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)

funding priorities reflect presidential policies

and national needs. Defense R&D predominated in the 1980s, decreasing to about 50% of

federal R&D in the 1990s. In non-defense

R&D, space R&D was important in the 1960s

as the nation sought to compete with the Soviet

Union; energy R&D was a priority during the

energy-short 1970s, and, since the 1980s,

health R&D has predominated in non-defense

science. This Administration’s priorities include weapons development, homeland security, space launch vehicles, and beginning in

2006, more support for physical sciences and

engineering.

was for Department of Defense (DOD), largely

for weapons development, and the rest was

largely for NASA space exploration. Except for

the Department of Transportation, which received a 14% R&D increase, most other agency

R&D increases 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.

The latest estimated expenditure for

national (public and private) R&D is $312.1

billion for FY2004. Federal R&D expenditures,

at $93.4 billion, have grown, but have declined

to 30% of the total. Debates focus on which

fields of federal R&D should be increased and

how to set priorities. Proposals to increase

incentives for industrial R&D include H.R.

1454, H.R. 1736, S. 14, and S. 627, which

would make permanent the R&D tax credit.

The tax reconciliation measure now in conference H.R. 4297, would extend the credit

through the end of 2007 and make other

changes.

For FY2007, R&D is requested at almost

$137 billion of budget authority, about 1.8%

more than enacted in FY2006. The request

would increase funding for physical sciences

and engineering programs in the National

Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of

Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science, and National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) laboratories as part of the President’s

American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) to

enhance innovation. Funding for the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration’s

(NASA) R&D would increase by about 8%

largely to develop human space vehicles but

cuts would be made in aeronautics, life sciences, and other research activities. Continuing

previous emphases, the budget would slightly

increase in real dollar terms support for defense

development. National Institutes of Health

(NIH) R&D funding would be flat and R&D

funding for all other agencies would decrease

from FY2006 enacted levels.

The FY2007 budget would fund three

interagency R&D initiatives: networking and

information technology; climate change science; and nanotechnology. Proposals to coordinate R&D include a continuing prioritysetting mechanism; a cabinet-level S&T body;

functional R&D budgeting; and reestablishment of a technology assessment function. The

Administration opposes R&D earmarking,

estimated at $2.4 billion in budget authority for

FY2006. The Administration is using

performance measures for R&D budgeting,

including the Government Performance and

Results Act and the Program Assessment

Rating Tool. Some critics say better data and

concepts are needed to use performance budgeting for basic and applied research.

For FY2006, Congress enacted R&D

funding of about $134.8 billion, $2.2 billion

more than FY2005. Over 90% of the increase

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 nondefense 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

AAAS, “Guide to R&D Funding Data-Historical Data,” at

[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 prioritysetting 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)

Agency

USDA

DOC

DOD

DOE

DHHS

(NIH)

DHS

DOT

EPA

NASA

NSF

All other

Total R&D

Total Non-defense

HS R&D

FY2002

Actual

$175

20

259

50

177

(162)

266

106

95

73

229

48

1,499

FY2003

Actual

$155

16

212

48

1,653

(1,633)

737

7

70

73

271

47

3,290

FY2004

Actual

$40

23

267

47

1,724

(1,703)

1,028

3

52

88

321

32

3,626

FY2005

Actual

$161

59

1,079

67

1,795

(1,774)

1,240

2

33

89

326

42

4,893

FY2006

Estimate

$105

62

1,166

68

1,899

(1,878)

1,281

3

52

93

329

41

5,099

FY2007

Request

$100

68

1,074

71

2,014

(1,993)

1,149

1

92

83

371

47

5,070

1,240

3,078

3,359

3,814

3,933

3,996

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)

Selected agencies & programs

Department of Agriculture total

(Agr. Res. Service)

(CSREES)

(Forest Service)

Department of Commerce total

(NOAA)

(NIST)

(ATP) ((Within NIST))

Department of Defense Total

FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007

actual

actual

actual

actual actual

actual estimate request

$1,776 $2,181

$2,112 $2,334 $2,222

$2,410

$2,411

$2,012

— (1,012)

(1,234) (1,294) (1,165)

(1,310)

(1,288)

(1,027)

—

(594)

(532)

(608)

(616)

(654)

(667)

(540)

—

(245)

(265)

(265)

(312)

(316)

(313)

(302)

1,174

1,030

1,328

1,200

1,137

1,121

1,074

1,064

(643)

(561)

(611)

(666)

(640)

(646)

(617)

(578)

(471)

(413)

(460)

(491)

(457)

(444)

(423)

(450)

(116)

(118)

(150)

(153) ((134))

((111))

((60))

((0))

39,959 42,740

49,877 59,296 65,948

70,269

72,485

74,076

(S&T (6.1-6.3+ medical))

Department of Education

Department of Energy total

(Atomic/Defense)/(NNSA+Defense)

(Energy & Science)

Dept. of HHS Total

(NIH)

Dept. of Homeland Security*

Dept. of the Interior Total

(U.S. Geological Survey)

Dept. of Transportation Total

(FAA)

(8,632) (9,365)

238

264

6,956

7,733

(3,201) (3,462)

(3,755) (4,271)

18,182 21,045

(17,234) (19,807)

—

—

618

621

—

(566)

607

718

(220)

(301)

(10,337) (11,186) (12,377)

265

282

299

8,078

8,312

8,763

(3,855) (4,049) (4,198)

(4,224) (4,263) (4,565)

23,696 27,411 28,521

(22,714) (26,398) (27,248)

266

737

1,028

641

643

627

(583)

(550)

(553)

778

700

665

(359)

(271)

(248)

CRS-15

(13,564)

308

8,620

(4,009)

(4,611)

29,161

(27,875)

1,240

621

(546)

707

(263)

(13,778)

302

8,721

(4,062)

(4,659)

29,111

(27,805)

1,281

635

(559)

838

(310)

(11,214)

299

9,047

(3,975)

(5,072)

29,062

(27,810)

1,149

595

(532)

767

(235)

FY2007

% Change FY06-FY11

House

Apps.

Comm.

Current $ Constant $

$2,312

-20.2%

-28.2%

(1,216)

—

—

(635)

—

—

(321)

—

—

13.9

2.5

(-10.0)

(-19.1)

(49.9)

(34.9)

—

—

-1.7

-11.6

9,326

(4,057)

(5,269)

(27,714)

1,081

631

(595)

846

(305)

—

-5.1

19.3

(5.9)

—

-2.5

(-2.3)

6.1

-10.2

—

-9.5

—

—

-14.6

7.3

(-4.8)

—

-12.3

(-12.1)

-4.6

-19.2

—

-18.6

—

Selected agencies & programs

(FHA)

(NHTSA)

Department of Veterans Affairs

Environmental Protection Agency

NASA Total

(Space Flight)

FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007

actual

actual

actual

actual actual

actual estimate request

(261)

(294)

(275)

(291)

(332)

(304)

(380)

(397)

(51)

(58)

(59)

(61)

(7)

(61)

(58)

(61)

645

719

756

819

866

742

765

765

558

574

592

567

662

641

600

557

9,494

9,887

10,224 10,681 10,803

10,618

11,295

12,202

(3,014) (2,901)

(2,461) (3,613)

—

—

—

—

(Science, Aeronautics, Tech.)

(Other)**

(Science, Aeronautics, Exploration)**

National Science Foundation

All other R&D

Total

Non-Defense

Non-Defense Minus NIH

Defense/Energy Defense

(6,481) (7,024)

—

—

—

—

2,931

3,320

630

702

83,769 91,534

40,609 45,332

(23,374) (25,525)

43,160 46,202

(7,840) (7,386)

—

—

— (1,829)

—

— (8,974)

3,525

3,926

4,123

912

391

724

102,899 117,439 126,389

49,167 54,552 56,046

(26,453) (28,243) (28,798)

53,731 62,887 70,344

—

(1,567)

(9,051)

4,102

729

131,289

56,648

(28,773)

74,641

—

(1,574)

(9,721)

4,175

773

134,465

57,565

(29,760)

76,900

FY2007

% Change FY06-FY11

House

Apps.

Comm.

Current $ Constant $

(397)

—

—

(55)

—

—

790

-2.5

-12.3

608

-8.2

-17.4

57.3

41.5

—

—

—

(1,811)

(10,524)

4,523

767

136,885

58,496

(30,686)

78,388

—

—

—

42.5

-1.7

5.5

14.6

—

-1.2

—

—

—

28.2

-11.6

-5.1

3.1

—

-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