Federal Research and Development: Budgeting and Priority-Setting Issues, 109th Congress

Order Code IB10088
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Federal Research and Development:
Budgeting and Priority-Setting Issues,
109th Congress
Updated June 14, 2006
Genevieve J. Knezo
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
R&D Budgets
FY2005 Budget
FY2006 Budget
FY2007 Budget Request
Priority-Setting Issues
Trends in R&D Support Patterns
Observations on the Role of the Federal Government in Supporting R&D
Priorities Among Fields of Federally Funded Research
Congressional Views About the Balance in Federal R&D Funding
Professional Groups’ Views About Balance
Legislative Proposals to Broaden Incentives for Private R&D
NSF Funding
Homeland Security R&D Funding
Federal R&D Priority-Setting Structures
Unified Federal Science and Technology (FS&T) Budget
Interagency R&D Initiatives
Proposals to Coordinate Federal R&D
Legislation on Technology Assessment
Earmarking
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and Performance Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)

---

IB10088
06-14-06
Federal Research and Development:
Budgeting and Priority-Setting Issues, 109th Congress
SUMMARY
Federal research and development (R&D)
was for Department of Defense (DOD), largely
funding priorities reflect presidential policies
for weapons development, and the rest was
and national needs. Defense R&D predomi-
largely for NASA space exploration. Except for
nated in the 1980s, decreasing to about 50% of
the Department of Transportation, which re-
federal R&D in the 1990s. In non-defense
ceived a 14% R&D increase, most other agency
R&D, space R&D was important in the 1960s
R&D increases were reduced or flat if inflation
as the nation sought to compete with the Soviet
is considered. Congress also enacted a 1%
Union; energy R&D was a priority during the
across-the-board cut for all discretionary R&D,
energy-short 1970s, and, since the 1980s,
in effect lowering enacted appropriations.
health R&D has predominated in non-defense
science. This Administration’s priorities in-
The latest estimated expenditure for
clude weapons development, homeland secu-
national (public and private) R&D is $312.1
rity, space launch vehicles, and beginning in
billion for FY2004. Federal R&D expenditures,
2006, more support for physical sciences and
at $93.4 billion, have grown, but have declined
engineering.
to 30% of the total. Debates focus on which
fields of federal R&D should be increased and
For FY2007, R&D is requested at almost
how to set priorities. Proposals to increase
$137 billion of budget authority, about 1.8%
incentives for industrial R&D include H.R.
more than enacted in FY2006. The request
1454, H.R. 1736, S. 14, and S. 627, which
would increase funding for physical sciences
would make permanent the R&D tax credit.
and engineering programs in the National
The tax reconciliation measure now in confer-
Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of
ence H.R. 4297, would extend the credit
Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science, and Na-
through the end of 2007 and make other
tional Institute of Standards and Technology
changes.
(NIST) laboratories as part of the President’s
American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) to
The FY2007 budget would fund three
enhance innovation. Funding for the National
interagency R&D initiatives: networking and
Aeronautics and Space Administration’s
information technology; climate change sci-
(NASA) R&D would increase by about 8%
ence; and nanotechnology. Proposals to coor-
largely to develop human space vehicles but
dinate R&D include a continuing priority-
cuts would be made in aeronautics, life sci-
setting mechanism; a cabinet-level S&T body;
ences, and other research activities. Continuing
functional R&D budgeting; and reestablish-
previous emphases, the budget would slightly
ment of a technology assessment function. The
increase in real dollar terms support for defense
Administration opposes R&D earmarking,
development. National Institutes of Health
estimated at $2.4 billion in budget authority for
(NIH) R&D funding would be flat and R&D
FY2006. The Administration is using
funding for all other agencies would decrease
performance measures for R&D budgeting,
from FY2006 enacted levels.
including the Government Performance and
Results Act and the Program Assessment
For FY2006, Congress enacted R&D
Rating Tool. Some critics say better data and
funding of about $134.8 billion, $2.2 billion
concepts are needed to use performance bud-
more than FY2005. Over 90% of the increase
geting for basic and applied research.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10088
06-14-06

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On March 16, 2006, the Senate passed S.Con.Res. 83, its version of the FY2007
congressional budget resolution. The resolution included higher discretionary spending levels
than requested by the President and did not include any reconciliation instructions to reduce
mandatory spending or to reduce taxes. On May 18, 2006, the House passed its version of
the resolution. Notable differences between the two resolutions may prevent agreement.
Congress has initiated appropriations committee action.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

Federal R&D funding priorities have shifted over time, reflecting presidential
preferences, congressional appropriations, and national priorities. Defense R&D
predominated in the 1980s but decreased to about 50% of total federal R&D in the 1990s,
reflecting the Clinton Administration policy. In non-defense R&D, space was important in
the 1960s as the nation sought to compete with the Soviet Union in the space race; energy
R&D joined space as a priority during the 1970s; and since the 1980s, health R&D funding
has grown as the cohort of aged population increases and the promise of life sciences and
biotechnology affects national expectations. Defense and counterterrorism R&D funding
have been increased since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Together, DOD and NIH funding total
about 77% of the FY2007 R&D request. (See Figure 1 and the Appendix table.)
R&D Budgets
R&D budgets are developed over an 18-month period before a fiscal year begins. Often
advisory committees, influenced by professional scientific groups, recommend R&D
priorities to agencies, which use this information, internally generated information, and the
White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) guidance to determine priorities. Agencies and OMB negotiate
funding request levels during the preparation of the budget before it is sent to Congress.
After standing committees recommend budget levels for matters within their jurisdiction to
the budget committees, Congress is to pass a budget resolution, which sets spending levels
and recommends levels for each budget function that appropriations committees use in
setting discretionary (302b) spending allocations for each appropriations subcommittee. The
resolution also gives outyear projections based on budget and economic assumptions. Each
of the appropriations subcommittees is to report approved funding levels for agencies within
their jurisdiction; appropriations bills, which give agencies spending authority, are to be sent
to the floor, usually beginning in the summer.
FY2005 Budget. R&D appropriations totaled about $131.8 billion of budget
authority, about 54% going to defense R&D. Non-defense R&D funding increased about
0.2%. The largest increases went to R&D in NIH and DOD; smaller increases were made
for R&D budget authority in USDA, DHS, DOT, NASA, and NIH. FY2005 congressional
action reduced NSF’s budget by 0.3% below the FY2004 level. Congress appropriated less
than the FY2004 level for R&D in the Department of Education and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). In the Department of Commerce (DOC), the President sought
again to eliminate the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), whose R&D was funded at
CRS-1

---

IB10088
06-14-06
$134.0 million in FY2004. Congress increased R&D funding for NOAA by 10%, and funded
ATP R&D at $114.0 million, about 15% less than in FY2004.
FY2006 Budget. Congress enacted R&D budget authority of about $134.8 billion,
$2.2 billion more than FY2005. More than 90% of the increase went to DOD RDT&E,
largely for weapons development, and the rest to NASA, largely for space exploration.
Except for DOT, which received a 14% increase for R&D, DOD and NASA, other agency
R&D budgets were reduced or flat if inflation is considered. Congress also enacted a 1%
across-the-board cut for all discretionary R&D, in effect lowering enacted appropriations
amounts. Of the major R&D support agencies, FY2006 appropriations action reduced R&D
funding below the FY2005 level for NIH, USDA, and DOE. (See the Appendix table.)
FY2007 Budget Request. For FY2007, R&D is requested at almost $137 billion of
budget authority, about 1.8% more than enacted in FY2006. The request seeks to double
funding over 10 years (for a total of about $50 billion) for key federal agencies that support
basic research in physical sciences and engineering in three agencies, NSF, DOE’s Office of
Science (for advanced energy research), and NIST laboratories as part of the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) introduced in the State of the Union address to enhance
U.S. innovation. Also, funding for NASA R&D would be increased by about 8% largely for
a development program called Constellation Systems to develop human space vehicles to
replace the Space Shuttle. Cuts would be made in NASA research programs in aeronautics,
life sciences, and other research activities. Continuing previous emphases, the budget would
slightly increase over FY2006, support in real dollar terms for defense development. NIH
funding would be flat and R&D funding for all other agencies would be decreased from
FY2006 enacted levels. Over the next five years, the Administration’s budget projects
reducing budget deficits by cutting discretionary spending, so that while NASA and the three
ACI-emphasized agencies would continue to receive increases, other R&D funding agencies
would be subject to real dollar cuts after adjusting for expected inflation rates. (See the
Appendix table.) The ACI initiative would also make the R&D tax credit permanent, and
increase support for mathematics and science education teacher training and curricula.
Appropriations committee action has been initiated on the FY2007 budget request.
Priority-Setting Issues
Current priority-setting debates focus on the functions and size of federal R&D funding
as a part of national R&D and on how to balance priorities in the portfolio of federal non-
defense R&D, especially between health and nonhealth R&D.
Trends in R&D Support Patterns. The NSF projects that national (public+private)
R&D expenditures will total $312.1 billion for FY2004, the latest year for which data are
available, and about 51% more than in 1990.1 Federal R&D expenditures as a part of the total
1 Data in this section are based on U.S. National Science Foundation, National Patterns of Research
and Development Resources: 2003, pp. 9-10, (NSF 05-308) and on Brandon Shackelford, “U.S.
R&D Continues to Rebound in 2004,” NSF InfoBrief, Jan. 2006, NSF 06-306. Expenditure data,
rather than budget authority data, need to be used to compare federal and nonfederal funding levels.
Shackelford acknowledges that the expenditure data he uses are not the same as R&D funding totals
(continued...)
CRS-2

---

IB10088
06-14-06
have also risen, to $93.4 billion (mostly to fund work performed in non-governmental
sectors), but have declined significantly from 46% in 1983 to about 30% in 2004. The
United States performs over twice as much R&D as the second largest funding nation, Japan.
However, in terms of the ratio of R&D expenditures to gross domestic product (GDP), the
United States ranks sixth, at 2.7%, following Israel, Sweden, Finland, Japan, and Iceland.
Funding patterns figure prominently in priority-setting debates.
Industry is the largest supporter and performer of the nation’s R&D; universities and
colleges are the second-largest performer. It is estimated that industry funded 64% of all
U.S. R&D performed in 2004 and conducted 70%; industry funded about 89% of the R&D
it conducted. The amount of R&D supported by various industries varies; most industrial
R&D is for near-term applied work and product or prototype development. In 2004,
industrial R&D expenditures supported 82% of the nation’s development work and provided
36% of national research expenditures (exclusive of development), largely for applied
research. Industry allocated 5% of its R&D expenditures to the basic research, and supported
17% of the nation’s total basic research. Federal support for development, which totaled
about 34% of federal R&D, goes largely for defense R&D performed by industry. The
federal government is the largest supporter of the nation’s basic and applied research (i.e.,
research per se), and supplied 49% of total national basic research expenditures in 2004. The
federal government was the single largest supporter of the nation’s basic research, funding
62% of national basic research expenditures, largely in universities, and, thus, is the largest
supporter of the nation’s scientific knowledge base. Universities and colleges conducted
55% of nationally funded basic research; the federal government funded about 65% of this
university-performed basic research. About 42% of total federal research dollars goes to
universities and 22% to mission-oriented work in intramural federal agency laboratories,
largely at DOD, NIH, and USDA.
OMB’s historical trend data indicate that in constant dollar terms, federal R&D funding
declined from about 18% of total federal discretionary outlays in FY1965 to about 16%today.
In part because of economic pressures and budgetary caps, during the years FY1991 to
FY2002, federal R&D funding was below the previous constant-dollar high of FY1990.
Subsequently, as a result of congressional action, constant-dollar R&D appropriations started
to eclipse the FY1993 level beginning with FY2001. However, concerns that had been raised
about the declines in federal R&D funding have not abated because of a return to deficit
spending, and likely future reductions in discretionary R&D spending. Also, as constrained
federal R&D budgets focus more on defense, homeland security, and biomedical R&D, fewer
resources may be available for other areas of R&D. National defense-related R&D outlays
constituted 55% of federal R&D outlays in FY2000 and are requested at an amount which
would constitute 59% in FY2007. (It should be noted that recommendations have been made
to improve the types and quality of econometric and research and development data used in
making science policies, especially the information developed by NSF.2)
1 (...continued)
reported by the Federal agencies. The largest difference appears concentrated in DOD-supported
funding of industry R&D. Expenditures do not equal outlays or budget authority. See also Elisa
Eiseman, et al., Federal Investment in R&D, RAND, Sept. 2002, MR-1639.0-OSTP.
2 Lawrence D. Brown, et al., Measuring Research and Development Expenditures in the U.S.
(continued...)
CRS-3

---

IB10088
06-14-06
Observations on the Role of the Federal Government in Supporting R&D.
As shown in the preceding funding data, federal government support for R&D serves
primarily the objectives of defense and homeland security, biomedical research, basic
research knowledge generation, and enhancement of academic research capacity (which some
call the “seed corn” of future scientific and technological development). Only a small
percentage of federal non-defense R&D spending supports industrial R&D and innovation
directly. Some observers contend that federal research support should be funded at
increasingly higher levels to generate knowledge as a public good. Some contend that other
actions should be taken to enhance the U.S. ability to advance scientifically; to enhance the
stature of U.S. academic institutions; to increase scientific literacy, the number of science and
engineering personnel, and research capacity in an increasingly competitive global
environment where countries like China, India, Korea, and Japan are challenging U.S. output
in knowledge generation and innovative industrial production capabilities. For instance,
these issues and proposals to deal with them were discussed in Rising Above the Gathering
Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, a report
released in 2005 by a National Academies committee in response to congressional requests
by members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House
Committee on Science; in an American Electronics Association report, Losing the
Competitive Advantage? The Challenge for Science and Technology in the United States,
2005; and at the “The National Summit on Competitiveness: Investing in U.S. Innovation,”
December 6, 2005, a meeting of industrial, academic, and governmental leaders.
Although there is controversy about it, some observers theorize that innovation and
technological development are as important or more important than labor and capital as
macro-economic drivers of economic growth. (See Congressional Budget Office, R&D and
Productivity Growth, June 2005, 41 p.) Some contend that industrial R&D and innovation
benefit indirectly from federal investments in basic research and academic science (see NSF,
Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006, pp. 4-7 and 4-19) and that such funding should
be increased. For example, President Bush’s FY2002 budget supported the view that “More
than half of the Nation’s economic productivity growth in the last 50 years is attributable to
technological innovation and the science that supported it” (p. 29). The President’s FY2006
budget reported “Basic research is the source of tomorrow’s discoveries and new capabilities
and this long-term research will fuel further gains in economic productivity, quality of life,
and homeland and national security” (Analytical Perspectives, p. 61).
Others say that data are inadequate to support the notion that basic research knowledge
leads to technological innovation as a crucial determinant of economic growth. Because of
the lack of credible data and disagreement among experts, policymakers do not know exactly
how much increased federal research support would enhance growth and which R&D fields
or programs warrant funding in order to promote technological innovation.3 As a result,
some say that federal policy for industrial innovation, and its likely byproduct, economic
2 (...continued)
Economy, National Academy of Sciences Press, 2004; John H. Marburger, “Wanted: Better
Benchmarks,” Science, May 20, 2005, p. 1087.
3 William B. Bonvillian, “Meeting the New Challenge to U.S. Economic Competitiveness,” Issues
in Science and Technology, Oct. 1, 2004.
CRS-4

---

IB10088
06-14-06
growth, should focus more on improving the climate for industrial R&D, such as by tax
incentives, altered regulatory policies, and wider liability protections.
The benefits of federal R&D investments are likely to be discussed in the context of
long-term economic projections of deficits, decreasing outyear federal R&D budgets, and
reductions in domestic discretionary spending. There are other related issues. For instance,
will policies to increase federal, state, and industrial support for academic research
overwhelm academic research with pressure to conduct short-term applied studies?4 Could
state-supported funding supplant federal funding in some areas, as evidenced by initiatives
in California and other states to fund stem cell research and biotechnology R&D.5 Other
issues of debate focus on diversifying priorities for fields of support. There are also issues
of organizing the government to fund and generate research knowledge, modifying funding
mechanisms, and enhancing accountability for federal R&D investments. For instance, a
2005 report of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, entitled Waiting for
Sputnik: Basic Research and Strategic Competition, stressed the need to increase federal
basic research funding and discussed options, such as redirecting funds from development
and testing of defense technologies; to dedicate at least a minimum percentage of R&D
funding for basic research in physical sciences; making basic research funding an
entitlement, not discretionary; increasing tax credits for increased industrial support of
academic basic research; establishing independent consortia for basic research supported by
both government and private resources; creating a special class of Treasury bonds dedicated
to basic research; or creating a loan-guarantee program for third party bonds (issued by states,
for example) to finance basic research (pp. 29-31).
Among the legislative responses in the first session of the 109th Congress to the various
expert reports and recommendations were: outlining of a “Democratic Innovation Agenda,”
by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (to increase funding for NSF and physical sciences
research, and to create research centers of excellence); introduction of the “National
Innovation Act of 2005,” S. 2109, a bipartisan bill, which would double NSF funding, create
a Presidential Council on Innovation, and encourage agencies to devote 3% of their R&D
budgets to high-risk research (associated bill H.R. 4654); introduction of a package of several
innovation enhancing bills, including Democratic leadership proposals, H.R. 4434 to increase
the number of U.S. mathematics and science teachers; H.R. 4435 to create an energy-related
Advanced Project Agency; and H.R. 4596 to increase basic research funding and support
high-risk, high-payoff research.
During the second session of the 109th Congress, the President’s “American
Competitiveness Initiative” (ACI) emphasizes funding for basic physical sciences and
engineering research at NSF, NIST, and DOE’s Office of Science to enhance U.S. innovative
capacity and ability to compete internationally. (This is described above in the section on
the FY2007 budget.) ACI would also support additional training in mathematics and science
education at the pre-college level and training for part-time science and math teachers.
Several bills have been introduced in the second session of the 109th Congress to address
4 NSTC, Implementation of the NSTC Presidential Review Directive-4: Renewing the Federal
Government-University Research Partnership...., Jan. 2001.
5 .The NAS held “Planning Meeting on the Role of State Funding of Research,” July 13, 2001. See
RAND/OSTP, Discovery and Innovation: Federal R&D Activities in the Fifty States, June 2000.
CRS-5

---

IB10088
06-14-06
these issues, including the bipartisan-supported “Protecting America’s Competitive Edge”
(PACE) Acts; that is, S. 2197, focusing on the DOE and creation of an Advanced Research
Projects Agency-Energy (amended, with written report, Senate Rept. 109-249 on April 24,
2006) from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; S. 2198, focusing on
education, on which hearings were held; and S. 2199 (regarding the R&D tax credit for
industry). The House Science Committee held hearings on March 9, 2006 regarding the
energy advanced research projects agency. Related bills are S. 2390, S. 2357, H.R. 4845, and
H.R. 5502.. Democratic Science Committee critiques of the President’s proposals contend
that additional programs warrant funding.6 On June 7, 2006, the House Science Committee
marked up H.R. 5358, Science and Mathematics Education for Competitiveness Act; H.R.
5356, Early Career Research Act; and H.R. 5357, Research for Competitiveness Act.
Figure 1. AAAS Data on Trends in Non-defense R&D Funding by
Function, FY1953-FY2007
AAAS granted CRS permission to use this figure.
Priorities Among Fields of Federally Funded Research
Important questions are what should be the balance among fields of federally supported
research, and specifically, since health/life sciences research has in recent years received
priority, should more non-defense R&D funding go to support other fields of science? Some
critics are concerned that the emphasis on health R&D may presage a scarcity of knowledge
in physical sciences, math, and engineering.7 They maintain that funding should be increased
for all R&D fields, and others cite the need to allocate more federal funding to nonhealth
6 House Science Committee, “Science, Competitiveness Shortchanged In Administration Budget,”
Minority Committee Office, Press Release, Feb. 15, 2006, [http://sciencedems.house.gov/press/
PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1042].
7 NSB, The Science and Engineering Workforce/Realizing American’s Potential, NSB-03-69, 2003.
CRS-6

---

IB10088
06-14-06
R&D. As shown in Figure 1, health sciences R&D has grown as a priority for about the last
20 years. Over the period FY1995 to FY2007 as requested, R&D funding in constant dollars,
will have increased at NIH by 103% compared to DOD, 65%; NSF, 48%; USDA, 6%; DOE,
11%; and NASA, 1%. R&D funding decreased in constant dollars for EPA and the
Departments of the Interior, Transportation and Commerce. For FY2007 as requested, it is
estimated in terms of constant dollars that federally funded health-related R&D, primarily
at NIH, would receive over 54% of the federal non-defense R&D budget. In terms of
constant dollar funding by field, federal obligations for life sciences increased from $13.4
billion in FY1994 to an estimated $29.3 billion in FY2004, or about 119%, while at the same
time, between those years funding for physical sciences increased 7%; mathematics and
computer sciences, 83%; and engineering, 40%. (Based on NSF data and AAAS data. See
A A A S , “ G u i d e t o R & D F u n d i n g D a t a - H i s t o r i c a l D a t a , ” a t
[http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm].)
Congressional Views About the Balance in Federal R&D Funding. There
are various perspectives on the issue of balance, focusing on both types and fields of R&D
supported. Funding for biomedical research has been a priority in recent years. In 1998, an
amendment to S.Con.Res. 86, the FY1999 Senate budget resolution, expressed the sense of
the Senate that the NIH budget should double within the next five years, which has not
occurred yet in terms of current or constant dollars. Critics allege that other fields of science
have received inadequate federal attention as a result of the health science emphasis.
Partially in reaction, P.L. 107-368, the NSF authorization bill for FY2003, authorized
increases for NSF (which supports all areas of research) that would double its budget by
2008. NSF funding has not been appropriated at a rate to meet this target.

Professional Groups’ Views About Balance. Some professional groups argue
for increased federal health sciences funding8 and others contend that more balance or
support for other fields is needed. For instance, 32 Nobel laureates and industrialists wrote
to President Bush in April 2003, urging more balance and increased funding for physical
sciences, mathematics, and engineering in the 2005 budget. In response to language in
appropriations reports, in November 2004, the NIH and NSF held a conference on “Research
at the Interface of the Life and Physical Sciences: Bridging the Sciences,” to identify
opportunities, challenges, and issues at the interface of the life and physical sciences that
could result in major advances and to develop approaches for bridging the separate fields.9
The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released
Assessing the U.S. R&D Investment, January 2003.10 The report recommended targeting
physical sciences and engineering to bring “them collectively to parity with the life sciences
over the next 4 budget cycles” in order to better balance budget allocations. The Alliance
for Science and Technology Research in America supports increased R&D funding for all
fields.11
8 For instance, see Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, Federal Funding for
Biomedical and Related Life Sciences Research, FY2007.
9 Jeffrey Mervis, “What Can NIH Do for Physicists?,” Science, Nov. 26, 2004, p. 1463.
10 “PCAST Releases Report on U.S. R&D Investment,” CFR Weekly Wrapup, Feb. 14, 2003.
11 See [http://www.aboutastra.org/_images/pdfs/astrabriefs205.pdf] and David Malakoff, “Perfecting
(continued...)
CRS-7

---

IB10088
06-14-06
As noted with respect to the ACI proposal, arguments have been made to give more
attention to education. The U.S. Commission on National Security 21st Century, in Road
Map for National Security: Imperative for Change, The Phase III Report, 2001, concluded
that threats to the nation’s scientific and educational base endanger U.S. national security.
It recommended doubling the federal R&D budget by 2010 and improving the
competitiveness of less capable U.S. academic R&D institutions. A 2006 National Science
Board report, America’s Pressing Challenge-Building A Stronger Foundation, published by
the NSF in conjunction with release of the NSF’s Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006,
called for a series of “drastic changes within the Nation’s science and mathematics
classrooms,” to avoid “... raising generations of students and citizens who do not know how
to think critically and make informed decisions based on technical and scientific
information.” The Council on Competitiveness, in a December 2004 report, Innovate
America, included proposals to increase to an average of 3% the amount of federal agency
budgets for basic research, to improve the regulatory climate for corporations, to increase
federal investment in selected areas of applied research, and to improve science and
engineering education. A National Academy of Engineering report, Trends in Federal
Support of Research and Graduate Education, 2001, recommended that the Administration
and Congress should evaluate federal research funding by field, assess implications for
knowledge generation and industrial growth, and increase budgets for underfunded
disciplines. Similar recommendations were made in New Foundations for Growth: The U.S.
Innovation System Today and Tomorrow, released by the National Science and Technology
Council on January 10, 2001.
Legislative Proposals to Broaden Incentives for Private R&D. Legislation
has been introduced again in the 109th Congress to make permanent the Research and
Experimentation (R&D) tax credit that provides credits for industrially funded R&D support
in industry and universities that was due to expire on December 31, 2005.12 The credit is
intended to spur innovative research that companies might not pursue because of the lack of
immediate market rewards. The Administration has sought to have the credit made
permanent. H.R. 4297, a tax reconciliation measure passed by the House and amended and
passed in the Senate, would have extended the credit through the end of 2007. Conferees did
not include language dealing with the tax credit. However, it was reported in Congress
Daily, that “ If pension conferees are able to reach a deal [on H.R. 2830, the “Pension
Security and Transparency Act of 2005”], there is already an understanding between the two
chairmen that the conference report will include one-year extensions of expiring tax
provisions including the research and development credit ....”13 There is analysis indicating
that if the credit were extended for a year and expanded, the cost to the Treasury could be
about $10 billion and that instead the credit should focus more on supporting basic and
applied research and less on product development which is claimed by some companies
11 (...continued)
the Art of the Science Deal,” Science, May 4, 2001, pp. 830-835.
12 See CRS Report RL31181, Research Tax Credit: Current Status, Legislative Proposals, and
Policy Issues, by G. Guenther.
13 Martin Vaughan, “Taxes - Push On Pension Bill Could Leave Charity Reforms Behind,” Congress
Daily, June 12, 2006.
CRS-8

---

IB10088
06-14-06
under the credit.14 Legislative proposals containing tax incentives for bioterror
countermeasures research and manufacturing include S. 3, S. 975, S. 1873, and S. 1880.15
Proposals to provide incentives for pharmaceutical research focusing on liability protection
and/or tax incentives include H.R. 417 and S. 95.
NSF Funding. NSF funds research across all disciplines and is the main federal
source for most non-health related academic research. P.L. 107-368, the NSF authorization
bill for FY2003, authorized increases in NSF’s budget by 15% for each of FY2003, FY2004,
and FY2005, which according to the sponsors, would “put the NSF on the track to double
its budget within five years” (FY2008), similar to the NIH doubling track. Another objective
was to increase federal support for science fields which in recent years have not experienced
the larger percentage increases which have gone to biomedical R&D. The law also required
increased oversight of NSF facilities programs; a report was prepared by the National
Science Board (NSB).16 Congress appropriated about $4.1 billion in budget authority for
NSF’s FY2004 R&D funding, almost 5% more than FY2003, and about $1.0 billion less than
envisioned in the authorization act. For FY2005, congressional action reduced NSF’s budget
authority below the FY2004 level. The President’s FY2006 budget requested an R&D budget
increase of almost 3% that would go largely to facilities support. Appropriations action
increased NSF’s FY2006 R&D budget authority by about 1.6%, and up to the level enacted
for FY2004. The FY2007 request would increase NSF’s R&D budget by 8.3% over the
FY2006 level. P.L. 107-368 also required the NSB, which governs NSF together with the
Director, to report on how NSF’s increased funding should be used. In a 2003 report,
Fulfilling the Promise: A Report to Congress on the Budgetary and Programmatic
Expansion of the National Science Foundation (NSB-2004-15), the Board recommended
meeting unmet needs by funding NSF annually at $18.7 billion, including about $12.5 billion
for R&D, and outlined priorities for support. Because the budget levels recommended in that
report had not been attained, the National Science Board released a final report in January
2006, 2020 Vision for the National Science Foundation (NSB 05-142), which identified four
main investment principles, attainment goals, and enabling strategies. Prominent among
groups which in the past recommended increased funding for NSF is the Coalition for
National Science Funding (CNSF), which represents many universities and professional
science associations. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, chairman of the Senate Commerce
Subcommittee on Science and Space, in September 2005, recommended that NSF “focus
firmly” on “the hard sciences,” — biology, chemistry, and physics, and not direct additional
resources to support social sciences research (“Ensuring a Health Future America,” Sept. 30,
2005, [http://hutchison.senate.gov/cchealthfuture.htm]).
Homeland Security R&D Funding. Homeland security R&D funding has grown
from about 2.5% of the FY2002 federal non-defense R&D budget to about 6.8% of the
FY2007 request for non-defense R&D budget authority. See Table 1 for trends based on
data compiled by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Homeland security R&D funding is becoming an increasingly significant issue in priority-
setting discussions. OMB’s term “combating terrorism” R&D includes homeland security
14 “Revisiting the R&D Credit,” National Journal’s Congress Daily, Jan. 26, 2006. AM edition.
15 See Frank Gottron, CRS Report RS21507, Project BioShield.
16 The draft NSB report is at [http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2005/large_facilities_draft.pdf].
CRS-9

---

IB10088
06-14-06
R&D and overseas combating terrorism R&D.17 An appendix to OMB’s FY2007 Analytical
Perspectives budget request volume includes data on homeland security funding, but these
data do not clearly identify R&D funding. The largest FY2007 programs are in NIH largely
for bioterrorism R&D and for containment facilities. This is followed in size by the requests
for DHS, DOD, NSF, USDA, EPA, NASA, DOE, and the DOC’s NIST. P.L. 107-296, the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, mandated DHS to coordinate federal agency homeland
security R&D programs. The law also consolidated some federal homeland security R&D
programs in DHS. DHS’s R&D funding has almost quintupled since FY2002 but for
FY2007, DHS R&D would be reduced about 10% below the FY2006 budget, according to
AAAS (which reports it corrected mistakes in OMB’s data after examining DHS budget
documents). DHS is emphasizing support of development over research, with the result that
basic and applied research in DHS would be reduced by about 20% for FY2007.18
Table 1. Funding for Homeland Security R&D and R&D Facilities
(Budget authority dollars in millions)
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Agency
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Request
USDA
$175
$155
$40
$161
$105
$100
DOC
20
16
23
59
62
68
DOD
259
212
267
1,079
1,166
1,074
DOE
50
48
47
67
68
71
DHHS
177
1,653
1,724
1,795
1,899
2,014
(NIH)
(162)
(1,633)
(1,703)
(1,774)
(1,878)
(1,993)
DHS
266
737
1,028
1,240
1,281
1,149
DOT
106
7
3
2
3
1
EPA
95
70
52
33
52
92
NASA
73
73
88
89
93
83
NSF
229
271
321
326
329
371
All other
48
47
32
42
41
47
Total R&D
1,499
3,290
3,626
4,893
5,099
5,070
Total Non-defense
1,240
3,078
3,359
3,814
3,933
3,996
HS R&D
Note: Data in italics are non-additive. Totals may not add due to rounding. Based on data in a table entitled
“Federal Homeland Security R&D by Agency,” prepared by AAAS, Feb. 21, 2006, available at
[http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/hs07p.pdf], a link found at “Guide to R&D Funding Data-R&D in the FY2007
Budget,” [http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guify07.htm]. According to AAAS, the data are “... based on OMB data
from OMB’s 2003 Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism and Budget of the U.S. Government FY2007.
Figures [are] adjusted from OMB data by AAAS to include conduct of R&D and R&D facilities, and revised
estimates of DHS R&D. Figures do not include non-R&D homeland security activities. DOD has expanded
its reporting of homeland security spending beginning in 2005. Funding for all years includes regular
appropriations and emergency supplemental appropriations.”
17 For additional details, see CRS Report RS21270, Homeland Security Research and Development
Funding, Organization, and Oversight; CRS Report RL32481, Homeland Security Research and
Development Funding and Activities in Federal Agencies: A Preliminary Inventory; and CRS Report
RL32482, Federal Homeland Security Research and Development Funding: Issues of Data Quality,
all by Genevieve J. Knezo.
18 AAAS, “DHS R&D Falls in 2007 Budget,” [http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/dhs07p.htm].
CRS-10

---

IB10088
06-14-06
Federal R&D Priority-Setting Structures
Some observers recommend more centralized R&D priority-setting in Congress and in
the executive branch. Others say that congressional jurisdiction for R&D, split among a
number of committees and subcommittees, prevents examination of the R&D budget as a
whole. This means that R&D funding can serve particular local or program interests, but
may not be appropriate for a national R&D agenda. But opponents see value in a
decentralized system in which budgets are developed, authorized, and appropriated
separately by those most familiar with the needs of specific fields of R&D — the department
or agency head and the authorizing and appropriations subcommittees with jurisdiction.
Other issues center on interagency initiatives, R&D policy coordination, developing a
technology assessment capacity, earmarking, and R&D funding accountability.
Unified Federal Science and Technology (FS&T) Budget. In a 1995 report,
Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology, the National Academies
recommended that Congress consider the R&D budget as a unified whole before its separate
parts for each agency are considered by individual congressional committees. It
recommended that R&D budget request data be reconfigured as an S&T budget, excluding
defense development, testing and evaluation activities, to denote basic and applied R&D and
the creation of new knowledge. Since the FY2002 budget request, OMB has used a modified
version of this format and has identified a “Federal Science and Technology (FS&T) budget
table,” which, for FY2007, includes less than half of total federal R&D spending and some
non-R&D funding, such as education and dissemination of information.19 Table 5-2 of
Analytical Perspectives projects a decrease in FS&T funding of about 1% from FY2006 to
FY2007 as requested. Continued use of this alternative format may pave the way for
congressional consideration of a realigned and unified S&T budget. S.Amdt. 2235 to the
Senate budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 86) for FY1999 expressed the sense of the Senate that
for FY2000-2004, all federal civilian S&T spending should be classified under budget
function 250. In 2004, Senator Jeff Bingaman said: “It would be valuable to have joint
hearings across the relevant committees in the Senate on the overall shape of our S&T
spending. It might be worth considering whether the functional nature of the budget itself
should be revised to put the entire federal S&T budget in one place, so that there is much
more transparency as to what the real trends are....”20
Interagency R&D Initiatives. Executive Order 12881, issued by President Clinton,
established the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) with cabinet-level status.
Located in the Executive Office of the President, it recommends agency R&D budgets to
help accomplish national objectives, advises OMB on agency R&D budgets, and coordinates
presidential interagency R&D initiatives. Beginning with the FY1996 budget request, NSTC
identified interagency R&D budget priorities. The FY2007 budget identified agency funding
for two interagency R&D initiatives whose reporting is required by statute, “Networking and
Information Technology R&D,” requested at $3.1 billion, a 2% decrease from the estimated
FY2006 amount, and “Climate Change Science Program,” requested at $1.7 billion, a level
flat with the FY2006 estimate. Another priority interagency initiative is for nanotechnology,
19 Section 5, FY2006 Budget, Analytical Perspectives.
20 “Bingaman: A Revitalized Science and Technology Policy Badly Needed,” Feb. 11, 2004, Office
of Sen. Bingaman.
CRS-11

---

IB10088
06-14-06
requested at $1.3 billion, a 2% decrease from the FY2006 amount. Other FY2007
interagency R&D initiatives include combating terrorism R&D and hydrogen R&D.
Proposals to Coordinate Federal R&D. The 2001 National Science Board (NSB)
report, Federal Research Resources: A Process for Setting Priorities (NSB 01-160)
recommended a “continuing advisory mechanism” in Congress and the executive branch and
strengthening the OMB/OSTP relationship to coordinate R&D priorities. It said that federal
R&D funding should be viewed as a five-year planned portfolio, rather than as the sum of
the requirements and programs of departments. AAAS President Mary Good, recommended
creating a cabinet-level post for S&T to help achieve balance in R&D and coordinate federal
R&D and handle research policy issues.21 The aforementioned Commission on National
Security recommended empowering the President’s science advisor to establish “functional
budgeting,” to identify non-defense R&D objectives that meet national needs, strengthen the
OSTP, NSTC and PCAST, and improve coordination with OMB to enhance stewardship of
national R&D. The congressional science policy report, Unlocking Our Future, 1998,
spearheaded by Representative Vernon Ehlers, called for balance in the federal research
portfolio and said that while OMB can fulfill the coordination function in the executive
branch, “no such mechanism exists in the Congress. ... [I]n large, complex technical
programs, ... committees should ... consider holding joint hearings and perhaps even writing
joint authorization bills” (p. 7).
Legislation on Technology Assessment. The aforementioned NSB report also
recommended that Congress develop “an appropriate mechanism to provide it with
independent expert S&T review, evaluation, and advice” (p. 16). Some believe that this
could pertain to reestablishing the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which was
active between 1972 and 1995 as a congressional support agency. It prepared in-depth
reports and discussed policy options about the consequences of applying technology.
Sometimes congressional committees used these reports to set R&D priorities in
authorizations and appropriations processes. OTA was eliminated as part of the reductions
Congress made in a FY1996 appropriations bill. Proponents of “resurrecting” OTA or
variants of it cite the need for better congressional support for S&T analysis.22 The OTA is
still authorized, but funds would have to be appropriated for it. The pros and cons of
reviving OTA or re-creating a similar body have been examined since its termination.
During the 107th Congress, H.R. 2148, a bipartisan bill, would have authorized OTA funding
at $20.0 million annually for five years. Since 2002, at congressional direction, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has conducted three pilot technology assessments,
Technology Assessment: Using Biometrics for Border Security, GAO-03-174, 2002,
Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure Protection, GAO-04-321, and Protecting Structures
and Improving Communications During Wildland Fires, GAO-05-380, and has one
underway on port security. Legislative action in the 108th Congress included proposals to
21 Rebecca Spieler, “AAAS President Concerned About Imbalances in Nation’s R&D Portfolio...,”
Washington Fax, Feb. 21, 2001.
22 Wil Lepkowski, “The Mummy Blinks,” Science and Policy Perspectives, June 25, 2001; D.
Malakoff, “Memo to Congress: Get Better Advice,” Science, June 22, 2001: 2229-2230; and M.
Davis, “A Reinvented Office of Technology Assessment May Not Suit Congressional Information
Requirement...,” Washington Fax, June 18, 2001; M. Granger Morgan and John M. Peha, Science
and Technology Advice for Congress, Washington, Resources for the Future, 2003, pp. 208-227.
CRS-12

---

IB10088
06-14-06
restore OTA’s funding (H.R. 125); to create a Science and Technology Assessment Service
to conduct assessments for Congress (H.R. 6 as passed in the Senate); to conduct technology
assessments in GAO (report language on H.R. 2657 and on H.R. 4755); and to create a
technology assessment capability in GAO (S. 2556) or under its direction (H.R. 4670, which
would create a Center for Scientific and Technical Assessment).

In FY2005, Legislative Branch Appropriations action, Representative Holt offered
H.Amdt. 667 to H.R. 4755, to add $30 million to GAO’s account for a Center for S&T
Assessment; the House rejected the amendment on July 12, 2004. The House Legislative
Branch Appropriations report (H.Rept. 108-577) encouraged GAO to retain its core
capability to conduct technology assessments. S.Rept. 108-307, to accompany S. 2666,
indicated that while the Senate Appropriations Committee supported GAO doing technology
assessments, it did not intend to appropriate specific funding for this purpose and that GAO
should conduct assessments that are supported by both House and Senate leadership and that
address issues of national scope. The report instructed GAO to consult with the committee
regarding definitions and procedures to conduct technology assessment. Issues under debate
relating to restoring a technology assessment capability have included the need for
assessments, funding arrangements, the utility of GAO’s reports, and options for institutional
arrangements, including conducting technology assessments simultaneous with conducting
R&D.23 See also CRS Report RS21586, Technology Assessment in Congress: History and
Legislative Options, by Genevieve J. Knezo.
Earmarking. There is controversy about congressional designation of R&D funding
for specific projects, also called earmarking. When using this practice, Congress, in report
language or law, directs that appropriated funds go to a specific performer or designates
awards for certain types of performers or geographic locations. Typically an agency has not
included these awards in its budget request and often such awards may be made without prior
competitive peer review. The Administration seeks to discourage earmarking, saying that it
distorts agency R&D priorities and seldom is an effective use of taxpayer funds. Supporters
believe the practice helps to develop R&D capability in a wide variety of institutions, that
it compensates for reduced federal programs for instrumentation and facilities, and that it
generates R&D-generated industrial and economic growth in targeted regions. OMB did not
publish funding data on R&D earmarks in the FY2007 budget request, although it had done
so in the past. It reported that AAAS-accumulated data show that $2.4 billion was
appropriated for earmarked R&D for FY2006, an increase of 13% over the estimate for
FY2005. This would constitute 1.7% of total federal R&D funding for FY2006.24 According
to AAAS, FY2006 R&D earmarks were mainly for projects in DOD, DOE, USDA, NASA,
DOC (NIST), and DOT, in that order. News reports describe 32 staff reductions that were
taken by DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden Colorado to cover a $28
million budget shortfall caused by the need to fund congressionally earmarked projects.25
23 On this point, see Michael Rodemeyer, Daniel Sarewitz, and James Wilsdon, The Future of
Technology Assessment, Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, Dec. 2005, non-paginated.
24 Based on data in Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Earmarks, Research and Development
Funding in the President’s 2007 Budget,” Press release, [Feb. 2006]. See also
[http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/earm06c1.pdf].
25 Tom Shoop, “Fedblog: Earmarks and Layoffs,” GovExec.com, Feb. 8, 2006.
CRS-13

---

IB10088
06-14-06
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and Performance
Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 (GPRA), P.L. 103-62, is intended to produce greater efficiency, effectiveness, and
accountability in federal spending and to ensure that an agency’s programs and priorities
meet its goals. It also requires agencies to use performance measures for management and,
ultimately, for budgeting. Recent actions have required agencies to identify more precisely
R&D goals and measures of outcomes. As underscored in The President’s Management
Agenda, since FY2001, the Bush Administration has emphasized the importance of
performance measurement, including for R&D. In a memorandum dated June 5, 2003, signed
jointly by the directors of OSTP and OMB regarding planning for the FY2005 R&D budgets,
the Administration announced it would expand its effort to base budget decisions on program
performance (OMB M-03-15). OMB referred to this memorandum again in the FY2007
R&D budget guidance, which reiterated the importance of performance assessment for R&D
programs (Joint OMB/OSTP M-05-18). According to Section 5 of Analytical Perspectives,
FY2007, agencies were required to use OMB criteria to measure research outcomes, focusing
on relevance, quality, and performance. R&D performed by industry is to meet additional
criteria relating to the appropriateness of public investment and to identification of decision
points to transition the activity to the private sector. The Administration has assessed some
R&D programs with the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), which uses the OMB
R&D criteria and other measures. PART results for 102 R&D programs evaluated over the
past four years were used when making budget decisions. OMB’s Analytical Perspectives
volume reported that of these, at least 29 programs were effective and 41 were moderately
effective. Commentators have pointed out that it is particularly difficult to define priorities
for most research and to measure the results quantitatively, since research outcomes cannot
be defined well in advance and often take a long time to demonstrate, possibly precluding
use of performance measures to recommend budget levels for most R&D. Some observers
say that many congressional staff are not yet comfortable with using performance
measurement data to make budget decisions and prefer to use traditionally formatted budget
information, which focuses on inputs, rather than outputs.26 Congress may increase attention
to the use of R&D performance measures in authorization and appropriations actions
especially as constraints grow on discretionary spending. In June 2005, OMB sent Congress
draft legislation to authorize results commissions to evaluate programs and recommend
restructuring or termination of those deemed ineffective [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/
0605/063005a1.htm]. (See CRS Report RL32671, Federal Program Performance Review:
Program Assessment and Results Act and Other Developments, by Virginia A. McMurtry.)
The NAS’s most recent report advising on use of performance measures for research
is Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act for Research: A Status
Report, 2001. As for congressional interest, the House Science Committee’s science policy
report, Unlocking Our Future, 1998, commonly called the Ehlers report, recommended that
a “portfolio” approach be used when applying GPRA to basic research. The House adopted
a rule with the passage of H.Res. 5 (106th Congress) requiring all “committee reports [to]
include a statement of general performance goals and objectives, including outcome-related
goals and objectives for which the measure authorizes funding.”
26 Amelia Gruber, “Lawmakers Remain Skeptical of Linking Budget, Performance,” GovExec.com,
Jan. 13, 2004, and GAO, Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of OMB’s Program
Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget, GAO-04-174, Jan. 2004.
CRS-14

---

Appendix Table. R&D in the Budget, by Agency, Based Largely on AAAS Data
(Budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007
House
% Change FY06-FY11
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003 FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Apps.
Selected agencies & programs
actual
actual
actual
actual
actual
actual
estimate
request
Comm.
Current $
Constant $
Department of Agriculture total
$1,776
$2,181
$2,112
$2,334
$2,222
$2,410
$2,411
$2,012
$2,312
-20.2%
-28.2%
(Agr. Res. Service)
—
(1,012)
(1,234)
(1,294)
(1,165)
(1,310)
(1,288)
(1,027)
(1,216)
—
—
(CSREES)
—
(594)
(532)
(608)
(616)
(654)
(667)
(540)
(635)
—
—
(Forest Service)
—
(245)
(265)
(265)
(312)
(316)
(313)
(302)
(321)
—
—
Department of Commerce total
1,174
1,030
1,328
1,200
1,137
1,121
1,074
1,064
13.9
2.5
(NOAA)
(643)
(561)
(611)
(666)
(640)
(646)
(617)
(578)
(-10.0)
(-19.1)
(NIST)
(471)
(413)
(460)
(491)
(457)
(444)
(423)
(450)
(49.9)
(34.9)
(ATP) ((Within NIST))
(116)
(118)
(150)
(153)
((134))
((111))
((60))
((0))
—
—
Department of Defense Total
39,959
42,740
49,877
59,296
65,948
70,269
72,485
74,076
-1.7
-11.6
(S&T (6.1-6.3+ medical))
(8,632)
(9,365)
(10,337) (11,186) (12,377)
(13,564)
(13,778)
(11,214)
—
—
Department of Education
238
264
265
282
299
308
302
299
-5.1
-14.6
Department of Energy total
6,956
7,733
8,078
8,312
8,763
8,620
8,721
9,047
9,326
19.3
7.3
(Atomic/Defense)/(NNSA+Defense)
(3,201)
(3,462)
(3,855)
(4,049)
(4,198)
(4,009)
(4,062)
(3,975)
(4,057)
(5.9)
(-4.8)
(Energy & Science)
(3,755)
(4,271)
(4,224)
(4,263)
(4,565)
(4,611)
(4,659)
(5,072)
(5,269)
—
—
Dept. of HHS Total
18,182
21,045
23,696
27,411
28,521
29,161
29,111
29,062
-2.5
-12.3
(NIH)
(17,234) (19,807)
(22,714) (26,398) (27,248)
(27,875)
(27,805)
(27,810)
(27,714)
(-2.3)
(-12.1)
Dept. of Homeland Security*
—
—
266
737
1,028
1,240
1,281
1,149
1,081
6.1
-4.6
Dept. of the Interior Total
618
621
641
643
627
621
635
595
631
-10.2
-19.2
(U.S. Geological Survey)
—
(566)
(583)
(550)
(553)
(546)
(559)
(532)
(595)
—
—
Dept. of Transportation Total
607
718
778
700
665
707
838
767
846
-9.5
-18.6
(FAA)
(220)
(301)
(359)
(271)
(248)
(263)
(310)
(235)
(305)
—
—
CRS-15

---

FY2007
House
% Change FY06-FY11
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003 FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Apps.
Selected agencies & programs
actual
actual
actual
actual
actual
actual
estimate
request
Comm.
Current $
Constant $
(FHA)
(261)
(294)
(275)
(291)
(332)
(304)
(380)
(397)
(397)
—
—
(NHTSA)
(51)
(58)
(59)
(61)
(7)
(61)
(58)
(61)
(55)
—
—
Department of Veterans Affairs
645
719
756 819
866
742
765
765
790
-2.5
-12.3
Environmental Protection Agency
558
574
592
567
662
641
600
557
608
-8.2
-17.4
NASA Total
9,494
9,887
10,224
10,681
10,803
10,618
11,295
12,202
57.3
41.5
(Space Flight)
(3,014)
(2,901)
(2,461)
(3,613)
—
—
—
—
—
—
(Science, Aeronautics, Tech.)
(6,481)
(7,024)
(7,840)
(7,386)
—
—
—
—
—
—
(Other)**
—
—
—
—
(1,829)
(1,567)
(1,574)
(1,811)
—
—
(Science, Aeronautics, Exploration)**
—
—
—
—
(8,974)
(9,051)
(9,721)
(10,524)
—
—
National Science Foundation
2,931
3,320
3,525
3,926
4,123
4,102
4,175
4,523
42.5
28.2
All other R&D
630
702
912
391
724
729
773
767
-1.7
-11.6
Total
83,769
91,534
102,899 117,439 126,389
131,289
134,465
136,885
5.5
-5.1
Non-Defense
40,609
45,332
49,167
54,552
56,046
56,648
57,565
58,496
14.6
3.1
Non-Defense Minus NIH
(23,374) (25,525)
(26,453) (28,243) (28,798)
(28,773)
(29,760)
(30,686)
—
—
Defense/Energy Defense
43,160
46,202
53,731
62,887
70,344
74,641
76,900
78,388
-1.2
-11.2
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Data include conduct of R&D and R&D facilities. Not all subagency R&D data is given, therefore the sums may not equal the agency
total. Based largely on data in tables prepared by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), including data from “AAAS Analysis of R&D in the FY2007
Budget — Revised (Part 2 of 2) — Tables,” Revised March 8, 2006, at [http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/prev07tb.htm]. Data from previous years’ tables appear at
[http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/]. AAAS bases its tables on OMB data, agency budget justifications, information from agency budget offices, and appropriations action. Data in italics
in parentheses are parts of the total and have been included in agency totals. See also CRS Report RL32799, Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2006, by Michael E. Davey
(coordinator). The final FY2005 figures include adjustments to reflect across-the-board reductions in the FY2005 omnibus bill.
* FY2002 data for comparison purposes only. DHS begin operations in FY2003. DHS figures include programs that were transferred from other agencies.
** Categories were changed after FY2003. Other includes largely space station exploration capability funding.
CRS-16

---