.
The National Science Foundation:
Background and Selected Policy Issues
Heather B. Gonzalez
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
March 16, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43585
c11173008
.
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 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 congressional and
administration budget and oversight processes, NSF’s independent status has provided it with
greater institutional autonomy than some other federal agencies. Some analysts assert that this
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. Between FY2008 and
FY2013, increases in the NSF budget were driven by the doubling policy for physical sciences
and engineering (PS&E) research. The PS&E doubling policy sought to double funding for NSF
and targeted accounts at the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Department
of Energy. 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
increased, but did not reach authorized levels. PS&E doubling provisions expired in FY2013. The
Administration has not expressly pursued the PS&E doubling, and legislators have not enacted
measures to reauthorize the policy, since then.
In addition to its research responsibilities, NSF is the only federal agency whose primary mission
includes education across all fields of science and engineering. Funding for STEM education
activities at NSF typically constitutes about a third of the total federal STEM education effort.
Key questions for the 114th 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 $7.344 billion (estimated) in FY2015. The FY2016 request is for $7.724 billion.
Typically, about 80% of the NSF budget supports the main research account, 12% or so 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 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 were
introduced in the 113th Congress (H.R. 4186 and H.R. 4159). The 114th Congress has begun
consideration of bills containing selected provisions from these acts.
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
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 ......................................................................... 12
Major Constituencies ..................................................................................................................... 12
Selected Authorization Acts ........................................................................................................... 13
Legislative Origin .................................................................................................................... 14
America COMPETES Acts ..................................................................................................... 17
Reauthorization Activity in the 113th Congress ....................................................................... 23
Reauthorization Activity in the 114th Congress ....................................................................... 23
Budget and Appropriations ............................................................................................................ 24
FY2016 .................................................................................................................................... 25
FY2015 .................................................................................................................................... 27
FY2014 .................................................................................................................................... 28
Concluding Observations ............................................................................................................... 29
Figures
Figure 1. Distribution of Funding for NSF Mission Activities ........................................................ 5
Tables
Table 1. NSF Appropriations by Decade: FY1951 to FY2010 ...................................................... 19
Table 2. NSF Funding by Major Account ...................................................................................... 25
Table A-1. Selected NSF Authorization Acts ................................................................................. 30
Table B-1. NSF Authorizations, Budget Requests, and Appropriations ........................................ 31
Table B-2. NSF Obligations by Major Account: FY2003-FY2015 ............................................... 33
Appendixes
Appendix A. NSF Authorization Acts ............................................................................................ 30
Appendix B. NSF Funding History ............................................................................................... 31
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 34
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
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 the environmental
sciences, mathematics, social sciences, biology, 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, underpinning 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 The foundation’s organic act
sought to influence on a number of occasions. Some
specifically establishes it as an “independent
policy makers assert that the foundation can best
agency.”4 This independence, however, is not
accomplish its scientific purposes if free from undue
absolute. For example, NSF’s authorizing
political influence; others seek to ensure accountability in
the expenditure of public funds. Each Congress has the
statute expressly references the President’s
opportunity to revisit this tension and to redefine the
authority to remove the director. Further, both
relationship between the NSF and Congress.
Congress and the President retain the power to
govern the NSF through the budget, appropriations, and oversight processes.
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
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
Policy makers have expressed 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 or technical issues) or the desire to free agencies from
the control and direction of the executive.5 In NSF’s case, one historian 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. Between FY2008 and 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 or academia and represent a variety of disciplines.11
Historically, most NSF directors have come from the fields of physics or engineering.12
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 NSF: Who We Are,” National Science Foundation Website, February 27, 2015,
at http://www.nsf.gov/about/who.jsp.
10 National Science Board, “About the NSB,” National Science Board Website, February 27, 2015, http://www.nsf.gov/
nsb/about/; and National Science Foundation, “Introduction,” Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide
(NSF 15-1), December 26, 2014, at http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf15001/nsf15_1.pdf. See also the
section titled “Grant-Making” in this report.
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,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
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. 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
FY2015, there were seven assistant directors in charge of directorates. Assistant director duties
vary by directorate and in some cases have changed over time. 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
travel expenses for IPA rotators. Overall, IPA rotators comprised 12% of NSF’s total workforce in
August 2012. 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.
(...continued)
February 27, 2015, 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)).
Congressional Research Service
3
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
NSF Rotators: Pros and Cons
Policy analysts debate NSF’s use of rotators.14 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.15 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.16
Mission Activities
NSF’s dual mission is to support basic research and education in the non-medical sciences and
engineering.17 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.18
Funding for STEM education activities at NSF typically constitutes about a third of the total
federal STEM education effort.19
The foundation divides its mission activities among seven directorates, which are mainly
organized by academic discipline.20 The largest directorate (measured by FY2015 estimated
budget authority) is Mathematical and Physical Sciences. (Geosciences is a close second.) The
smallest directorate is Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences. Figure 1 shows the
distribution of total FY2015 estimated funding by directorate.
14 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.
15 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.
16 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.
17 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.
18 Based on preliminary FY2014 data from Tables 7 and 22 of the National Science Foundation, National Center for
Science and Engineering Statistics, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2012-14, NSF 14-316
(September 2014), at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf14316/content.cfm?pub_id=4418&id=2.
19 The NSF publication, Data by Design, provides a graphic overview of NSF activities. It is available at
http://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/reports/data_by_design.pptx.
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, and Award
Management and the Office of Information and Resource Management.
Congressional Research Service
4
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
Figure 1. Distribution of Funding for NSF Mission Activities
FY2015 Estimate, by Directorate
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on FY2015 estimated funding levels reported in NSF’s FY2016
Budget Request to Congress, available at http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2016/index.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 or offices 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 and projects are co-
funded (i.e., they receive funding from two or more foundation accounts) or involve coordination
and cooperation between programs and directorates. (Division lists and FY2015 funding levels in
the following sections are as per NSF’s FY2016 Budget Request to Congress.21)
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.”22 BIO divisions include Molecular and Cellular
Biosciences, Integrative Organismal Systems, Environmental Biology, Biological Infrastructure,
and Emerging Frontiers. BIO will receive $731 million in funding (estimate) in FY2015.
21 Available at http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2016/index.jsp.
22 National Science Foundation, Directorate for Biological Sciences, “About Biological Sciences,” National Science
Foundation Website, February 27, 2015, 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
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
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.”23 CISE divisions include Advanced
Cyberinfrastructure, Computing and Communication Foundations, Computer and Network
Systems, Information and Intelligent Systems, and Information Technology Research. FY2015
estimated funding for CISE is $922 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.”24
EHR divisions include Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings, Graduate
Education, Human Resource Development, and Undergraduate Education. FY2015 estimated
funding for EHR is $866 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.”25 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.
FY2015 estimated funding for ENG is $892 million.
Directorate for Geosciences (GEO). GEO supports “research spanning the Atmospheric, Earth,
Ocean and Polar sciences.”26 GEO divisions include Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, Earth
Sciences, Integrative and Collaborative Education and Research, Ocean Sciences, and Polar
Programs. FY2015 estimated funding for GEO is $1.304 billion.
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
23 National Science Foundation, Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering, “CISE—About,”
National Science Foundation Website, February 27, 2015, 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.
24 National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, “About Education and Human
Resources,” National Science Foundation Website, February 27, 2015, 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.
25 National Science Foundation, Directorate for Engineering, “General Information About ENG,” National Science
Foundation Website, February 27, 2015, 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.
26 National Science Foundation, Directorate for Geosciences, “About GEO,” National Science Foundation Website,
February 27, 2015, at http://www.nsf.gov/geo/about.jsp. See also, National Science Foundation, Unraveling Earth’s
Complexity: Geosciences, NSF 13-801 (September 2013), at https://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/reports/
geo_research.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
compelling scientific questions, educate the future advanced high-tech workforce, and promote
discoveries to meet the needs of the Nation.”27 MPS divisions include Astronomical Sciences,
Chemistry, Materials Research, Mathematical Sciences, Physics, and the Office of
Multidisciplinary Activities. FY2015 estimated funding for MPS is $1.337 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).”28 In addition to the NCSES, SBE
divisions include Social and Economic Sciences, Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, and the
Office of Multidisciplinary Activities. FY2015 estimated funding for SBE is $272 million.
27 National Science Foundation, Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, “About Directorate for
Mathematical and Physical Sciences,” National Science Foundation Website, February 27, 2015, 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.
28 National Science Foundation, FY2016 Budget Request to Congress, February 2, 2015, p. SBE-1, at
http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2016/index.jsp. 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
c11173008
.
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 that they perceive
to be more closely associated with national security, health, or economic interests, such as the physical and life
sciences. Some opponents also question certain SBE grants—such as the “study of human-set forest fires 2,000 years
ago in New Zealand”—that they perceive as frivolous or wasteful.29 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.30 Supporters maintain that SBE grants can yield critical innovations (even grants
that opponents see as 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.31 The final
FY2015 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 113-235) did not redirect funding from SBE to other NSF accounts as H.Amdt.
734 would have done. Instead, the act provided greater-than-requested amounts to BIO, CISE, ENG, and MPS. A
related debate occurred in the context of deliberations over H.R. 4186 (Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science,
and Technology Act of 2014), which (among other things) sought 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, but was not enacted. Similar legislation may be introduced in the 114th Congress.
Legislators have also focused more narrowly on the specific question of funding for SBE’s Political Science program.
Some legislators have asserted that political science research is extraneous to NSF’s central mission and a waste of
federal dollars.32 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 were not 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.33 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.34 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 (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 or
FY2015. Average annual funding for NSF’s Political Science program is typical y in the $9 million to $10 million range.
29 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), p. H4958.
30 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.
31 Smith, pp. H4957-H4960.
32 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.
33 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.
34 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
c11173008
.
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.35 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.36 Of these, between 20% and 25% typically
receive funding. About 35,000 scientists and engineers participated in the merit review process as
panelists and proposal reviewers in FY2014.37
The vast majority of NSF funds are awarded through a competitive, merit-based assessment
process.38 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.39
• Phase 2: reviewers selected, peer review, program officer recommendation,
division director review.40
• Phase 3: business review, award finalized.41
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, it is sent to three or more external subject matter experts
for peer review.42 Peer reviewers evaluate the proposal according to two broad criteria:
intellectual merit and broader impacts.43 According to the NSF,
35 NSF’s Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) describes the foundation’s grant-making
process and provides guidance to potential applicants. The foundation also has a short video on its grant-making
process on its website, available at http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/mmg_disp.jsp?med_id=76467.
36 PAPPG, “Introduction,” at http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf15001/gpg_3.jsp.
37 National Science Foundation, FY2014 Agency Financial Report, NSF15002, December 15, 2015, p. I-4, at
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15002/pdf/nsf15002.pdf. Additionally, the NSF director submits an annual report on
the foundation’s merit review process to the National Science Board. The FY2013 report (NSB-14-32) was published
on May 12, 2014, and is available at https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/pubmeritreview.jsp.
38 One exception to this rule is the RAPID (or 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-23.
39 More information on the proposal preparation and submission phase is available at http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/
policy/merit_review/phase1.jsp.
40 More information on the proposal review and processing phase is available at http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/
merit_review/phase2.jsp.
41 More information on the award processing phase is available at http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/
phase3.jsp.
42 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.
43 In addition to these criteria, NSF solicitations may include additional criteria that meet the specific objectives of
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
9
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance
knowledge; and
Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society
and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.44
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.45
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.46
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 FY2014.47
(...continued)
programs or activities.
44 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—NSF Proposal
Processing and Review” in the “Grant Proposal Guide” section of the PAPPG.
45 National Science Foundation, “Phase II: Proposal Review and Processing,” National Science Foundation Website,
February 27, 2015, http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/phase2.jsp.
46 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.
47 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 0.1 percent or more of the prior year total NSF budget
without the prior approval of the National Science Board.”
Congressional Research Service
10
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
Besides grants, NSF also awards funding though other mechanisms, such as cooperative
agreements, contracts, and competitions. In FY2014, NSF distributed 73% of its funding via
grants, 22% by cooperative agreement, and 5% by contract.48
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.49
To this end, Congress established the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) at NSF in
1978.50 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 table 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).51
At the beginning of the EPSCoR program, some questioned the length of time required for a state to improve its
research infrastructure. A five-year limit was proposed, but that proved to be “unrealistic, both substantively and
politically.”52 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. In 2013, The National
Academies published a study of federal EPSCoR programs, including findings and recommendations related to
graduation and other program aspects.53
48 Contracts are used to acquire products, services, and studies (e.g., program evaluations).
49 “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), pp. 5-16–5-17. The issue of geographic concentration of federal research dollars is
not unique to the NSF. Other federal agencies also focus on this question.
50 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/
od/iia/programs/epscor/index.jsp; and in CRS Report RL30930, U.S. National Science Foundation: Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), by Christine M. Matthews (retired).
51 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.
52 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, p. 4.
53 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
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
Scientific Facilities, Instruments, and Equipment
NSF does not typically directly operate laboratories or scientific facilities. However, the
foundation provides operations and maintenance support to outside awardees and contractors who
manage a wide array of scientific facilities, instruments, and equipment. For example, NSF
funding supports the National Center for Atmospheric Research, polar facilities and logistics, and
a fleet of academic research ships. More information about NSF support for scientific facilities,
instruments, and equipment is typically found in the “Facilities” section of NSF’s annual budget
request to Congress.
NSF’s Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account also provides
funding for the construction of new research facilities and equipment. 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);54 as well as U.S. projects, including
ground-based astronomical telescopes and ecological and ocean observatory networks (which
connect geographically distributed scientific facilities and instruments). MREFC usually supports
projects only during the construction phase. Project planning and design, as well as post-
construction operations and maintenance, comes from the Research and Related Activities (RRA)
account. This means that RRA-funded programs may experience budget pressure as new facilities
come online, if new funds are not provided for facility operations. On the other hand, there may
be opportunity costs to science if the construction of updated or new facilities and instruments is
too long delayed.
Major Constituencies
Approximately three-quarters of NSF funds are typically awarded 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 recipients (about
3%). In any given fiscal year, NSF funding provides 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 identified 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 FY2016, NSF expects to issue approximately 12,000 new awards to over 1,800 colleges,
universities, and other institutions in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories.55
This is up from 10,981 awards issued in FY2014.56 The foundation estimates that approximately
356,500 individuals will be directly involved in NSF programs and activities in FY2016,
including researchers, postdoctoral associates, and other professionals; undergraduate and
54 Readers who have seen the 1997 film Contact may also be familiar with the NSF-funded Karl G. Jansky 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.
55 National Science Foundation, FY2016 Budget Request to Congress, February 2, 2015, p. Overview-15, at
http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2016/index.jsp.
56 National Science Foundation, FY2014 Agency Financial Report (NSF15002), December 15, 2015, p. I-5, at
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15002/pdf/nsf15002.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
graduate students; and elementary and secondary school teachers and students.57 At least 214
Nobel laureates have received NSF support at some point in their careers.58 NSF support for
informal science education and scientific literacy reaches many Americans—in museums,
libraries, afterschool programs, and through the media—every year.
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.59
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 issues and policies are not limited to race/ethnicity and gender. Studies have also shown
STEM achievement gaps by income and level of urbanization (e.g., rural, suburban, urban).
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. FY2015 funding for NSF’s broadening participation programs is $602 mil ion (estimated).
Some of the most widely tracked NSF broadening participation programs provide funding to minority-serving
institutions of higher education.
Selected Authorization Acts
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). NSF’s appropriations authorizations
expired in FY2013, at the end of the 2010 COMPETES reauthorization act’s authorization period.
Legislators sought to reauthorize certain COMPETES provisions in the 113th Congress, including
NSF provisions, but these bills did not pass out of their house of origin or become law.60 Table A-
1 includes a list of selected NSF authorization acts dating to the 1950s.
57 National Science Foundation, FY2016 Budget Request to Congress, February 2, 2015, p. Summary Tables-5, at
http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2016/index.jsp.
58 National Science Foundation, “NSF-Funded Nobel Prize Winners in Science through 2014,” fact sheet, October 14,
2014, at http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100683.
59 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.
60 More information about the COMPETES Acts is available in CRS Report R43880, The America COMPETES Acts:
An Overview, by Heather B. Gonzalez and in CRS Report R42779, America COMPETES Acts: FY2008 to FY2013
Funding Tables, by Heather B. Gonzalez.
Congressional Research Service
13
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
Legislative Origin
Many contemporary policy conversations about the NSF mirror the debate over the foundation’s
establishment. For example, the 113th Congress 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.61 Senator Kilgore chaired the Senate
Subcommittee on War Mobilization during and immediately after World War II. Bush was
director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) as well as a science
advisor to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.62 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.63
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.64 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.65 Differences
focused on five broad themes that would be very familiar to an NSF observer today. These
include
61 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
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 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt established the OSRD as an independent agency within the Office of
Emergency Management (Executive Order 8807). More information about OSRD is available on the Library of
Congress website at http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/trs/trsosrd.html.
63 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), pp. 21-27; and, George T. Mazuzan, National Science Foundation: A
Brief History, NSF 88-16 (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1988).
64 At the time, most stakeholders agreed with the general concept of a publicly 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.
65 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.
Congressional Research Service
14
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
• 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.66
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 publicly 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.67
Senator Magnuson’s bill (S. 1285), on the other hand, would have created a research foundation
led by a publicly 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. In his veto message he 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.”68
In April 1950, Congress sent the President a new bill, S. 247 (National Science Foundation Act of
1950). President Truman signed S. 247, which became P.L. 81-507 (referred to as NSF’s “organic
66 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), pp. 21-27; and, J. Merton England, A Patron for Pure Science: The
National Science Foundation’s Formative Years, 1945-57 (Washington, DC: NSF, 1982).
67 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.
68 Harry S. Truman Library and 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.
Congressional Research Service
15
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
act”) on May 10, 1950.69 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 by stating that it
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.70
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
United States 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 patent issues, P.L. 81-507 left these questions to the NSF to decide through the contract
process.71 With one notable exception, Congress did not pass another NSF authorization act for
the next 15 years.72
1968 Reauthorization
The next major reauthorization of the NSF organic act came in 1968.73 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.74 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 specifically authorized support for applied
research.
69 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.
70 P.L. 81-507, Section 3(b).
71 For a broader treatment of federal patent issues, see CRS Report R42014, The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act:
Innovation Issues, by John R. Thomas.
72 NSF’s organic act authorized $500,000 in FY1951 and $15,000,000 annually thereafter. Congress amended the act in
1953 to authorize “such sums as may be necessary” (P.L. 83-223).
73 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 its 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.
74 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.
Congressional Research Service
16
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
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.75 Other Members asserted that longer authorization cycles would assist in
long-range planning, ensure stable funding, and facilitate “sound national science policy and
programs.”76 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 Acts
Since 2007, Congress has included language to reauthorize the NSF in broader, multi-agency 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,77 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. Most
COMPETES Acts-related funding authorizations expired in FY2013.
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.78 Under this
policy, Congress and two successive Administrations sought to double—over several years—
combined funding for certain federal accounts (including NSF) that fund substantial levels of
physical sciences and engineering (PS&E) research.79 PS&E research is widely believed to
contribute to U.S. economic growth and national security by creating the underlying knowledge
75 Ken Hechler, Toward the Endless Frontier: History of the Committee on Science and Technology, 1959-79
(Washington, DC: U.S. House of Representatives/GPO, 1980), pp. 537-538.
76 S.Rept. 95-851, pp. 22-23.
77 America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) and America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358).
78 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. and CRS Report R43880, The
America COMPETES Acts: An Overview, by Heather B. Gonzalez.
79 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). Other federal agencies also fund PS&E research. For example, the
largest federal funder of research in engineering is the Department of Defense. The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) also emphasizes engineering and physical sciences research. See National Science Board,
Science and Engineering Indicators 2014, NSB-14-01 (Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2014), p. 4-38.
Congressional Research Service
17
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
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.80
As enacted in the 2007 America COMPETES Act, combined funding for the targeted accounts
was authorized to increase at a compound annual growth rate of 10.4% (between the FY2006
baseline and FY2010, the final year under P.L. 110-69). If actual and authorized appropriations
had grown at the 10.4% pace, funding for the targeted accounts would have doubled in seven
years. That is, combined funding for the targeted accounts would have increased to approximately
twice the FY2006 level in FY2013. However, actual appropriations to the targeted accounts over
the America COMPETES Act’s authorization period increased at a compound annual growth rate
of 6.3%. At this pace, funding for the targeted accounts would have doubled in about 11 years.
Following the trend in actual appropriations during the first authorization period, the America
COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 authorized funding increases at a compound annual
growth rate of 6.4% (between the FY2006 baseline and FY2013, the final year addressed by the
act). If actual appropriations had grown at this pace, funding for the targeted accounts would have
doubled over about an 11-year period. In other words, combined funding for the targeted accounts
would have increased to approximately twice the FY2006 level in FY2017. However, actual
appropriations over the reauthorization act’s authorization period increased at a compound annual
growth rate of 3.1%. At this pace, it would take about 22 years for the targeted accounts to
double.
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 1987.81 His FY1988 and
FY1989 budget requests sought increases that were consistent with this approach. Congress also
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.82 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 reportedly 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.83 Actual appropriations to the NSF
increased by about 22% during the P.L. 107-368 authorization period.84 President Bush later
80 For more information about the NIH doubling, see CRS Report R43341, NIH Funding: FY1994-FY2016, by Judith
A. Johnson.
81 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.
82 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 billion (59%) more than the FY1988 funding level.
83 Jeffrey Mervis, “Bush Signs NSF ‘Doubling’ Bill,” Science, December 20, 2002, at http://news.sciencemag.org/
2002/12/bush-signs-nsf-doubling-bill.
84 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
$1.067 billion (22%) more than the FY2002 funding level.
Congressional Research Service
18
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
proposed a doubling similar to that authorized by the COMPETES Acts—focused on the targeted
accounts, not just NSF—in the 2006 American Competitiveness Initiative.85
If NSF appropriations are viewed by decade (e.g., FY1951 to FY1960, FY1960 to FY1970, etc.),
the NSF budget doubled (in current dollars) over the course of each of the five decades between
the foundation’s first budget in FY1951 and FY1990.86 (See Table 1.) Growth slowed from this
pace around the turn of the 21st century. Between FY1990 and FY2000, the NSF budget grew by
about 88% in current dollars; between FY2000 and FY2010, it grew by about 76% in current
dollars.87
In inflation-adjusted (constant) dollars, NSF’s budget much more than doubled between FY1951
and FY1960, and again between FY1960 and FY1970. The NSF budget has not doubled by
decade (in constant dollars) since then. Between FY1970 and FY1980, NSF’s budget grew at its
lowest constant dollar rate (16%). Between FY1980 and FY2010, NSF constant dollar funding
increased by 38% or more each decade. However, constant dollar funding for NSF was below
FY2010 levels in FY2011, FY2012, FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015, which shows that funding
for NSF has not kept pace with inflation so far this decade.
Table 1. NSF Appropriations by Decade: FY1951 to FY2010
In Millions, Current and Constant (FY2016) Dollars, Rounded
Current
Constant
Year
($ millions)
(FY2016 $ millions)
FY1951 0
2
FY1960 153
977
FY1970 440 2,195
FY1980 992 2,537
FY1990 2,082
3,496
FY2000 3,912
5,343
FY2010 6,873
7,582
Source: Excerpted from Table B-1.
Should Congress continue to pursue the COMPETES doubling policy? 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
85 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.
86 Other periods of time or funding units might produce different results. However, the decade-long perspective is
largely consistent with the 11-year doubling period implicit in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010
(P.L. 111-358). Further, a CRS analysis of year-over-year percentage change in NSF funding between FY1951 and
FY2015 showed a downward sloping trend line and a median year-over-year change of 8%. NSF has not increased at a
rate above the median rate since FY2003. The highest year-over-year percentage change was in FY1952, when NSF
funding grew by from $0.23 million to $3.5 million ($3.3 million or 1422%); the lowest year-over-year percentage
change was in FY1957, when NSF funding fell from $53 million to $40 million ($13 million or -25%).
87 This growth estimate excludes American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) funding.
Congressional Research Service
19
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
security and competitiveness.88 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.89
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.90 Some policymakers who seek general reductions in federal expenditures may
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.91 These analysts may perceive NSF funding as a vital investment to be
protected in times of fiscal austerity. 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.92
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
88 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.
89 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.
90 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 policymakers 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.
91 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.
92 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.
Congressional Research Service
20
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
education at the NSF impacts not only the agency, but also the entire federal STEM education
effort.93
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. FY2015 estimated funding for EHR is close to the FY2011
level.94
In addition to funding authorizations, the COMPETES Acts authorized and amended some NSF
STEM education programs.95 Among the amended programs were the Graduate Research
Fellowship (GRF) program and the Integrative Graduate Research and Education Traineeship
(IGERT). The GRF program 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
$34,000 annually and a $12,000 cost-of-education allowance for tuition and fees (paid to their
institutions). NSF typically offers 2,000 new fellowships a year. Almost 50,000 GRFs have been
awarded since the program began. The IGERT program, which began in 1997, was NSF’s
flagship interdisciplinary training program. IGERT funding was awarded to institutions of higher
education, which could use IGERT funding for student support or education research. In FY2013,
NSF provided funding for 1,572 IGERT trainees.96 In FY2014, NSF absorbed the IGERT
program into the (new) NSF Research Traineeship (NRT). The NRT program includes a
Traineeship Track and an Innovations in Graduate Education Track.97
Section 510 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 sought to make two
changes in NSF treatment of the GRF and IGERT programs.98 First, it sought to require NSF to
treat the GRF and IGERT programs equally by increasing or decreasing funding for these
programs at the same rates. The NSF appears not to have implemented this clause. Funding for
the IGERT program was reduced from the prior year in FY2011 and FY2013 while funding for
the GRF program increased.99 Second, Section 510 directed NSF to draw at least half of the
funding it provided the GRF and IGERT programs (between FY2011 and FY2013) from the RRA
account. RRA funding for the GRF and IGERT programs was close to 50% in FY2012 and
FY2013.
93 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.
94 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.
95 Most NSF STEM education programs are operated under general authority.
96 Email communication between CRS and staff from the NSF Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, dated February
21, 2014.
97 More information about the NRT program is available at http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=
505015.
98 P.L. 111-358, Sec. 510. See specifically, provisions (a), (b), and (c).
99 Section 510 attempts to tie funding changes in the IGERT program to that of the GRF program, such that funding for
the IGERT program would increase or decrease at the same rate that funding for the GRF program increased or
decreased. However, a CRS attorney found potential ambiguity in the language of this statute. Contact the author for
more information.
Congressional Research Service
21
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
Since the 2010 COMPETES reauthorization was enacted, President Obama has proposed and
appears to have undertaken a major restructuring of federal STEM education programs. The first
attempt at restructuring was included in the FY2014 budget request. Under the proposed FY2014
reorganization, NSF was to become the lead federal agency for undergraduate education and
federal fellowships. For a range of reasons, congressional appropriators largely rejected the plan,
though some changes were accepted.100 The Obama Administration released a “fresh”
reorganization plan as part of the FY2015 budget request.101 The final disposition of the FY2015
reorganization was unknown as of the date of this report.102 However, a CRS analysis of
Administration documents released with the FY2015 budget request found that the number of
federal STEM education investments had dropped from 228 in FY2012 to 109 in the FY2015
request.103 More changes have been proposed for FY2016.104 Congressional debate about the
reorganization of the federal STEM education effort, including activities at NSF, is ongoing.
For some policymakers, the prospect of a reorganized federal STEM education effort may raise
the question, “to what end?” The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 directed the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) to develop a five-year 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.105 Some policymakers perceived the strategy as insufficiently independent from the
FY2014 proposed reorganization;106 while others perceived it as a starting place for a new
conversation about the federal STEM education portfolio in lieu of the proposed
reorganization.107 NSF plays a leadership role in NSTC’s STEM education-related policy
100 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, to accompany 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.” Some of the changes (for example, those at the Department of
Energy) were accepted.
101 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.
102 Section 101 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act requires the director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy to report annually (at the time of the president’s budget request) on, among other things, the status
of federal STEM education programs. The report for FY2016, which would describe the disposition of changes made in
FY2015, had not been published as of March 9, 2015.
103 CRS Report IN10011, The Administration’s Proposed STEM Education Reorganization: Where Are We Now?, by
Heather B. Gonzalez.
104 “In addition, with the overall number of STEM programs already reduced by 40 percent over the last two years, the
Budget continues to reduce fragmentation of STEM education programs across the Government.” Executive Office of
the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Investing in America’s Future: Preparing Students with
STEM Skills,” fact sheet on STEM education in the FY2016 budget, February 2015, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/stem_fact_sheet_2016_budget_0.pdf.
105 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.
106 H.Rept. 113-171, p. 59.
107 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
22
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
activities and asserts that its key STEM education investments are in keeping with Administration
priorities and the five-year strategy (particularly in graduate and undergraduate education).108
Reauthorization Activity in the 113th Congress
Major provisions of the COMPETES Acts, including provisions authorizing funding for the
National Science Foundation, expired in FY2013. At least four bills were introduced in the 113th
Congress to reauthorize selected provisions from the acts. Of these, H.R. 4159, H.R. 4186, and S.
2757 included NSF provisions. None of these bills passed their house of origin or became law.
For an analysis of these bills, see CRS Report R43880, The America COMPETES Acts: An
Overview, by Heather B. Gonzalez.
Several stand-alone bills with provisions similar to those included in COMPETES reauthorization
acts were also considered by the 113th Congress.109 Of these bills, H.R. 967 (Advancing
America’s Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 2013) and
H.R. 5031 (STEM Education Act of 2014) contained provisions that would have authorized or
amended targeted programs and policies at the NSF. Both measures passed the House, but not the
Senate.
Reauthorization Activity in the 114th Congress
The 114th Congress faces the question of whether to reauthorize COMPETES; and if so, what
provisions to include, eliminate, or amend. With specific regard to NSF, Congress might continue
reauthorizing the foundation as part of a multi-agency reauthorization measure (i.e., the
COMPETES approach) or could return to the pre-COMPETES practice of reauthorizing NSF on
its own, in a stand-alone bill. Policymakers may also opt not to reauthorize either COMPETES or
the NSF; or might reauthorize some NSF programs, polices, and agencies, and not others.
This section tracks selected legislation to reauthorize the NSF in the 114th Congress. It focuses on
bills with multiple provisions impacting NSF that have passed at least one chamber, and on those
that seek to provide specific appropriations authorizations to NSF.110
The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act Reauthorization of 2015 (H.R. 23) was
introduced on January 6, 2015 and passed the House on January 7, 2015, by a vote of 381 to
39.111 As passed by the House, the bill directed NSF to (1) undertake research to improve
understanding of windstorms and their impacts, (2) participate in an Interagency Coordinating
Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction, and (3) report on windstorm impact-related
activities in the foundation’s annual budget requests. Additionally, H.R. 23 would authorize $9.7
108 National Science Foundation, FY2016 Budget Request to Congress, February 2, 2015, p. Overview-8, at
http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2016/index.jsp.
109 These stand-alone bills typically contain a limited number of provisions that closely mirror those contained in more
comprehensive, agency or multi-agency reauthorization acts.
110 A “defined” appropriation or authorization of appropriations provides a specific sum, such as $10 million, for
specified activities. Undefined appropriations or authorizations of appropriations provide “such sums as may be
necessary” or similarly indeterminate amounts.
111 For more information on windstorms, see CRS Report R40097, Severe Thunderstorms and Tornadoes in the United
States, by Peter Folger.
Congressional Research Service
23
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
million in appropriations each year between FY2015 and FY2017 for activities under H.R. 23. As
of March 12, 2015, H.R. 23 had been received in the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Space, and Transportation; which marked-up, amended, and favorably reported
the bill on February 26, 2015.
On February 25, 2015, the House passed H.R. 1020 (STEM Education Act of 2015) by a vote of
412 to 8. This bill is substantially similar to H.R. 5031 from the 113th Congress. H.R. 1020 states
that for the purposes of carrying out STEM education activities at certain federal science agencies
(including NSF), the definition of STEM education includes computer science. (The definition in
H.R. 5031 differed from this by including “other academic subjects that build on these [i.e.,
STEM] disciplines such as computer science.”) Other provisions in H.R. 1020 address NSF
programs. These provisions (1) require the foundation to continue issuing grants for research and
development of informal STEM education, and (2) amend the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship
Program (Noyce) teacher fellowship subprogram (42 U.S.C 1862n-1a). Among other things, the
Noyce amendments would change fellowship eligibility to include teachers with a bachelor’s
degree in a STEM field who are working toward a master’s degree.
Budget and Appropriations
NSF submits annual budget justifications to Congress that provide insight into its activities and
priorities.112 A brief summary of NSF’s three most recent budget requests (FY2016, FY2015, and
FY2014), 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 FY2016. Table B-2 provides FY2003 to FY2015 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.113 NSF has six major appropriations accounts:
Research and Related Activities (RRA), Education and Human Resources (EHR), Major
Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC), Agency Operations and Award
Management (AOAM), National Science Board (NSB), and the Office of the Inspector General
(OIG). The majority of NSF’s primary mission activities are funded through RRA, EHR, and
MREFC.
Policymakers actively debate Congressional funding directives at the major subaccount level in
RRA. Some analysts assert that legislators have a role in establishing funding priorities by
scientific field within RRA, as part of the legislative oversight function and in order to assure
accountability for taxpayer funds. Other analysts argue that the scientists who manage NSF ought
to determine the distribution of funding by field, based on their deeper knowledge of research
needs and scientific possibilities within each field, and of how these needs are best balanced
across the NSF portfolio.
112 In concert with the annual, official Administration budget request published by the Office of Management and
Budget, individual agencies typically submit agency-specific budget information directly to Congress. These budget
justifications provide more detailed insight into programs and requested changes. NSF publishes its annual budget
justification—typically called the “NSF Budget Request to Congress”—on its website at http://www.nsf.gov/about/
budget/. Additionally, readers may access award summaries by state and institution, historical NSF account data, and
related reports at http://dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov/.
113 In FY2008, NSF shifted the EPSCoR program from EHR to RRA.
Congressional Research Service
24
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
FY2016
Overall, the Obama Administration seeks $7.724 billion for the NSF in FY2016, a $379 million
(5%) increase over the FY2015 estimate of $7.344 billion. Under the request, RRA would
increase by $253 million or 4%. EHR would grow by nearly $100 million (11%). (See Table 2.)
Table 2. NSF Funding by Major Account
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Account
Estimate
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Research and Related Activities (RRA)
Biological Sciences (BIO)
731.0
747.9
Computer and Information Science
921.7 954.4
and Engineering (CISE)
Engineering (ENG)
892.3
949.2
Geosciences (GEO)
1,304.4
1,365.4
Mathematical and Physical Sciences
1,336.7 1,366.2
(MPS)
Social, Behavioral, and Economic
272.2 291.5
Sciences (SBE)
Office of International Science and
48.5 51.0
Engineering (OISE)
International and Integrative Activities
425.3 459.2
(IIA)
U.S. Arctic Research Commission
1.4 1.5
(USARC)
RRA
Subtotal 5,933.7 6,186.3
Education and Human Resources
866.0 962.6
(EHR)
Major Research Equipment and
200.8 200.3
Facilities Construction (MREFC)
Agency Operations and Award
325.0 354.8
Management (AOAM)
National Science Board (NSB)
4.4
4.4
Office of the Inspector General
14.4 15.2
(OIG)
NSF, Total
7,344.2
7,723.6
Source: Data in the columns titled “FY2015 Estimate” and “FY2016 Request” are from the FY2016 NSF Budget
Request to Congress.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding. The account structure in Table 2
reflects the realignment (in FY2015) of OISE and IIA as separate budget activities.
Congressional Research Service
25
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
NSF identified eight priorities in its FY2016 budget documents. Four of these programs have
been foundation priorities since at least FY2013: Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and
Smart Systems (CEMMSS, $257 million requested, 11% increase); Cyberinfrastructure
Framework for 21st Century Science, Engineering, and Education (CIF21, $143 million
requested, 11% increase); Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES, $81
million requested, 42% reduction); and Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC, $124 million
requested, 1% increase). New priorities in FY2016 include Clean Energy Technology ($377
million, 2% increase), Innovation Corps (I-Corps, $30 million, 14% increase), NSF Research
Traineeships (NRT, $62 million, 1% increase), and Research at the Interface of Biological,
Mathematical, and Physical Sciences (BioMaPS, $33 million, 12% increase).
Reflecting the enduring debate over NSF support for the social sciences and other fields
perceived by some observers as less immediately related to national priorities, FY2015 House
report language (H.Rept. 113-448) directed NSF to apply any additional appropriations (over
FY2015 RRA requested levels) to BIO, CISE, ENG, and MPS. NSF received $126 million more
than requested for RRA in FY2015. The additional funding was applied to the specified major
subaccounts, which received 3%-4% increases over FY2015 requested levels. (Funding for GEO,
SBE, IIA/OISE, and USARC was at FY2015 requested levels.) Although the FY2016 budget
request seeks increases ranging from 2% to 8% for all major RRA subaccounts, the request seeks
slightly more (on average, as a percentage over prior year) for accounts that did not receive extra
funding in FY2015 (i.e., GEO, SBE, IIA/OISE, and USARC).114 However, more than half of the
$253 million total FY2016 increase for RRA (54%) would still go to BIO, CISE, ENG, and MPS.
The FY2016 request for EHR is $963 million, or $97 million more than the FY2015 estimated
level of $866 million. Most of the requested increase ($81 million or 83%) would go to activities
classified as R&D. This additional investment in R&D would further shift the balance between
R&D and education and training within EHR.115 If Congress adopts the FY2016 request, the
portion of EHR dedicated to R&D activities would reach 49%. By comparison, in FY2008 (the
earliest year for which comparable budget data are available), R&D activities constituted 11% of
EHR funding. The character of EHR’s R&D funding has also shifted, moving from about 91%
basic research in FY2008 to about 34% basic research in the FY2016 request.
EHR programs that are widely tracked by congressional policymakers include the GRF and NRT.
The FY2016 request for GRF is $338 million, $4 million (1%) over the FY2015 estimated level
of $333 million. GRF funding would be split equally between RRA and EHR, which would each
contribute $169 million. The FY2016 request for NRT is $62 million, which is essentially the
same as the FY2015 estimate. Funding for the NRT would not be evenly split between EHR and
RRA. The RRA contribution would be $27 million, $7 million below the FY2015 estimate of $33
million. The EHR contribution would be $35 million, $7 million above the FY2015 estimate of
$28 million.
The Administration seeks just over $200 million for MREFC in FY2016, which is close to the
FY2015 estimate of $201 million. In FY2016, MREFC funding would pay for the final year of
114 The average requested percentage increase for BIO (2%), CISE (4%), ENG (6%), and MPS (2%) is 4%. The
average requested percentage increase for GEO (5%), SBE (7%), IIA/OISE (8%), and USARC (5%) is 6%.
115 According to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) character classification definitions, most EHR funding goes
to R&D or to education and training. The education and training classification includes scholarships, as well as
operating assistance for schools and colleges. For more information, see OMB Circular A-11, Section 84, “Character
Classification (Schedule C)” at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/a11_current_year/s84.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
26
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) construction, and would provide ongoing
support for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) and Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope
(DKIST).
FY2015
FY2015 enacted funding for NSF is $7.344 billion. This amount is $213 million (3%) more than
the FY2014 actual funding level of $7.131 billion and $89 million (1%) more than the Obama
Administration’s request for $7.255 billion. Under P.L. 113-235 (Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015), RRA, EHR, NSB, and OIG each received between 3% and
4% more than their FY2014 actual levels. AOAM received 6% more; MREFC received no
increase. Compared to the request, EHR and AOAM received 3% and 4% less than requested
(respectively) and RRA received 2% more. AOAM, NSB, and OIG received their requested
levels.
The joint explanatory statement printed in the December 11, 2014, Congressional Record
accompanied P.L. 113-325 and provided additional guidance on FY2015 funding for certain NSF
programs and accounts.116 Among other things, the explanatory statement adopted by reference
House report language requiring NSF to apply any funding increases it receives for RRA (above
requested levels) to MPS, CISE, ENG, and BIO.
The Administration initially sought $7.255 billion in funding for the NSF in FY2015.117 The
request held funding levels for RRA and MREFC essentially constant while seeking a 7%
increase for EHR as well as an 11% increase for AOAM. Most of the new AOAM funding
applied toward the new NSF headquarters. NSF’s FY2015 budget request to Congress highlighted
five initiatives that were also foundation priorities in FY2014: Cognitive Science and
Neuroscience ($29 million); Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems ($213
million); Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science, Engineering, and Education
($125 million); Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability ($139 million); and Secure
and Trustworthy Cyberspace ($100 million). The FY2015 NSF budget request incorporated
STEM education program changes in accordance with the Administration’s revised FY2015
government-wide reorganization of federal STEM education programs.118
The House passed H.R. 4660 (Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2015) by a vote of 321 to 87 on May 30, 2014. H.Rept. 113-448 accompanied H.R. 4660
when it was reported from the House Committee on Appropriations. Among other things, H.R.
4660 would have provided $7.394 billion to NSF in FY2015. This amount was $139 million (2%)
more than the Administration’s FY2015 request and $263 million (4%) over FY2014 actual. The
House-passed bill would have provided a 3% increase over FY2014 actual and the FY2015
request for RRA, as well as increases (though smaller than the request) for EHR and AOAM.
H.R. 4660 would have provided the requested levels for MREFC, NSB, and OIG.
116 pp. H9343-H9363.
117 For more information about the NSF FY2015 budget request and appropriations, see CRS Report R43509,
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: FY2015 Appropriations, coordinated by Nathan James, Jennifer D.
Williams, and John F. Sargent Jr.
118 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.
Congressional Research Service
27
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 2437 (Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015) on June 5, 2014. S.Rept. 113-181 accompanied S.
2437 when it was reported from the committee. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended the requested level for NSF in FY2015. However, relative to the request, the
committee would distribute funding slightly differently across two of NSF’s major accounts. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended providing approximately $30 million more
than the request to RRA and reducing AOAM by an equivalent amount. The committee
recommended the requested levels for EHR, MREFC, NSB, and OIG.
FY2014
FY2014 enacted funding for NSF was $7.172 billion. This amount is $270 million (4%) more
than NSF’s FY2013 actual funding level of $6.902 billion.119 Most of the $270 million increase
($250 million) went to RRA. FY2014 enacted funding for NSF’s six major accounts was $5.809
billion for RRA (including $158 million for EPSCoR), $847 million for EHR, $200 million for
MREFC, $298 million for AOAM, $4 million for NSB, and $14 million for OIG.
The Obama Administration initially sought $7.626 billion in funding for the NSF in FY2014.
NSF’s FY2014 budget request to Congress noted that its overarching priorities for FY2014 would
include six programs: Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems;
Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 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.120 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.121
The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations recommended $6.995 billion and $7.426
billion, respectively, for NSF in FY2014. Both committees initially rejected the Administration’s
proposed changes to the federal STEM education effort, including changes to NSF programs. The
final FY2014 appropriations agreement reiterated this objection. The appropriations committees
initially disagreed on funding for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) in the MREFC
account—the Senate Committee on Appropriations sought to fund the new project, the House
Committee on Appropriations would not. The final agreement provided some of the requested
funding for the LSST and encouraged the foundation to seek permission to transfer funds from
other accounts if the amount appropriated was insufficient.122
119 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.
120 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.
121 National Science Foundation, FY2014 Budget Request to Congress, April 10, 2013, http://www.nsf.gov/about/
budget/fy2014/index.jsp.
122 H.Rept. 113-171, S.Rept. 113-78, and the Joint Explanatory Statement published in the January 15, 2014,
Congressional Record.
Congressional Research Service
28
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
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
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
29
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
Appendix A. NSF Authorization Acts
Table A-1. Selected NSF Authorization Acts
FY1951 to FY2014
Public Law
Bill Number
From
To
P.L. 81-507
S. 247
FY1951
FY1952
P.L. 83-223
S. 977
FY1953
indefinite
indefinite authorization under P.L. 81-507 and P.L 83-223
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
authorization bills 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
authorization bills are introduced, none become law
FY1988 FY1988
P.L. 100-570
H.R. 4418
FY1989
FY1993
authorization bills are introduced, none become law
FY1994 FY1997
P.L. 105-207
H.R. 1273
FY1998
FY2000
authorization bills are introduced, none become law
FY2001 FY2002
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
authorization bills are introduced, none become law
FY2014
─
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 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
30
c11173008
.
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 FY2016
In Millions, Current and Constant (FY2016) Dollars, Rounded
Current
Constant
($ millions)
(FY2016 $ millions)
Fiscal Year Authorization Request Appropriation Authorization Request Appropriation
1951 such
sums ─
0 such
sums
─
2
1952
such sums
14
4
such sums
105
26
1953
such sums
15
5
such sums
110
35
1954
such sums
15
8
such sums
109
58
1955
such sums
14
14
such sums
101
103
1956
such sums
31
53
such sums
218
373
1957
such sums
41
40
such sums
280
271
1958
such sums
65
52
such sums
428
341
1959
such sums
140
138
such sums
907
891
1960
such sums
160
153
such sums
1,025
977
1961
such sums
190
176
such sums
1,198
1,108
1962
such sums
210
263
such sums
1,311
1,643
1963
such sums
358
323
such sums
2,207
1,988
1964
such sums
589
353
such sums
3,588
2,150
1965
such sums
488
420
such sums
2,919
2,516
1966
such sums
530
480
such sums
3,106
2,812
1967
such sums
525
481
such sums
2,985
2,735
1968
such sums
526
495
such sums
2,892
2,722
1969
525
500
400
2,760
2,628
2,103
1970
478
500
440
2,382
2,494
2,195
1971
538
513
513
2,553
2,435
2,435
1972
653
622
622
2,956
2,818
2,818
1973
697
653
649
3,026
2,836
2,819
1974
633
583
579
2,565
2,363
2,349
1975
808
672
764
2,969
2,471
2,809
1976
787
755
715
2,706
2,597
2,459
1977
811
802
776
2,600
2,572
2,488
1978
879
944
863
2,642
2,836
2,593
1979
930
934
911
2,586
2,598
2,534
1980
1,002
1,006
992
2,563
2,574
2,537
Congressional Research Service
31
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
Current
Constant
($ millions)
(FY2016 $ millions)
Fiscal Year Authorization Request Appropriation Authorization Request Appropriation
1981
1,115
1,148
1,025
2,597
2,675
2,388
1982
n/a
1,354
1,039
n/a
2,952
2,265
1983
n/a
1,073
1,094
n/a
2,241
2,284
1984
n/a
1,292
1,341
n/a
2,607
2,705
1985
n/a
1,502
1,502
n/a
2,932
2,932
1986
1,517
1,569
1,524
2,896
2,996
2,909
1987
1,685
1,686
1,623
3,147
3,148
3,031
1988
n/a
1,893
1,717
n/a
3,425
3,106
1989
2,050
2,050
1,923
3,567
3,567
3,345
1990
2,388
2,149
2,082
4,009
3,608
3,496
1991
2,782
2,485
2,316
4,511
4,029
3,755
1992
3,245
2,742
2,571
5,136
4,341
4,068
1993
3,505
3,037
2,734
5,419
4,695
4,226
1994
n/a
2,753
2,983
n/a
4,165
4,513
1995
n/a
3,200
3,264
n/a
4,741
4,835
1996
n/a
3,360
3,220
n/a
4,887
4,683
1997
n/a
3,325
3,270
n/a
4,752
4,674
1998
3,506
3,367
3,431
4,949
4,754
4,843
1999
3,773
3,773
3,676
5,260
5,260
5,125
2000
3,886
3,921
3,912
5,308
5,356
5,343
2001
n/a
4,572
4,431
n/a
6,098
5,909
2002
n/a
4,473
4,823
n/a
5,871
6,331
2003
5,536
5,036
5,323
7,131
6,486
6,856
2004
6,391
5,481
5,589
8,032
6,889
7,024
2005
7,378
5,745
5,482
8,991
7,001
6,681
2006
8,520
5,605
5,589
10,055
6,615
6,596
2007
9,839
6,020
5,890
11,306
6,918
6,768
2008
6,600
6,429
6,125
7,431
7,238
6,896
2009
7,326
6,854
6,494
8,152
7,627
7,226
2010
8,132
7,045
6,873
8,971
7,772
7,582
2011
7,424
7,424
6,806
8,034
8,034
7,365
2012
7,800
7,767
7,033
8,295
8,260
7,479
2013
8,300
7,373
6,884
8,676
7,707
7,196
2014
n/a
7,626
7,172
n/a
7,852
7,384
2015
n/a
7,255
7.344
n/a
7,370
7,461
Congressional Research Service
32
c11173008
.
The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues
Current
Constant
($ millions)
(FY2016 $ millions)
Fiscal Year Authorization Request Appropriation Authorization Request Appropriation
2016 n/a
7,724
─
n/a
7,724
─
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,
February 25, 2015, http://del web.bfa.nsf.gov/NSFRqstAppropHist/NSFRequestsandAppropriationsHistory.pdf. To
calculate constant dol ars, CRS used the Gross Domestic Product, (Chained) Price Index (adjusted to reflect
FY2016 dol ars) found in Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, “Table 10.1,” February 2, 2015,
available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/hist10z1.xls.
Notes: 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-FY2015
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
2014 5,775 832 200 306 4 14
7,131
2015a 5,934 866 201 325 4 14
7,344
Source: National Science Foundation annual budget requests to Congress from FY2005 to FY2016.
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 part of RRA for al years in the data set. Does not include American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) funding.
a. Estimated funding level, as per NSF’s FY2016 budget request to Congress. Al other years are actual
obligations.
Congressional Research Service
33
c11173008
.
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
34
c11173008