of this report.
Budget and Appropriations
Like other federal agencies, NSF’s annual budget requests to Congress provide insight into
foundation activities and priorities.100 A summary of NSF’s three most recent budget requests
(FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015), and associated appropriations activity, follows. Table B-1
provides NSF authorizations, budget requests, and actual appropriations in current and constant
(inflation-adjusted) dollars from FY1951 to FY2015. Table B-2 provides FY2003 to FY2013
NSF obligations by major account.
NSF adopted its current appropriations account structure in FY2003. In general, NSF’s major
accounts have been comparable since then.101 NSF has six major appropriations accounts:
Research and Related Activities (RRA), Education and Human Resources (EHR), Major
Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC), Agency Operations and Award
Management (AOAM), National Science Board (NSB), and the Office of the Inspector General
(OIG). The majority of NSF’s primary mission activities are funded through RRA and EHR.
FY2015
For FY2015, the Obama Administration seeks $7.255 billion in funding for the NSF. This amount
is $83 million (1.2%) over the FY2014 enacted level of $7.172 billion. The request holds funding
levels for RRA and MREFC essentially constant while seeking a 5.1% increase ($43 million) for
EHR as well as a 13.5% increase ($40 million) for AOAM. Most of the new AOAM funding
would apply toward a new NSF headquarters. NSF’s FY2015 budget request to Congress
highlights five initiatives that were also foundation priorities in FY2014 and FY2013: Cognitive
Science and Neuroscience ($29 million); Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart

99 A webcast of the mark-up, as well as related hearing materials (including amendments and vote tallies), is available
at http://science.house.gov/markup/subcommittee-research-and-technology-markup-hr-4186.
100 NSF publishes its annual budget requests to Congress—dating from FY1998 to FY2015—on its website at
http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/. Additionally, policy makers may access award summaries by state and institution,
historical NSF account data, and related reports at http://dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov/.
101 NSF changed its account structure in FY2003. Prior years are not comparable. In FY2008, NSF shifted the EPSCoR
program from EHR to RRA. Table B-2 treats EPSCoR as an RRA sub-account for all years in the data set.
Congressional Research Service
22

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

Systems ($213 million); Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science, Engineering,
and Education ($125 million); Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability ($139
million); and Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace ($100 million).102 The FY2015 NSF budget
request incorporates STEM education programs changes in accordance with the Administration’s
revised FY2015 government-wide reorganization of federal STEM education programs.103 In
addition to NSF’s regular budget request, the Administration seeks $552 million in funding for
NSF through the proposed Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative.104
Congress had not enacted legislation authorizing FY2015 funding levels for NSF when the
President released the FY2015 budget request.
FY2014
FY2014 enacted funding for NSF is $7.172 billion. This amount is $270 million (3.9%) more
than NSF’s FY2013 actual funding level of $6.902 billion. Most of the $270 million increase
($250 million) went to RRA. FY2014 enacted funding for NSF’s six major accounts is $5.809
billion for RRA (including $158 million for EPSCoR), $847 million for EHR, $200 million for
MREFC, $298 million for AOAM, $4 million for NSB, and $14 million for OIG.105 Congress had
not enacted legislation authorizing funding for the NSF in FY2014 when FY2014 appropriations
were enacted.
The Obama Administration initially sought $7.626 billion in funding for the NSF in FY2014.
NSF’s FY2014 budget request to Congress noted that its overarching priorities for FY2014 would
include six programs: Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems;
Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science, Engineering, and Education; NSF
Innovation Corps; Integrated NSF Support Promoting Interdisciplinary Research and Education;
Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability; and Secure and Trustworthy
Cyberspace.106 The FY2014 NSF budget request also incorporated several changes to the
foundation’s STEM education programs in accordance with the Administration’s proposed
FY2014 government-wide reorganization of federal STEM education programs.107
The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations recommended $6.995 billion and $7.426
billion, respectively, for NSF in FY2014. Both committees initially rejected the Administration’s
proposed changes to the federal STEM education effort, including changes to NSF programs. The
final FY2014 appropriations agreement reiterated this objection. The appropriations committees

102 With one exception—the Expeditions in Education program, which was not included in the FY2014 request—these
were the same programs included in the “OneNSF Framework” from NSF’s FY2013 budget request.
103 National Science Foundation, FY2014 Budget Request to Congress, April 10, 2013, http://www.nsf.gov/about/
budget/fy2014/index.jsp.
104 Information about this initiative is included in the President’s FY2015 budget request, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf.
105 For more information about the NSF FY2014 budget request and appropriations, see CRS Report R43080,
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: FY2014 Appropriations, coordinated by Nathan James, Jennifer D.
Williams, and John F. Sargent Jr.
106 With one exception—the Expeditions in Education program, which was not included in the FY2014 request—these
were the same programs included in the “OneNSF Framework” from NSF’s FY2013 budget request.
107 National Science Foundation, FY2014 Budget Request to Congress, April 10, 2013, http://www.nsf.gov/about/
budget/fy2014/index.jsp.
Congressional Research Service
23

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

initially disagreed on funding for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) in the MREFC
account—the Senate Committee on Appropriations sought to fund the new project, the House
Committee on Appropriations would not. The final agreement provided some of the requested
funding for the LSST and encouraged the foundation to seek permission to transfer funds from
other accounts if the amount appropriated was insufficient.108
FY2013
FY2013 actual funding for NSF was $6.902 billion. This amount was $199.4 million (3.5%) less
than NSF’s FY2012 actual funding level of $7.105 billion.109 FY2013 actual funding levels for
NSF’s six major accounts were $5.559 billion (RRA), $835 million (EHR), $197 million
(MREFC), $294 million (AOAM), $4 million (NSB), and $14 million (OIG). The America
COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358) authorized $8.300 billion in funding at
the NSF in FY2013.
The Obama Administration sought $7.373 billion for the NSF in FY2013. NSF’s FY2013 budget
request sought to continue increasing NSF’s budget in accordance with the doubling path policy
and emphasized “OneNSF Framework” priorities. NSF’s FY2013 budget documents asserted that
the six OneNSF Framework priority programs would “create new knowledge, stimulate
discovery, address complex societal problems, and promote national prosperity.”110
The full House and Senate Committee on Appropriations agreed on identical funding levels for
five of six major NSF accounts in FY2013. The primary difference between the two proposals
was in the main research account (RRA). The House proposed $5.943 billion for RRA in FY2013
while the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $5.883 billion. This difference in
funding for RRA lead to an equivalent difference in House and Senate topline recommendations
for NSF, which were $7.333 billion and $7.273 billion, respectively. FY2013 House and Senate
recommendations for NSF’s other five major accounts were $875.6 million (EHR), $196.2
million (MREFC), $299.4 million (AOAM), $4.4 million (NSB), and $14.2 million (OIG). These
amounts equaled the Administration’s requested funding levels.
Concluding Observations
The National Science Foundation plays a key role in the federal research and development, as
well as STEM education, portfolios. It is a primary source of support for basic research in fields
that many analysts cite as key to future competitiveness, such as the physical sciences,
mathematics, and computer science. It is also a primary source for federal STEM education
funding. Yet, the foundation differs from many other federal agencies in a number of key ways. It
was established outside of the central core of executive agencies rather than under the direct
control of the President. It focuses on fundamental research across a variety of scientific and

108 H.Rept. 113-171, S.Rept. 113-78, and the Joint Explanatory Statement published in the January 15, 2014,
Congressional Record.
109 For more information about the NSF FY2013 budget request and appropriations, see CRS Report R42440,
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations, coordinated by Nathan James, Jennifer D.
Williams, and John F. Sargent Jr.
110 National Science Foundation, FY2013 Budget Request to Congress, February 13, 2012, p. Overview-3,
http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2013/index.jsp.
Congressional Research Service
24

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

technological fields rather than on the specific mission needs of the federal government; and it is
the only federal agency whose primary mission includes STEM education. These differences
underpin much of the policy conversation about the NSF; and, as a practical matter, offer both
benefits and barriers to legislators seeking to apply NSF’s various assets toward specific national
goals.
Congressional Research Service
25

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

Appendix A. NSF Authorizations Acts
Table A-1. Selected NSF Authorizations Acts
FY1951-FY2013
Public Law
Bill Number
From
To
P.L. 81-507
S. 247
FY1951
FY1952
P.L. 83-223
S. 977
FY1953
not defined
authorizations not defined
FY1954
FY1968
P.L. 90-407
H.R. 5404
FY1969
FY1969
P.L. 91-120
S. 1857
FY1970
FY1970
P.L. 91-356
H.R. 16595
FY1971
FY1971
P.L. 92-86
H.R. 7960
FY1972
FY1972
P.L. 92-372
H.R. 14108
FY1973
FY1973
P.L. 93-96
H.R. 8510
FY1974
FY1974
P.L. 93-413
H.R. 13999
FY1975
FY1975
P.L. 94-86
H.R. 4723
FY1976
FY1976
P.L. 94-471
H.R. 12566
FY1977
FY1977
P.L. 95-99
H.R. 4991
FY1978
FY1978
P.L. 95-434
H.R. 11400
FY1979
FY1979
P.L. 96-44
H.R. 2729
FY1980
FY1980
P.L. 96-516
S. 568
FY1981
FY1981
some authorizations are introduced, none become law
FY1982
FY1985
P.L. 99-159
H.R. 1210
FY1986
FY1986
P.L. 99-383
H.R. 4184
FY1987
FY1987
some authorizations are introduced, none become law
FY1988
FY1988
P.L. 100-570
H.R. 4418
FY1989
FY1993
some authorizations are introduced, none become law
FY1994
FY1997
P.L. 105-207
H.R. 1273
FY1998
FY2000
some authorizations are introduced, none become law
FY2001
FY2001
P.L. 107-368
H.R. 4664
FY2003
FY2007
P.L. 110-69
H.R. 2272
FY2008
FY2010
P.L. 111-358
H.R. 5116
FY2011
FY2013
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on information from the Legislative Information System and
Proquest Congressional.
Notes: This table includes a list of major NSF authorization acts as per a CRS search of historical legislative
databases. The list of authorization acts has been reviewed by National Science Board legal counsel, who
affirmed its apparent completeness. In addition to the above-listed authorization acts, other laws have also
amended various parts of the NSF code.
Congressional Research Service
26

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

Appendix B. NSF Funding History
Table B-1. NSF Authorizations, Budget Requests, and Appropriations
FY1951 to FY2015
In Millions, Current and Constant (FY2015) Dollars, Rounded
Current
Constant
($ millions)
(FY2015 $ millions)
Fiscal Year
Authorization Request Appropriation Authorization Request Appropriations
1951
such sums
-
0
n/a
-
2
1952
such sums
14
4
n/a
103
26
1953
such sums
15
5
n/a
109
34
1954
such sums
15
8
n/a
108
57
1955
such sums
14
14
n/a
100
101
1956
such sums
31
53
n/a
215
367
1957
such sums
41
40
n/a
276
267
1958
such sums
65
52
n/a
422
336
1959
such sums
140
138
n/a
894
878
1960
such sums
160
153
n/a
1,010
963
1961
such sums
190
176
n/a
1,180
1,092
1962
such sums
210
263
n/a
1,292
1,619
1963
such sums
358
323
n/a
2,175
1,959
1964
such sums
589
353
n/a
3,535
2,118
1965
such sums
488
420
n/a
2,877
2,479
1966
such sums
530
480
n/a
3,061
2,771
1967
such sums
525
481
n/a
2,942
2,695
1968
such sums
526
495
n/a
2,850
2,682
1969
525
500
400
2,719
2,590
2,072
1970
478
500
440
2,348
2,458
2,163
1971
538
513
513
2,516
2,400
2,400
1972
653
622
622
2,913
2,777
2,777
1973
697
653
649
2,982
2,795
2,778
1974
633
583
579
2,528
2,328
2,315
1975
808
672
764
2,925
2,435
2,768
1976
787
755
715
2,666
2,559
2,423
1977
811
802
776
2,562
2,535
2,452
1978
879
944
863
2,603
2,795
2,555
1979
930
934
911
2,549
2,560
2,497
Congressional Research Service
27

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

Current
Constant
($ millions)
(FY2015 $ millions)
Fiscal Year
Authorization Request Appropriation Authorization Request Appropriations
1980
1,002
1,006
992
2,525
2,536
2,500
1981
1,115
1,148
1,025
2,559
2,636
2,354
1982
n/a
1,354
1,039
n/a
2,909
2,232
1983
n/a
1,073
1,094
n/a
2,208
2,251
1984
n/a
1,292
1,341
n/a
2,569
2,665
1985
n/a
1,502
1,502
n/a
2,890
2,889
1986
1,517
1,569
1,524
2,854
2,952
2,867
1987
1,685
1,686
1,623
3,101
3,102
2,986
1988
n/a
1,893
1,717
n/a
3,375
3,061
1989
2,050
2,050
1,923
3,515
3,515
3,296
1990
2,388
2,149
2,082
3,951
3,556
3,445
1991
2,782
2,485
2,316
4,445
3,971
3,701
1992
3,245
2,742
2,571
5,061
4,277
4,009
1993
3,505
3,037
2,734
5,340
4,627
4,165
1994
n/a
2,753
2,983
n/a
4,105
4,447
1995
n/a
3,200
3,264
n/a
4,672
4,765
1996
n/a
3,360
3,220
n/a
4,816
4,615
1997
n/a
3,325
3,270
n/a
4,683
4,606
1998
3,506
3,367
3,431
4,877
4,684
4,773
1999
3,773
3,773
3,676
5,184
5,184
5,050
2000
3,886
3,921
3,912
5,231
5,278
5,266
2001
n/a
4,572
4,431
n/a
6,009
5,823
2002
n/a
4,473
4,823
n/a
5,785
6,239
2003
5,536
5,036
5,323
7,027
6,391
6,756
2004
6,391
5,481
5,589
7,915
6,789
6,922
2005
7,378
5,745
5,482
8,860
6,899
6,584
2006
8,520
5,605
5,589
9,909
6,519
6,500
2007
9,839
6,020
5,890
11,142
6,817
6,670
2008
6,600
6,429
6,125
7,323
7,133
6,796
2009
7,326
6,854
6,494
8,034
7,516
7,121
2010
8,132
7,045
6,873
8,841
7,659
7,471
2011
7,424
7,424
6,806
7,917
7,917
7,257
2012
7,800
7,767
7,033
8,174
8,140
7,371
2013
8,300
7,373
6,884
8,569
7,612
7,107
Congressional Research Service
28

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues

Current
Constant
($ millions)
(FY2015 $ millions)
Fiscal Year
Authorization Request Appropriation Authorization Request Appropriations
2014
n/a
7,626
7,172
n/a
7,757
7,295
2015
n/a
7,255
-
n/a
7,255
-
Source: Funding data in the “Authorization” columns are from selected FY1951 to FY2013 NSF authorization
acts, as provided in Table A-1. Funding data in the “Request” and “Appropriations” columns are from National
Science Foundation, Budget Internet Information System, “NSF Requests and Appropriations History,” NSF.gov,
accessed March 19, 2014, http://dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov/NSFRqstAppropHist/
NSFRequestsandAppropriationsHistory.pdf. To calculate constant dol ars, CRS applied the Gross Domestic
Product, Chained Price Index (adjusted to reflect FY2015 dol ars) found in Office of Management and Budget,
“Table 10.1,” Historical Tables, accessed on May 6, 2014, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
omb/budget/fy2015/assets/hist10z1.xls.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. As per communication between CRS and NSF dated March 20,
2014, the “appropriation” column shows funding provided in annual appropriations acts plus adjustments
required in those acts, other laws, and committee reports, etc. Adjustments include rescissions, sequestration,
funding transfers across NSF accounts, supplemental appropriations (not including American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, P.L. 111-5, funding in FY2009), and other changes. The resulting amounts most closely align
with NSF’s approved Current Plans.

Table B-2. NSF Obligations by Major Account: FY2003-FY2013
In Millions, Current Dollars, Rounded
Fiscal Year
RRA
EHR
MREFC
AOAM
NSB
OIG
NSF Total
2003
$4,144 $846 $179 $189 $3 $9
$5,369
2004
$4,388 $850 $184 $219 $2 $9
$5,652
2005
$4,328 $750 $165 $223 $4 $10
$5,481
2006
$4,449 $700 $234 $247 $4 $11
$5,646
2007
$4,758 $696 $166 $248 $4 $12
$5,884
2008
$4,853 $766 $167 $282 $4 $12
$6,084
2009
$5,152 $846 $161 $294 $4 $12
$6,469
2010
$5,615 $873 $166 $300 $4 $14
$6,972
2011
$5,608 $861 $125 $299 $4 $14
$6,913
2012
$5,758 $831 $198 $299 $4 $14
$7,105
2013
$5,559 $835 $196 $294 $4 $14
$6,902
Source: National Science Foundation annual budget requests to Congress from FY2005 to FY2015.
Notes: NSF adopted its current appropriations account structure in 2003. CRS adjusted FY2003 to FY2007
RRA and EHR obligations data to reflect the transfer of the EPSCoR program between these accounts in
FY2008. This table treats EPSCoR as a research account program for al years in the data set. Does not include
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) funding.

Congressional Research Service
29

The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues


Author Contact Information

Heather B. Gonzalez

Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
hgonzalez@crs.loc.gov, 7-1895


Congressional Research Service
30