Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2006

CRS Report for Congress
Federal Research and Development
Funding: FY2006
Updated February 1, 2006
Michael E. Davey, Coordinator,
Christine M. Matthews, John D. Moteff, Marcia S. Smith,
Michael M. Simpson, Wendy H. Schacht, Daniel Morgan
Specialists and Analysts in Science and Technology
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Pamela W. Smith
Analyst in Life Sciences
Domestic Social Policy Division
Wayne A. Morrissey
Information Research Specialist
Knowledge Services Group

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Federal Research and Development
Funding: FY2006
The Bush Administration requested $132.4 billion in federal research and
development (R&D) funding for FY2006. This sum represents a $400 million
increase over the FY2005 estimated funding level of $132 billion. CRS estimates that
Congress has approved a record $135.7 billion for federal R&D in FY2006, a 2.8%
increase over the FY2005 estimated funding level. However, nearly all of that
increase can be attributed to increases in defense weapons systems and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration’s $877 million increase for human space
exploration technology.1 (See Table 13)
Basic research funding would decline by 0.5% below the FY2005 estimated
level, declining to an estimated $26.7 billion in FY2006. Five agencies account for
90% of all federal basic research expenditures. Total federal research funding (the
sum of basic and applied research) is projected to increase $1 billion to $57 billion.
However, the majority of that increase would go to NASA, while most of the
remaining federal agencies would receive below inflation increases for research
While the President essentially requested flat funding for the Department of
Defense (DOD) R&D programs, Congress approved an estimated $ 72.1 billion DOD
R&D, a 4.2 % increase over FY2005 funding levels. Most of that increase is a result
of Congress increasing DOD’s proposed science and technology budget by $2.5
billion more than was requested by the Administration.
Funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would decline, in nominal
dollars for the first time in 36 years. Since the completion of doubling NIH’s budget
(between 1998-2003), funding has declined to the FY2003 funding level, after
adjusting for inflation.
Most R&D funding agencies now face budgets that are shrinking to levels of
years past, in real dollars. While it has been 24 years since NIH’s budget declined in
real dollars, other agencies such as the National Science Foundation, DOE’s Office
of Science, NASA (excluding human space exploration), and Agriculture, have lived
with stagnate budgets for several years. Consequently, in real dollars, all of these
agencies will have less R&D funding in FY2006 than they did in FY2003.

1 The FY2006 R&D funding totals, in this section do not reflect the 1% across-the-board
funding recision approved by Congress. see P. L. 109-148

Recent Developments..............................................1
Department of Agriculture (USDA)...................................1
Department of Energy (DOE)........................................4
Department of Defense (DOD).......................................6
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)..................9
National Institutes of Health (NIH)...................................11
National Science Foundation (NSF)..................................15
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) R&D.........................19
Department of Commerce (DOC)....................................21
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)...........21
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)...............22
Department of Transportation (DOT).................................24
Department of the Interior (DOI).....................................25
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)..............................27
List of Tables
Table 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D..........................3
Table 2. Department of Energy R&D..................................5
Table 3. Department of Defense RDT&E...............................8
Table 4. NASA R&D Funding.......................................10
Table 5. National Institutes of Health (NIH)...........................14
Table 6. National Science Foundation................................17
Table 7. Department of Homeland Security R&D.......................20
Table 8. NOAA R&D.............................................22
Table 9. NIST...................................................24
Table 10. Department of Transportation R&D..........................25
Table 11. Department of Interior R&D................................26
Table 12. EPA...................................................27
Table 13. FY2006 Federal R&D Appropriation in the 109th Congress.......28

Federal Research and Development
Funding: FY2006
Recent Developments
The Bush Administration requested $132.4 billion in federal research and
development (R&D) funding for FY2006. This sum represents a $400 million
increase over the FY2005 estimated funding level of $132 billion. CRS estimates that
Congress has approved a record $135.7 billion for federal R&D in FY2006, a 2.8%
increase over the FY2005 estimated funding level. However, nearly all of that
increase can be attributed to increases in defense weapons systems and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration’s $877 million increase for human space
exploration technology.2 (See Table 13)
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
On November 10, 2005, the President signed into law the FY2006 Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-97, H.R. 2744). The FY2006 appropriation for
research and education in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is $2,677.4
million, a decrease of $14.6 million from the FY2005 level. (See Table 1). The
USDA conducts in-house basic and applied research. The Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) is the lead federal agency for nutrition research, operating five major
laboratories in this area, including the world’s largest multi-disciplinary agricultural
research center located at Beltsville, Maryland. There are approximately 100
research facilities throughout the U.S. and abroad. ARS laboratories focus on
efficient food and fiber production, preservation of genetic resources, development
of new products and uses for agricultural commodities, development of effective
biocontrols for pest management, and support of USDA regulatory and technical
assistance programs. The FY2006 appropriation provides $1,266.2 million for ARS,
a 3.1% decrease ($40.1 million) from the FY2005 level. The Administration had
proposed reductions of $175 million in all projects earmarked by Congress in order
to finance the Department’s high priority program increases. However, conference
report language continues funding at the FY2005 level for all of these projects,
including hyperspectral imaging in New Orleans, LA. The ARS reports that the
majority of its facilities, constructed prior to 1960, have become functionally
obsolete. Many of the facilities are not in total compliance with current health and
safety standards. Included in the FY2006 appropriation for ARS is $131.2 million

2 The FY2006 R&D funding totals, in this section do not reflect the 1% across-the-board
funding recision approved by Congress. see P. L. 109-148

for buildings and facilities, $66.4 million above the request, and $55.1 million below
the FY2005 level.
The FY2006 appropriation provides support for several research priority areas
and strategic goals. Priority has been given to the mapping and sequencing projects
funded by USDA, such as sequencing genomes of agriculturally imported species.
The sequencing projects will be coordinated with ongoing genomics initiatives
supported by other federal agencies and facilitated by interagency working groups.
Increases are provided animal genomes and plant genomes research. Also, the
FY2006 appropriation provides an increase in support of research on emerging and
exotic diseases as part of the infrastructure to enhance homeland security. USDA
states that this research is significant to protecting the Nation from deliberate or
unintentional introduction of an agricultural health threat. The USDA has
biocontainment complexes where research and diagnostic work is done on organisms
that pose serious threats to the crop, poultry, and livestock industries. Other research
areas receiving increased support by conferees include bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, air and water quality, food safety, obesity/nutrition, biobased
products/bioenergy research, and agricultural information. Conferees have instructed
ARS not to redirect support for programs from one state to another without prior
notification and approval of the Committee on Appropriations.
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
distributes funds to State Agricultural Experiment Stations, State Cooperative
Extension Systems, land-grant universities, and other institutions and organizations
that conduct agricultural research. Included in these partnerships is funding for
research at the 1862 institutions, 1890 historically black colleges and universities,
and 1994 tribal land-grant colleges. Funding is distributed to the states through
competitive awards, statutory formula funding, and special grants. The FY2006
appropriation for CSREES is $1,194.6 million, an increase of $153.4 million above
the request and $10.6 million over the FY2005 enacted. Funding for formula
distribution in FY2006 to the state Agricultural Experiment Stations (and other
eligible institutions) is $275.7 million, almost level with FY2005. The FY2006
appropriation provides $37.6 million for the 1890 formula programs, an increase of
$25.3 million over FY2005. The FY2006 appropriation funds the National Research
Initiative (NRI) Competitive Grants Program at $183 million, $67 million below the
Administration’s request and $3.4 million above the FY2005 level. The increase will
support initiatives in agricultural genomics, human nutrition and obesity,
nanotechnology, food safety, water quality, and pest related programs. Conferees
provided $1.6 million for the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute. Also,
report language includes $9.5 million for the Tropical and Subtropical Research
program, $600,000 for aquaculture research, $736,000 for grain sorghum research,
and $300,000 for air quality research. Special research grants, which were proposed
at $18.3 million in the request, were provided $128.2 million by the conferees.
Report language detailed the need to address the many issues of American Indian
tribal nations. Conferees directed the Department to work with the tribal nations and
to develop staffing needs for additional Indian reservation extension agents.
The Economic Research Service (ERS) is the principal intramural economic and
social science research agency in USDA. The FY2006 appropriation for ERS is
$75.9 a $1.8 million increase over FY2005. The increase will continue the

development of a consumer data and information system. In addition, the increase
will support a cooperative study with the National Academy of Sciences on the U.S.
sheep industry. The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) conducts the
Census of Agriculture and provides current data on agricultural production and
economic indicators of the well-being of the farm sector. The FY2006 appropriation
for the NASS is $140.7 million, $4.5 million below the request and $12.3 million
above the FY2005 level. Funding would support both Presidential and Department
eGovernment initiatives, such as eTraining and eTravel. NASS will continue the
development of the USDA Enterprise Architecture and the USDA Enablers
(CRS Contact: Christine Matthews.)
Table 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture R&D
($ in millions)
FY2004 FY2005 FY2006a FY2006
Act. Act. Req. Appro p.
Agric. Research Service (ARS)
Product Quality/Value Added$110.0$104.697.7
Livestock Production95.484.163.4
Crop Production178.7196.8159.6
Food Safety98.9102.7107.6
Livestock Protection78.378.587.6
Crop Protection183.6193.0180.1
Human Nutrition81.583.781.7
Environmental Stewardship212.8219.4178.2
National Agricultural Library22.821.522.5
Funds for Homeland Security[20.8][30.2][69.2]
Repair & Maintenance17.917.817.8
Subt o t a l 1,088.1 1 ,102.0 996.1 1 ,135.0 d
Buildings & Facilities64.0186.364.8131.2
Trust Funds14.
Total, ARS1,166.11,306.31,078.91,266.2
Coop. St. Res. Ed. & Ext. (CSREES) Research and Education
Hatch Act Formula179.1178.789.4178.8
Cooperative Forestry Research21.822.211.122.2
1890 Colleges and Tuskegee Univ.11.412.312.537.6
Special Research Grants124.2135.518.3128.2
NRI Competitive Grants164.0179.6250.0183.0
Animal Health & Disease Res.
Federal Administration37.542.58.850.5b
Higher Education42.350.755.955.0c
Total, Coop. Res. & Educ.626.7655.5545.5676.8
Extension Activities
Smith-Lever Sections 3b&c277.7275.5275.9275.7
Smith-Lever Sections 3d80.686.791.488.9
Renewable Resources Extension4.
Integrated Activities50.054.735.055.8
1890 Research & Extension14.916.814.916.8
Other Extension Prog. & Admin.7.87.810.414.7
Total, Extension Activitiesc439.1445.6431.7456.0c
Total, CSREES1,132.81,184.01,041.21,194.6
Economic Research Service71.074.280.775.9
National Agricultural Statistics Service128.0128.4145.2140.7
Total, Research, Education &$2,497.9$2,692.0$2,346.3$2,677.4


a. Funding levels are contained in U.S Department of Agriculture FY2006 Budget Summary and other
documents internal to the agency.
b. Higher education includes payments to 1994 institutions and 1890 Capacity Building Grants
program, the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, and the Alaska Native and Native
Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Education Grants.
c. Program totals may reflect set-asides (non-add) or contingencies. The CSREES total includes
support for Integrated Activities, Community Food Projects, and the Organic Agriculture
Research and Education Initiative.
d. Funding levels for specific programs are not yet available.
Department of Energy (DOE)
The Department of Energy requested $8.4 billion for R&D in FY2006, including
activities in each of the department’s four business lines: Science, National Security,
Energy Supply, and Environmental Quality. This request was 4.6% below the
FY2005 level of $8.8 billion. The House provided $8.5 billion, the Senate $9.1
billion, and the final bill $8.9 billion. For details, see Table 2.
The requested funding for Science was $3.5 billion, a 3.8% decrease from
FY2005. The House and Senate each provided $3.7 billion; the final bill provided
$3.6 billion. In the Basic Energy Sciences program, DOE expects to complete
construction of the Spallation Neutron Source in the third quarter of FY2006, so
funds will start to shift from construction to operations. In Fusion Energy Sciences,
the congressional debate has centered on U.S. participation in the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER).In June 2005, after an 18-month delay,
the participating countries agreed to build ITER in France. Both House and Senate
shifted funds from ITER to the domestic fusion program pending the decision on a
site; the final bill provided the requested amount. In the Biological and
Environmental Research program, the request was a decrease of $126 million, of
which $80 million corresponded to one-time projects funded at congressional
direction in FY2005. The House and Senate restored about half of this requested
reduction and allocated $35 million and $51 million respectively for directed
projects; the final bill restored the entire reduction, with $130 million for
congressionally directed projects. To improve utilization of Office of Science
research facilities in several programs, the House and Senate provided $66 million
and $100 million respectively to fund increased facility operating time; the
conference report was silent on this issue.
The requested funding for R&D in National Security was $3.3 billion, a 3.8%
decrease. The House decreased R&D in Weapons Activities by $224 million below
the request, while the Senate increased it by $73 million; the final bill provided $3.4
billion, an increase of $147 million above the request. Within these totals, the House
increased Inertial Confinement Fusion and reduced most other programs, the Senate
did the opposite (completely eliminating funding for continued construction of the
National Ignition Facility), and the final bill approximately accepted the House
increase for Inertial Confinement Fusion but omitted most of the decreases. The
request would have increased funding for R&D on nuclear proliferation detection by
$46 million or 43%; the House, the Senate, and the final bill all increased funding for
this activity even more than requested.

The requested funding for R&D in Energy Supply was $1.6 billion, down 6.4%
from FY2005. Within this total, Fossil Energy R&D was down $80 million, with the
natural gas and oil technology programs proposed for termination. The Senate
provided $305 million more than the request, including increases of $150 million for
Fossil Energy R&D ($91 million of it coal-related) and $60 million for Nuclear
Energy R&D. The final bill provided $1.8 billion, with its increases allocated
similarly to the Senate bill.
The requested funding for R&D in Environmental Quality was $21 million.
This was less than half the FY2005 level and followed several years of substantial
reductions that resulted from a reorientation of the program after an internal review
of the Office of Environment in 2002. The House provided the requested amount;
the Senate provided $56 million; the final figure was $30 million. (CRS Contact:
Daniel Morgan.)
Table 2. Department of Energy R&D
($ in millions)
FY2005 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006 c
Science 3599.5 3462.7 3666.0 3702.7 3632.7
Basic Energy Sciences1104.61146.01173.11241.01146.0
High Energy Physics736.4713.9735.9716.9723.9
Biological and581.9455.7525.7503.7585.7
Environmental Research
Nuclear Physics404.8370.7408.3419.7370.7
Fusion Energy Sciences273.9290.6296.2290.6290.6
Advanced Scientific232.5207.1246.1207.1237.1
Co mp uting
Other 265.4 278.7 280.7 323.7 278.7
National Security3392.83274.73126.93398.83421.3
Weapons Activities a2367.42216.51992.22289.12309.8
Naval Reactors801.4786.0799.5799.5789.5
Nonproliferation and224.0272.2335.2310.2322.0
Verification R&D
Energy Supply1756.81644.61681.71949.81831.9
Fossil Energy R&D571.9491.5502.5641.6598.0
Energy Efficiency andb922.8890.3915.7928.8870.2
Renewable Energy
Nuclear Energy R&D170.6191.0186.5251.0226.0
Electric Transmission and91.571.877.0128.4137.7
Distribution R&D
Environmental Quality59.721.421.456.430.1
Technology Development59.721.421.456.430.1
and Deployment
To tal 8808.8 8403.4 8496.0 9107.7 8916.0
a. Includes Stockpile Services (R&D Support, R&D Certification and Safety, Advanced Concepts,
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, and Reliable Replacement Warhead only), Science
Campaigns, Engineering Campaigns (except Enhanced Surety and Enhanced Surveillance),

Inertial Confinement Fusion, Advanced Simulation and Computing, and a prorated share of
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities. Additional R&D activities may take place in the
subprograms of Directed Stockpile Work that are devoted to specific weapon systems, but these
funds are not included in the table because detailed funding schedules for those subprograms
are classified.
b. Excluding Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.
c. FY2006 enacted figures do not reflect the government-wide 1% rescission enacted in the FY2006
defense appropriations act (PL 109-148, Section 3801).
Department of Defense (DOD)
Nearly all of what the Department of Defense spends on Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) is appropriated in Title IV of the
defense appropriation bill (see Table 3). For FY2006, the Bush Administration is
requesting $69.4 billion for Title IV RDT&E. This is essentially unchanged from the
$69.2 billion available for Title IV in FY2005. RDT&E funds are also requested as
part of the Defense Health Program ($169 million) and the Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction Program ($48 million). The six-year budget plan estimates
spending $404.6 billion for RDT&E through FY2011. When compared to last year’s
budget estimate, funding for RDT&E would be reduced by nearly $9 billion between
FY2006 and FY2009, reflecting an overall reduction in the DOD’s proposed budgets
to help reduce the federal budget deficit.
While the FY2006 RDT&E request represents a modest increase in RDT&E
funding over last year, Science and Technology (S&T) funding would drop
significantly. S&T consists of basic and applied research and advanced development
(6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 activities in the RDT&E account). The FY2006 S&T request
represents nearly a 20% reduction from FY2005 S&T funding, not counting inflation
(all dollar figures and comparisons made in this discussion do not consider inflation).
Congress increased the FY2005 appropriation for S&T above what the
Administration had requested. The FY2006 S&T budget request is $31 million (less
than 1%) below the amount requested by the Administration for FY2005. The
FY2006 request for basic research is $1.3 billion, an overall reduction of 12.8% from
FY2005. A noticeable exception is basic research within the Chemical and
Biological Defense Program which would be increased by 34%. Over half of DOD’s
basic research budget is spent at universities and represents the major contribution
of funds in some areas of science and technology. The FY2006 S&T request is 2.5%
of the overall Department of Defense budget request of $419.3 billion. This is below
the 3% target that both the Bush Administration and Congress have set. The FY2006
budget request for Missile Defense RDT&E is $7.8 billion (a decrease of $1 billion
from the amount available for Missile Defense in FY2005).
The House approved its Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 2863) on June 20,
2005. The House voted to appropriate $71.7 billion for Title IV RDT&E, or $2.3
billion above the Administration’s request. In this appropriation the House also
provided an additional $45 billion to cover expenses for the first six months of
FY2006, for troops in the field and other support associated with the war on
terrorism. This includes an additional $88.1 million for Title IV RDT&E ($13.1
million for the Navy account and $75 million for the Defense Agencies account.

The House appropriated net increases for all of the major accounts, except for
Missile Defense. Nearly half ($480 million) of the Army’s $1.2 billion increase went
to the Army’s medical technologies programs. Major reductions were made to the
Army’s Future Combat System, the Navy’s DD(X) Next Generation destroyer
project, and the Air Force’s Transformational Satellite and Spaced Based Radar
programs. Missile Defense programs were reduced a net $143 million from what the
Administration requested. The House appropriated $13 billion for S&T, over 3.6%
of the total amount they recommend in the defense appropriations bill. The House
appropriated more for basic research ($1.4 billion) than what was requested, but less
than the estimated FY2005 amount.
In 2005, the House reorganized its Appropriations Committee, combining
Veteran’s Affairs and Military Construction appropriations into a new Military
Quality of Life and Veteran’s Affairs and Related Agencies appropriation. This new
appropriations also includes some accounts formerly falling within the Defense
appropriations. In particular, the Defense Health Program was transferred to this new
appropriation, including the program’s RDT&E funding. The House passed the
Military Quality of Life appropriations (H.R. 2528) on June 8, 2005. The House
appropriated $444 million for the RDT&E portion of the Defense Health Program.
This included $115 million for the Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research program
and $80 million for the Peer Reviewed Prostrate Cancer Research program. The
House provided $48 million, as requested, for the RDT&E portion of the Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction Program, which remains in the Defense
appropriations bill (H.R. 2863).
The Senate passed its defense appropriations bills on October 7, 2005. The
Senate provided $70.4 billion for Title IV RDT&E. In addition, it appropriated $516
million for RDT&E within the Defense Health Program (including $150 million for
peer reviewed breast cancer research and $85 million for peer reviewed prostrate
cancer research) and $73 million for RDT&E within the Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction Program. As did the House, the Senate provided additional
funds for contingency operations during the first six months of FY2006. The Senate,
however, provided $50 billion, with $92 million going toward RDT&E. These are
funds above and beyond Title IV funding.
The Senate funded S&T at $12.2 billion, or roughly 3.1% of its total DOD
appropriation, not counting the contingency funds. Basic research received $1.4
billion. However, an approved floor amendment (No. 1991) would allow additional
funds from each RDT&E account to be spent on basic research. The amendment
states a sense of congress that basic research should be 15% of the S&T budget. As
appropriated, i.e. without using the authority granted by the amendment to allocate
up to a certain amount in additional funds, basic research received approximately

11% of the S&T funding.

The conference committee filed its report (H.Rept. 109-359 in support of H.R.
2863) on December 18, 2005. The House approved the bill on December 19, the
Senate on December 21. The final bill provided $72.1 billion for Title IV RDT&E.
It also provided $67.8 million for the RDT&E within the Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction Program and $542 million for RDT&E in the Defense Health
Program. In addition, the bill provided an additional $50.6 million in RDT&E as part

of the additional advanced supplemental funding (Title IX). Finally, the bill included
Katrina-related emergency supplemental funding which included another $41.3
million in RDT&E to DOD. The final bill provided $13.4 billion in S&T funding,
which included $1.5 billion for basic research. S&T funding remained 3% of the
total DOD appropriation of $442.8 billion.
(CRS Contact: John Moteff.)
Table 3. Department of Defense RDT&E
($ in millions)
House f
FY2005FY2006 (H.R.Senate hConf.i
Army10,558 9,734 10,827 10,52111,172
Navy16,907 18,038 18,482 18,55818,993 e
Air Force20,812 22,612 22,665 21,85922,000
Defense Agencies20,612 18,803 19,515 19,30119,799
(DARPA)(2,977) (3,084)(3,104)(2,666)(3,024) aj
(MDA)(8,783) (7,775)(7,632)(7,921)(7,797)
Dir. Test and Eval.310 168 168 168168
Total Ob. Auth.69,199 69,355 71,657 70,40772,132
Budget Activity
Basic Research1,513 1,318 1,453 1,4461,491 k
Applied Research4,850 4,139 5,057 4,8425,244
Advanced Dev.6,708 5,064 6,462 5,8806,480
Advanced Component Dev.14,711 14,143 13,909 14,09514,310
and Prototypes
Systems Dev. and Demo.17,222 19,754 19,179 19,36319,588 b
Mgmt. Support3,721 3,777 3,941 3,9904,071 c
Op. Systems Dev.20,475 21,160 21,655 20,79020,948 d
Total Ob. Auth.69,200 69,355 71,656 70,40672,132
Other Defense Programsg
Defense Health Program507 169 444516542
Chemical Agents and205 48 48 7268
Munitions Destruction
Source: Figures based on Department of Defense Budget, Fiscal Year 2006 RDT&E Programs (R-1),
February 2004. Figures for Defense Health Program and Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction
Program come from OMB’s FY2006 Budget Appendix.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. Includes only BMD RDT&E. Does not include procurement and military construction.
b. Includes funds for Developmental and Operational Test and Evaluation.
c. Includes classified programs.
d. Numbers may not agree with Account Total Obligational Authority due to rounding.
e. Includes $100 million for Air Force Tanker Transfer Fund.
f. H.Rept. 109-119. This does not include the separate $88.1 million in bridge” funding allocated
to the Navy and Defense Agencies RDT&E accounts.
g. This program is now funded through the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2528).
h. S.Rept. 109-141.
i. H.Rept. 109-359.
j. This includes a $200 million unspecified general reduction in ballistic missile defense programs.

k. Most of the ballistic missile defense programs are funded in the Advanced Development account.
This figure includes the $200 million unspecified general reduction. However, some of the
reduction could be taken from other accounts.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA’s total congressionally-approved FY2006 funding is a combination of
$16.456 billion provided in the FY2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce (SSJC)
appropriations Act ( P.L. 109-108), minus a 0.28% across-the-board rescission in that
act, minus a 1% across-the-board rescission in the FY2006 Department of Defense
appropriations and hurricane recovery act (P.L. 109-148), plus $350 million added
for NASA for hurricane recovery in P.L. 109-148. The figures in Table 4 do not
reflect the hurricane recovery addition, or the across-the-board rescissions. Congress
also passed a NASA authorization act in 2005 (P.L. 109-155), but it authorizes
funding for FY2007-2008, not FY2006, so it is not discussed further in this report.
For the purposes of this report, NASA’s “R&D budget” is NASA’s total budget
minus the space shuttle program, space flight support, and Inspector General. Using
that definition, NASA received an estimated $10.7 billion for R&D in FY2005, the
FY2006 R&D request was $11.5 billion, and Congress appropriated approximately
$11.5 billion for R&D. Those numbers should be used cautiously, however. NASA
has repeatedly changed its budget structure, and shifted programs from one account
to the other, making comparisons across fiscal years, and between requested and
appropriated levels, difficult. In addition, funding requirements for the space shuttle
program during the “return to flight” effort following the 2003 Columbia tragedy
remain unsettled, meaning that funds might be shifted into the shuttle program from
R&D programs. More definitive figures may become available when the FY2007
budget request is submitted.
In January 2004, President Bush directed NASA to focus its efforts on returning
humans to the Moon by 2020, and someday sending them to Mars and “worlds
beyond.” Most of the funding for this “Vision for Space Exploration” would come
from redirecting money from other NASA activities. For example, the space shuttle
program would be terminated in 2010, when space station construction is expected
to be completed; U.S. space station research activities would be descoped from the
broadly-based program that was planned, to only research needed to support extended
stays by humans on the Moon and eventual trips to Mars; and NASA would end its
involvement in the space station program by 2016. By terminating the shuttle and
space station earlier than expected, and reducing funding for space station research,
those funds can be redirected to accomplishing other aspects of the Vision. NASA
is building a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), and a launch vehicle for it (the
Crew Launch Vehicle or CLV), whose primary purpose is transporting astronauts to
and from the Moon. It also could be used to take astronauts to and from the space
station. The President directed that the CEV be available by 2014, but NASA
Administrator Michael Griffin wants to accelerate that to 2012 in order to minimize
the gap between the end of the space shuttle and the availability of the CEV.
During that gap, U.S. astronauts would have to rely on Russia to take them to and
from space. NASA’s support for activities in the fields of aeronautics, and Earth and

space science, also could be affected by the need to fund the Vision. In the FY2006
SSJC appropriations act, and the 2005 NASA authorization act, Congress expressed
its support for the Vision, but stressed that NASA needs to maintain a balanced
program that includes aeronautics and science. Other issues include whether the
shuttle should be terminated in 2010, or retained until the CEV is available, and
whether U.S. use of the space station should end in 2016 and its research agenda
narrowed, or if NASA should continue using it as originally planned. See CRS Issue
Brief IB93062, Space Launch Vehicles: Government Activities, Commercial
Competition, and Satellite Exports; and CRS Issue Brief IB93017, Space Stations,
both by Marcia S. Smith, for more information.
Another issue is whether NASA should send a servicing mission to the Hubble
Space Telescope so it can continue scientific operations with new instruments. A
shuttle servicing mission had been planned prior to the 2003 space shuttle Columbia
accident, but then-NASA Administrator O’Keefe canceled that mission, primarily
because of shuttle safety concerns. Hubble advocates sought a reversal of that
decision, arguing that Hubble can continue to deliver important scientific data for
many more years if the new instruments and other equipment are installed. NASA’s
current Administrator, Dr. Griffin, pledged to revisit the Hubble issue after the space
shuttle completes its two “return to flight” missions and its current safety
characteristics are better understood. The first return to flight mission, in July-
August 2005, experienced problems during launch, but was generally judged to be
a success. The second return to flight mission is expected some time in 2006. See
CRS Report RS21767, Hubble Space Telescope: Should NASA Proceed with a
Servicing Mission?, by Daniel Morgan, for more on the Hubble issue. (CRS
Contacts: Marcia Smith and Daniel Morgan.)
Table 4. NASA R&D Funding
($ in millions of Budget Authority)
SSJC Approps.
CategoryFY2005 Est. aFY2006 Req.b(P.L. 109-108)
Science, Aeronautics, and Exploration7,889.9,661.9,761.
Exploration Capabilities (R&D only)2,772.1,857.c 1,777.
Total R&D10,661.11,518.c 11,538.
Total NASAd 16,196.16,456.e 16,457.
Sources: NASA FY2005 and FY2006 budget documents; congressional bills and reports; and CRS
(for R&D estimates).
Note: Column totals may not add due to rounding.
a. Figures in this column are based on NASAs September 30, 2005 operating plan update for
FY2005 and are not final. NASA continues to change its budget structure and shift programs
from one account to the other, making comparisons across fiscal years, and between requested
and appropriated amounts, difficult. The figures in this table should be used cautiously.
b. NASA submitted an amended FY2006 request in July 2005, but the appropriations committees
acted on the original request, so the original request is shown here.
c. The amounts shown here are estimates, based on appropriations conference committee report
language (H.Rept. 109-272) stating that the final bill cuts $80 million from the International

Space Station. However, a $10 million general reduction also was made to this account, which
may or may not impact R&D funding.
d. Includes $126 million from a FY2005 supplemental for recovery from the 2004 hurricanes; regular
appropriations were $16.07 billion (adjusted for an across-the-board rescission).
.e. Does not include additional NASA funding for recovery from the 2005 hurricanes in P.L. 109-148
($350 million), or cuts to NASA funding from across-the-board rescissions in P.L. 109-108
(0.28%) and P.L. 109-148 (1.0%).
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
In final action for FY2006, NIH received a program level budget of $28.47
billion, which is $81 million (0.3%) lower than the FY2005 level of $28.55 billion
(see Table 5). It was the first decrease in NIH’s appropriation since 1970. The
conference report (H.Rept. 109-337) on the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations act
(H.R. 3010, P.L. 109-149) had given NIH enough of an increase that the overall
budget would have grown by $205 million (0.7%), but the 1% across-the-board
rescission mandated by P.L. 109-148 reduced NIH’s budget by $286 million,
resulting in the net loss of $81 million.
The President had requested a total FY2006 budget for NIH of $28.745 billion,
an increase of $195 million (0.7%) over the FY2005 level. The House (H.Rept. 109-
143) accepted the President’s funding levels, while making some shifts in the
accounts that supply the funds. The Senate (S.Rept. 109-103) provided a higher
program level of $29.553 billion, an increase of $1,003 million (3.5%) over FY2005
and $808 million over the request and House levels. The conferees on H.R. 3010 set
the increase at $10 million over the request. The bulk of NIH’s budget comes
through the Labor-HHS-Education appropriation. An additional small amount for
environmental work related to Superfund comes from the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriation (H.R. 2361, P.L. 109-54). (Formerly, the funding
came through the VA-HUD appropriations bill.) Those two sources constitute NIH’s
discretionary budget authority. In addition, NIH receives $150 million pre-
appropriated in separate funding for diabetes research, and has other funds transferred
to and from other appropriations (see Table 5).
FY2003 was the final year of the five-year effort to double the NIH budget from
its FY1998 base of $13.6 billion to the FY2003 level of $27.1 billion. The annual
increases for FY1999 through FY2003 were in the 14%-15% range each year. For
FY2004 and FY2005, faced with competing priorities and a changed economic
climate, Congress and the President gave increases of between 2% and 3%, levels
which were below the estimated 3.5% and 3.3% biomedical inflation index for those
two years. The research advocacy community had originally urged that the NIH
budget grow by about 10% per year in the post-doubling years. For FY2006,
advocates modified their recommendation, maintaining that a 6% increase would be
needed to keep up the momentum of scientific discovery made possible by the
increased resources of the doubling years (the projected biomedical inflation index
for FY2006 is 3.2%).
The agency’s organization consists of the Office of the NIH Director and 27
institutes and centers. The Office of the Director (OD) sets overall policy for NIH
and coordinates the programs and activities of all NIH components. The individual
institutes and centers (ICs), each with a focus on particular diseases, areas of human

health and development, or aspects of research support, plan and manage their own
research programs in coordination with the Office of the Director. As shown in
Table 5, Congress provides a separate appropriation to 24 of the 27 ICs, to OD, and
to a buildings and facilities account. (The other three centers, not included in the
table, are funded through the NIH Management Fund, financed by taps on other NIH
appropriations.) On average, the ICs devote over 80% of their budgets to supporting
peer-reviewed extramural research by awarding research project grants (RPGs),
research center grants, contracts, training grants, construction grants, and many other
types of funding to researchers in universities and other institutions around the
country. The other 15%-20% of the IC budgets supports their intramural research
programs and research management costs. An alternate way, therefore, to describe
the NIH budget is by “funding mechanism,” which reveals the balance between
extramural and intramural funding, as well as the relative emphasis on support of
individual investigator-initiated research versus funding of larger projects,
comprehensive research centers, agency-directed research contracts, research career
training, facilities construction, and so forth.
When the final shape of the FY2006 budget became clear, NIH announced the
policies it would apply for funding RPGs and other award mechanisms. All non-
competing RPG awards will be reduced by 2.35% below committed levels. The
average cost of competing RPGs (new and renewal awards) will be maintained at
FY2005 levels, with the number of awards at 1% below what the conference level
would have supported. All other funding mechanisms will be reduced by 1.1% from
the conference level, with the exception of Research Management and Support,
which will be level with the conference amount. By undertaking these measures,
NIH expects that the “success rate” of applicants receiving funding will be about
19.5% compared to 22.3% in FY2005. They expect to fund a total of about 38,300
competing and non-competing RPGs, representing a decrease of about 570 RPGs, or
1.5%, below FY2005. NIH is quite concerned about the support of new
investigators, particularly younger scientists making the transition from training to
independent research. In January 2006, NIH announced a new Pathway to
Independence Award program to support promising postdoctoral scientists. The five-
year awards will have a two-year mentored phase and a three-year independent phase.
NIH expects to support 150-200 awards beginning in Fall 2006, and a similar number
in each of the following five years, for a total commitment of almost $400 million.
As shown in Table 5, only two accounts received an increase in the final
FY2006 appropriation compared to FY2005. Most of the institutes and centers
received decreases in the 0.3% to 0.7% range. The National Center for Research
Resources was decreased by 1.4% because of the elimination of the $30 million
program for non-biodefense extramural research facilities construction. The 26.5%
decline in NIH’s intramural Buildings and Facilities account reflects completion of
several construction and renovation projects. The National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases (NIAID), home to almost all of NIH’s biodefense research,
received a 0.3% increase. As in past years, the NIAID budget includes $100 million
to be transferred to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.
The Office of the NIH Director (OD) received the only large increase, growing 33.5%
to $478 million. Of the $120 million increase, $97 million is biodefense funding
previously included in the Office of the HHS Secretary. It targets research on
countermeasures against nuclear and radiological threats ($47 million, same as

FY2005) and chemical threats ($50 million, new in FY2006). The remaining
increase for OD provides an 8% boost for OD’s portion of the initiatives collectively
known as the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. The Roadmap addresses
scientific gaps in biomedical research that need to be approached on an NIH-wide
basis. A list of initiatives in high-risk basic research, clinical research, and
multidisciplinary collaborative research will receive up to $333 million for FY2006
($250 million from the institutes and centers and $83 million from the Office of the
Director), up $98 million, or 42%, from FY2005.
NIH and other Public Health Service (PHS) agencies are subject to a budget
“tap” called the PHS Program Evaluation Transfer (section 241 of the PHS Act),
which has the effect of redistributing appropriated funds among PHS agencies. The
appropriation keeps the tap at 2.4%, the same as in FY2005.
After a hiatus of a dozen years, there has been some congressional movement
toward action on reauthorization legislation for NIH. A number of hearings have
been held in the past several years, and evolving drafts of proposed legislation are
fostering discussions on such issues as the balance of authority and control between
the central NIH Director’s Office and the individual institutes and centers; the best
methods of facilitating and funding cross-institute research initiatives; and possible
changes in how authorization and appropriations levels for the institutes and centers
are handled. (CRS Contact: Pamela Smith.)

Table 5. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
($ in millions)
FY2005aFY2006FY2006b% change
Institutes and Centers (ICs)approp.requestenactedFY06/05
Cancer (NCI)$4,825.3$4,841.8$4,793.4-0.7%
Heart/Lung/Blood (NHLBI)2,941.22,951.32,921.8-0.7%
Dental/Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)391.8393.3389.3-0.6%
Diabetes/Digestive/Kidney (NIDDK)1,713.61,722.11,704.9-0.5%
Neurological Disorders/Stroke (NINDS)1,539.41,550.31,534.8-0.3% c
Allergy/Infectious Diseases (NIAID)4,402.84,459.44,414.8 0.3%
General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)1,944.11,955.21,935.6-0.4%
Child Health/Human Development (NICHD)1,270.31,277.51,264.8-0.4%
Eye (NEI)669.1673.5666.8-0.3%
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)644.5647.6641.1-0.5%
Aging (NIA)1,052.01,057.21,046.6-0.5%
Arthritis/Musculoskeletal/Skin (NIAMS)511.2513.1507.9-0.6%
Deafness/Communication Disorders (NIDCD)394.3397.4393.5-0.2%
Nursing Research (NINR)138.1138.7137.3-0.5%
Alcohol Abuse/Alcoholism (NIAAA)438.3440.3435.9-0.5%
Drug Abuse (NIDA)1,006.41,010.11,000.0-0.6%
Mental Health (NIMH)1,411.91,417.71,403.5-0.6%
Human Genome Research (NHGRI)488.6491.0486.0-0.5%
Biomedical Imaging/Bioengineering (NIBIB)298.2299.8296.8-0.5%
Research Resources (NCRR)1,115.11,100.21,099.1-1.4%
Complementary/Alternative Med (NCCAM)122.1122.7121.5-0.5%
Minority Health/Health Disparities (NCMHD)196.2197.4195.4-0.4%
Fogarty International Center (FIC)66.667.066.4-0.4%
Library of Medicine (NLM)315.1318.1314.9-0.1% d
Office of Director (OD)358.0385.2478.133.5%
Buildings & Facilities (B&F)110.381.981.1-26.5%
Subtotal, Labor/HHS Appropriation$28,364.5$28,509.8$28,331.3-0.1%
Superfund (Interior approp to NIEHS) e79.880.379.1-0.9%
Total, NIH discretionary budget authority$28,444.4$28,590.1$28,410.4-0.1%
Pre-appropriated Type 1 diabetes funds f150.0150.0150.00.0%
NLM program evaluation g8.28.28.2 0.0%
Public Health/Soc Serv Emergency Fund g47.097.00.0-100.0%
Global Fund transfer (AIDS/TB/Malaria) c-99.2-100.0-99.0-0.2%
Total, NIH program level$28,550.4$28,745.3$28,469.6-0.3%
Source: H.Rept. 109-337 on H.R. 3010, FY2006 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations.
a. FY2005 reflects across-the-board reduction (0.8%) totaling $229.390m, and Labor/HHS/Ed
reduction of $6.787m for salaries and expenses.
b. FY2006 reflects across-the-board rescission (1%) totaling $285.974m. Does not reflect $18m
pandemic flu supplemental funding (P.L. 109-148). Before rescission, NIH total program level
was $28,745m from the House, $29,559m from the Senate, and $28,756m from the conferees.
c. NIAID totals include funds for transfer to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria.
d. OD has Roadmap funds for distribution to ICs (FY2005, $59.5m; FY2006, $83.0m). In the
FY2006 appropriation, OD includes $96.0m for terrorism countermeasures (see note g).
e. Separate account in the Interior/Related Agencies appropriation for NIEHS activities mandated in
Superfund legislation (formerly in VA/HUD appropriation).
f. Funds available to NIDDK for diabetes research in accordance with P.L. 107-360.
g. Additional funds available: From the program evaluation set-aside (sec. 241 of the Public Health
Service Act), $8.2m for NLM each year; from the Public Health and Social Services Emergency
Fund appropriation, $47m in both the FY2005 appropriation and the FY2006 request for NIH
research on nuclear and radiological countermeasures, and $50m in the FY2006 request for
chemical countermeasures. The FY2006 bill placed the $97m (reduced to $96m) in OD instead.

National Science Foundation (NSF)
The FY2006 request for the National Science Foundation (NSF) is $5,605
million, a 2.4% ($132.2 million) increase over the FY2005 level of $5,472.8 million
(See Table 6). In the FY2006 request, the NSF will increase the funding rate to 21%,
while maintaining current gains in award size and duration. In FY2006, grant size
will approximate $136,800, and the length will be three years. NSF asserts that
international research partnerships are critical to the Nation in maintaining a
competitive edge, addressing global issues, and capitalizing on global economic
opportunities. To address these particular needs, the FY2006 request proposes $35
million for the Office of International Science and Engineering. Also, in FY2006,
NSF will provide leadership in planning U.S. participation in observance of the
International Polar Year scheduled during 2007. Additional FY2006 highlights
include funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative ($343.8 million),
investments in Climate Change Science Program ($196.9 million), continued support
for homeland security ($344 million), and funding for Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development ($803.2 million).
Included in the FY2006 request is $4,333.5 million for Research and Related
Activities (R&RA), a 2.7% increase ($112.9 million) over the FY2005 level of
$4,220.6 million. R&RA funds research projects, research facilities, and education
and training activities. Partly in response to concerns in the scientific community
about the imbalance between support for the life sciences and the physical sciences,
the FY2006 request provides increased funding for the physical sciences—$230.1
million, a 2.3% increase ($5.2 million) over the FY2005 estimate. Research in the
physical sciences often leads to advances in other disciplines. R&RA includes
Integrative Activities (IA), and is a source of funding for the acquisition and
development of research instrumentation at U.S. colleges and universities. It funds
also Partnerships for Innovation, disaster research teams, and the Science and
Technology Policy Institute. The FY2006 request for IA is $134.9 million, a 3.8%
increase ($5 million) over the FY2005 estimate. The Office of Polar Programs is
funded in the R&RA. The FY2006 request would transfer responsibility to NSF from
the U.S. Coast Guard for funding the maintenance and operation of polar ice breaking
Research project support in the FY2006 request totals $2,757.1 million. Support
is provided to individuals and small groups conducting disciplinary and cross-
disciplinary research. Included in the total for research projects is support for centers,
proposed at $358.5 million. NSF supports a variety of individual centers and center
programs. The FY2006 request provides $51 million for Science and Technology
Centers, $58 million for Materials Centers, $61.8 million for Engineering Research
Centers, $19.5 million for Physics Frontiers Centers, $36 million for the Plant
Genome Virtual Centers, and $17.2 million for the Mathematical Science Research
The Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account
is funded at $250 million in the FY2006 request, a 44% increase ($76.4 million) over
the FY2005 level. The MREFC supports the acquisition and construction of major
research facilities and equipment that extend the boundaries of science, engineering,

and technology. Of all federal agencies, NSF is the primary supporter of “forefront
instrumentation and facilities for the academic research and education communities.”
First priority for funding is directed to ongoing projects. Second priority is given to
projects that have been approved by the National Science Board (NSB) for new
starts. NSF requires that in order for a project to receive support, it must have “the
potential to shift the paradigm in scientific understanding and/or infrastructure
technology.” NSF contends that the projects receiving support in the FY2006 request
meet that qualification. There are no new starts proposed in the FY2006 request.
However, two new starts are requested in FY2007, and one start is requested in
FY2008. In the order of priority, they are the Ocean Observatories in FY2007; the
Alaska Region Research Vessel in FY2007; and the Advanced Laser Interferometer
Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) in FY2008. Those projects receiving
support in the FY2006 request are Atacama Large Millimeter Array Construction
($49.2 million), EarthScope ($50.6 million), IceCube Neutrino Observatory ($50.5
million), Rare Symmetry Violating Processes ($41.8 million), and Scientific Ocean
Drilling Vessel ($57.9 million).
The FY2006 request provides support for several interdependent priority areas:
biocomplexity in the environment ($84 million), human and social dynamics ($39
million), and mathematical sciences ($89 million). Additional priority areas include
those of strengthening core disciplinary research, providing broadly accessible
cyberinfrastructure and world-class research facilities, broadening participation in the
science and engineering workforce, and sustaining organizational excellence in NSF
management practices. The NSF states that researchers need not only access to
cutting-edge tools to pursue the increasing complexity of research, but funding to
develop and design the tools critical to 21st century research and education. An
investment of $509 million in cyberinfrastructure will allow for funding of modeling,
simulation, visualization and data storage, and other communications breakthroughs.
NSF anticipates that this level of funding will make cyberinfrastructure more
powerful, stable, and accessible to researchers and educators through widely shared
research facilities. Increasing grant size and duration has been a long-term priority
for NSF. The funding rate for research grants applications has declined from
approximately 30% in the late 1990s to an estimated 20% in FY2005.
The NSF was directed to improve its oversight of large projects by developing
an implementation plan that included comprehensive guidelines and project oversight
review. One continuing question focused on the selection process for including
major projects in the upcoming budget cycle. In February 2004, the National
Academies released the congressionally mandated study of the process for
prioritization and oversight of projects in the MREFC account. The report
recommended a more open process for project selection, broadened participation
from various disciplines, and well-defined criteria for the selection process. In May
2005, the National Science Board (NSB) approved a report detailing the new
guidelines for the development, review, and approval of major projects—Setting
Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science
Foundation.3 Also at the May 2005 meeting, the NSB approved a facility plan,

3 National Science Board, Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported

describing facilities under construction and those being considered for future funding.
The facility plan is to be made available when final edits identified by the NSB are
Table 6. National Science Foundation
($ in millions)
F Y 2004 F Y 2005 F Y 2006 F Y 2006
Ac t . Es t . Re q. Conf .
Res. & Related Act.
Biological Sciences$587.1$576.6$581.8
Computer & Inform. Sci. & Eng.605.4613.7620.6
Engi neering 565.6 561.3 580.7
Geosciences 713.4 694.2 709.1
Math & Physical Sci.1,091.61,069.91,086.2
Social, Behav. & Econ. Sci.184.3197.0198.8
Office of International Sci. & Eng.40.833.734.5
U.S. Polar Programs341.7344.4386.9
Integrative Activities163.5129.9134.9
Subtotal Res. & Rel. Act$4,293.3$4,220.6$4,333.5$4,387.5
Ed. & Hum. Resr.944.1841.4737.0807.0
Major Res. Equip. & Facil. Constr.184.0173.7250.0208.2
Salaries & Expenses218.9223.2269.0250.0
National Science Board
Office of Inspector General9.510.011.511.5
Total NSFa$5,652.0$5,472.8$5,605.0$5,653.4
a. The totals do not include carry overs or retirement accruals. Totals may not add due to rounding.
b. Additional funding resulting from H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Receipts is $57.3 million in
FY2004, $100 million in FY2005, and a projected $100 million in FY2006.
c. Specific funding allocations for each directorate or for individual program or activity will be
determined at a later time.
The FY2006 request for the Education and Human Resources Directorate (EHR)
is $737 million, a 12.4% decrease ($104.2 million) from the FY2005 estimate. The
EHR portfolio is focused on, among other things, increasing the technological
literacy of all citizens, preparing the next generation of science, engineering, and
mathematics professionals, and closing the achievement gap in all scientific fields.
Support at the various educational levels in the FY2006 request is as follows:
precollege, $140.8 million; undergraduate, $135 million; and graduate, $155 million.
The focus at the precollege level in FY2006 is for teacher development activities
($58.8 million) and informal science education ($63.1 million). At the undergraduate
level, approximately 72% of the funding is in support of new awards and activities.
Priorities at the undergraduate level include the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program,
Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement, STEM Talent Expansion Program,
the National STEM Education Digital Library, the Federal Cyber Service, and
Advanced Technological Education. At the graduate level, priorities are those of

3 (...continued)
by the National Science Foundation, NSB05-77 (Pre-publication Draft), Arlington, VA,
May 26, 2005, 10 pp.

Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship, Graduate Research
Fellowship, and the Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education. The request
provides $60 million for the President’s Math and Science Partnerships program
(MSP), a 24.4% decrease from the FY2005 estimate. (The MSP is a five-year
investment to improve the performance of U.S. students in science and mathematics
at the precollege level). Funding in the FY2006 request will provide support for
ongoing awards, in addition to data collection, evaluation, knowledge management,
and dissemination. The MSP has made 80 awards in a three year period, with an
overall funding rate of approximately 9%. No new partnership awards are proposed
in the FY2006 request. Several programs are directed at increasing the number of
underrepresented minorities in science and engineering. Among these targeted
programs in the FY2006 request are the Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Programs ($25 million), Tribal Colleges and Universities Program ($10 million),
Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation ($35 million), and Centers of
Research Excellence in Science and Technology ($18.5 million). Funding for the
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) is $94 million
in the FY2006 request, almost level with the FY2005 estimate. Approximately 35%
of the request would be available for new awards and activities, with the balance
supporting awards made in previous years.
Both the House and Senate have passed the conference agreement on FY2006
appropriations for the NSF, contained in the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY2006, (H.R. 2862, H.Rept. 109-272). The
House passed the conference agreement on November 9, 2005 and the Senate passed
the agreement on November 16, 2005. The bill provides a total of $5,653.4 million
for NSF in FY2006, $48.4 million above the Administration’s request and $180.6
million above the FY2005 estimate. Included in the total is $4,387.5 million for
R&RA, $54 million above the request and $166.9 million above the FY2005 level.
The EHR receives $807 million in H.R. 2862, $70 million above the request and
$34.4 million below the FY2005 estimate. The EHR will fund the Louis Stokes
Alliance for Minority Participation program at $25.8 million and the Historically
Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program at $35.8 million. Funds
have been provided for continued support of the Tribal Colleges and Universities
Program, the Robert Noyce Scholarship program and the Advanced Technological
Education program. Conferees agreed with the Senate in providing $64 million for
the MSP. Also, the Committee rejected the Administration’s request to have the
MSP operate only in the Department of Education.
H.R. 2862 funds the MREFC at $208.2 million in FY2006, $41.8 million below
the request and $34.5 million above the FY2005 estimate. The projects receiving
support are the Atacama Large Millimeter Array ($49.2 million), EarthScope ($50.6
million), IceCube Neutrino Observatory ($50.5 million), and Scientific Ocean
Drilling Vessel ($57.9 million). Support is not provided for the Rare Symmetry
Violating Processes (RSVP). The Committee is concerned with the “unacceptable
increases” in the project cost and suggests that the RSVP proposal be altered or
descoped. If the necessary changes can be made, the restructured RSVP can be
considered for inclusion for project support within the R&RA. EPSCoR is funded at
$100 million in FY2006, $6 million above the request and $6.7 million above the
FY2005 estimate. The Senate Committee directs the NSF to assume polar
icebreaking activities from the Coast Guard. If the Coast Guard is unable to provide

icebreaking services, the NSF is directed to obtain services from other sources.
(CRS Contact: Christine Matthews.)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) R&D
The Department of Homeland Security requested $1.37 billion for the
Directorate of Science and Technology in FY2006. (For details see Table 7.) For
the first time, all R&D funding for the department was included in this request.
Compared with the enacted FY2005 funding for the S&T Directorate alone ($1.12
billion) the FY2006 request was a 23% increase. However, if one includes the
enacted FY2005 funding for R&D programs formerly funded elsewhere in the
department, the requested increase in DHS-wide R&D funding was 4%. The House
(H.R. 2360) provided $1.29 billion, a reduction of $78 million from the request.4
The Senate provided $1.45 billion, or $85 million more than the request, plus a
separate $18.5 million for Coast Guard R&D. The final bill provided $1.50 billion
for the S&T Directorate plus $17.8 million for Coast Guard R&D.
R&D programs formerly in the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
and Coast Guard, together with some other smaller programs, would all have been
consolidated into the S&T Directorate under the proposed FY2006 budget. This
move reflected direction originally given in the FY2004 appropriations conference
report (H.Rept.108-280).Consolidating the Coast Guard R&D program was proposed
in the FY2005 budget request as well, but the change was controversial, and
Congress did not approve it. For FY2006, the House accepted the Coast Guard
move, but the Senate again rejected it, and the conference agreement again followed
the Senate. The House, Senate, and conference agreement all accepted the other
proposed FY2006 consolidations as requested. The FY2006 budget was the first to
propose consolidation for the TSA R&D program because the Homeland Security
Act, which established DHS, required that TSA be maintained as a single distinct
entity until November 2004 (P.L.107-296, §424).
The request for the newly created Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO)
was $227 million Although funded under S&T, DNDO has been made a freestanding
office that reports directly to the Secretary. Noting this fact, the House report
provided $100 million less than was requested and stated that “DHS still needs to
clarify its role in regard to other federal agencies ... that have similar and more
mature programs.” The Senate committee, stating that it was “troubled by the manner
in which this initiative has been handled,” also recommended $100 million less than
requested for DNDO, and recommended restricting the obligation of all but $15
million until further details are provided to the appropriations committees. Some
DNDO activities were formerly funded by the S&T Directorate’s radiological and
nuclear countermeasures program, whose FY2006 request was $19 million, down
from $123 million. The House provided the requested amount for radiological and
nuclear countermeasures, while the Senate provided an increase to $226 million,
including $125 million requested under Customs and Border Prevention for testing,

4 The House committee recommended $1.34 billion, but a floor amendment by Rep. Obey
reduced this by $50 million to fund state conformance with drivers' license standards under
the REAL ID Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13).

development, and deployment of radiation portal monitors at ports of entry. The
conference agreement provided $318 for DNDO, including $135 million for radiation
portal monitors and with restrictions on the obligation of another $145 million
pending approval of an expenditure plan by the appropriations committees. The
conference agreement provided $19 million for radiological and nuclear
countermeasures and concurred with the plan to transfer most funding for this
activity into DNDO. (CRS Contact: Daniel Morgan.)
Table 7. Department of Homeland Security R&D
($ in millions)
FY2005 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006
Ena c t e d Request House Sena t e Ena c t e d
Science and Technology Directorate1115.41368.41290.01453.51502.1
Salaries and Expenses68.681.481.481.181.1
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations1046.81287.01208.61372.41421.0
Biological Countermeasures362.6362.3360.0384.3380.0
NBACC Construction35.0
Chemical Countermeasures53.0102.090.0100.095.0
Explosives Countermeasures19.714.754.733.944.0
Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures122.619.119.1226.019.1
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 227.3127.3127.3318.0
Threat and Vulnerability Testing and65.847.
Asse ssme nt
Critical Infrastructure Protection27.020.835.813.840.8
Cyber Security18.016.716.716.716.7
Standards 39.7 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.0
Support of DHS Components54.693.680.074.780.0
University and Fellowship Programs70.063.663.663.663.0
Emerging Threats10.810.510.55.38.0
Rapid Prototyping76.020.930.020.935.0
Counter MANPADS61.0110.0110.0110.0110.0
SAFETY Act10.05.610.05.67.0
Office of Interoperability and21.020.541.515.026.5
Co mp atib ility
R&D Consolidation 116.9116.999.999.9
Technology Development and Transfer10.0
General Reduction-50.0
Transportation Security Administration178.0
U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E18.5 18.517.8
Customs R&D1.4
Total DHS R&D1313.31368.41290.01472.01519.9

Department of Commerce (DOC)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
For FY2006, the President requested $534 million for NOAA R&D programs
and facilities, which is 15% of NOAA’s entire budget request of $3.58 billion.5 The
R&D request was $92 million, or 14.6% less than the estimated $626 million
appropriated for FY2005. (See Table 8.) The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research (OAR) conducts most of NOAA’s R&D program and manages R&D
facilities and is NOAA’s primary line office for research. The requested for OAR of
$316 million is a $23 million funding cut, or 6.8% less than the FY2005 estimate.
The House passed, Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations
(SSJC) bill, H.R. 2862, would have provided an estimated $501 million for NOAA’s
R&D programs, which is a decrease of $150 million, or 20% below FY2005
estimated funding (H.Rept. 109-118). It would have reduced funding for OAR’s
R&D programs by 15% less that FY2005 levels, for a total of $286 million. This
reduction was at odds with U.S. Oceans Policy Commission (OPC) recommendations
for doubling ocean and coastal research budgets over the next five years. (For
information on the OPC recommendations, the President’s Ocean Action Plan, and
congressional action, see CRS Issue Brief IB10132, Ocean Commissions: Ocean
Policy Review and Outlook.) The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2862 proposed
increases for NOAA’s R&D and a total of $693 million most of which would be for
implementing OPC recommendations and expanding oceanic research. The total is
$32 million more than FY2005 estimated funding of $626 million; $15 million more
than the request, and $192 million more than the House level. The Senate report
recommended increasing OAR funding from $338 million in FY2005 to $380 million
in FY2006, which is a 12.4% increase (S.Rept. 109-88).
The conference committee on SSJC appropriations, FY2006, reported H.R.
2862 (H.Rept. 109-272). An estimated $661 million would be for NOAA R&D in
FY2006. Conferees also agreed to $373 million for OAR. The greatest change for
R&D at NOAA in FY2006 relates to individually funded ocean science educational
programs. These have been consolidated under NOAA’s Program Support base.
Also, funding for ocean research programs under OAR, including the National Sea
Grant Program, and NOAA’s National Ocean Service ocean sciences programs has
been cut. Conferees directed NOAA to compile a plan for implementing OPC
recommendations that included estimated costs, before reconsidering funding for
associated programs in the FY2007 budget (H.Rept. 109-272). H.R. 2862 became
P.L. 109-108 on November 22, 2005. For information on NOAA’s full budget
request for FY2006, see CRS Report RS22109, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Budget for FY2006: President’s Request, Congressional
Appropriations, and Related Issues. (CRS Contact: Wayne A. Morrissey.)

5 OMB’s R&D Bureau estimates differ: $650 million for FY2005; and $551 million
requested for FY2006. However, those amounts include capital costs for equipment and
maintenance of R&D facilities, which NOAA does not score as R&D obligations.

Table 8. NOAA R&D
($ in millions)
NOAAFY2005Conf.FY2006RequestFY2006HouseFY2006SenateP.L. 109-108
R&D Total626534501693661
Office of Oceanic & Atmospheric340316286380374
Research (OAR)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office
of Financial Administration, Research and Development Budgets FY2004-FY2006, February 23, 2005.
FY2006 R&D data for the House and Senate totals is from the American Association for the
Advancement of Science Budget and Policy Program (AAAS). OAR funding is from House, Senate
and conference committee reports. P.L. 109-108 totals are subject to a 1% across the board rescission
pending OMB action.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a laboratory of
the Department of Commerce. It is mandated to increase the competitiveness of U.S.
companies through appropriate support for industrial development of pre-competitive
generic technologies and the diffusion of government-developed technological
advances to users in all segments of the American economy. NIST research also
provides the measurement, calibration, and quality assurance techniques that
underpin U.S. commerce, technological progress, improved product reliability,
manufacturing processes, and public safety.
The President’s FY2006 budget requested $532 million in funding for NIST, a
23% decrease from FY2005 due primarily to an absence of support for the Advanced
Technology Program (ATP) and a significant cut in financing for the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP). Included in the total figure was $426.3 million for the
Scientific and Technology Research and Services (STRS) account which primarily
finances the internal R&D activities of the laboratory. This amount was 12.5% above
the previous fiscal year and included $5.7 million for the Baldrige National Quality
Program. MEP was to be funded at $46.8 million, 56% below FY2005 support. The
construction budget was $58.9 million. (See Table 9.)
H.R. 2862, as originally passed by the House, would have provided $548.7
million for NIST, 21% below FY2005 funding. The STRS account was to receive
$397.7 million, 5% more than FY2005 but 6.7% below the President’s request.
Financing for MEP totaled $106 million, a decrease of 1.4% from the earlier fiscal
year and over twice the Administration’s budget request. There was no funding for
ATP. Construction activities would have received $45 million.
The version of H.R. 2862 initially passed by the Senate would have funded
NIST at $844.5 million, almost 21% above the FY2005 budget. Included in this
amount was $399.9 million for the STRS account (incorporating $7.2 million for the
Quality Program), an increase of 5.6% over previous funding. MEP was to receive
$106 million. Support for ATP, absent from both the President’s budget request and
the original House-passed bill, would total $140 million, 2.6% more than the
financing provided in FY2005. The construction budget was to be funded at $198.6

million, more than double the earlier figure. This construction funding was over
three times that proposed by the Administration and more than four times that
included in the original House version of the bill.
Subsequently, the final FY2006 appropriations legislation, P.L. 109-108,
provides $761.8 million for NIST, an increase of almost 9% over funding in FY2005.
Support for the STRS account totals $399.9 million and includes $7.1 million for the
Quality Program. This amount is an increase of 5.6% over the previous fiscal year.
The Manufacturing Extension Partnership is to receive $106 million and the
Advanced Technology Program is financed at $80 million. The funding for MEP is
a small decrease from FY2005 while support for ATP declines 41% from the earlier
figure. The construction budget more than doubles to $175.9 million. (Please note
that the legislation also includes a 0.28% rescission on all discretionary budget
For FY2005, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-447, provided the NIST
with $695.3 million (after a mandated 0.8% across-the-board rescission and a 0.54%
rescission from Commerce, Justice, State discretionary accounts). This amount was
14% above FY2004 funding. Internal research and development under the STRS
account was $378.8 million (including funding for the Baldrige National Quality
Program), almost 12% over the previous fiscal year. The Manufacturing Extension
Partnership was funded at $107.5 million, an increase of 178% that brought support
for the program up to pre-FY2004 levels. The Advanced Technology Program was
financed at $136.5 million (20% below FY2004) and the construction budget
received $72.5 million. The legislation also rescinded $3.9 million of unobligated
balances from prior year funds in the ATP account.
Continued support for the Advanced Technology Program has been a major
funding issue. ATP provides “seed financing,” matched by private sector investment,
to businesses or consortia (including universities and government laboratories) for
development of generic technologies that have broad applications across industries.
Opponents of the program cite it as a prime example of “corporate welfare,” whereby
the federal government invests in applied research activities that, they argue, should
be conducted by the private sector. Others defend ATP, arguing that it assists
businesses (and small manufacturers) in developing technologies that, while crucial
to industrial competitiveness, would not or could not be developed by the private
sector alone. While Congress has maintained support for the Advanced Technology
Program, the initial appropriation bills passed by the House since FY2002 provided
no funding for ATP. While support again is provided in the FY2006 appropriations
legislation, it is 41% below the earlier fiscal year.
The budget for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, another extramural
program administered by NIST, was an issue during the FY2004 appropriations
deliberations. While in the recent past, congressional support for MEP remained
constant, the Administration’s FY2004 budget request, the initial House-passed bill,
and the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act substantially decreased federal
funding for this initiative reflecting the President’s recommendation that
manufacturing extension centers “... with more than six years experience operate
without federal contribution.” However, P.L. 108-447 restored financing for MEP
in FY2005 to the level that existed prior to the 63% reduction taken in FY2004. This

level of support has been maintained for FY2006. For additional information see
CRS Report 95-30, The National Institute of Standards and Technology: An
Overview; CRS Report 95-36, The Advanced Technology Program; and CRS Report
97-104, The Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program: An Overview, all by
Wendy Schacht. (CRS Contact: Wendy H. Schacht.)
Table 9. NIST
($ in millions)
NIST ProgramFY2005*FY2006 RequestFY2006†
NIST Total695.3532761.8
STRS** 378.8 426.3 399.9
Const r uct i on 72.5 58.9 175.9
* After mandated rescissions (but not including those to unobligated balances).
** Includes funding for the Baldrige National Quality Program.
† Does not include a 0.28% rescission on all discretionary budget authority.
Department of Transportation (DOT)
The Bush Administration requested $808 million for the Department of
Transportation’s (DOT) research and development budget in FY2006. This
represents an increase of 8% over the FY2005 estimated funding level of $744
million. (see Table 10.) Support for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
would increase from an estimated $336 million to $444 million in FY2006. Most of
this increase is the result of the Administration’s proposal to shift some resources
away from state highway grants to highway research, an approach Congress rejected
in FY2005. R&D funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would
decline11%, to $233 million, primarily due to a 27% cut in FAA development
activities, as well as the Administration proposal to eliminate $17 million in FY2005
Congressional earmarks. FAA research focuses on a number of topics including
weather research, air craft safety, human factors research, and the development of
“free flight technology to improve aviation system capacity.” Finally funding for
FAA security R&D has declined significantly with the transfer of aviation security
and Coast Guard R&D to DHS.
The House passed Transportation-Treasury bill (H.R. 3058, H. Rept. 109-153)
recommended a total of $727 million DOT R&D in FY2006, a 2.2% reduction below
FY2005 estimated levels. While the Administration had recommended a 32%
increase for FHWA R&D, the House approved a modest 2.4% increase for FY2006.
The House also approved a 6.5% reduction for FAA’s R&D programs, which is less
than the 11.4% reduction proposed by the Administration. The Senate Appropriations
Committee bill (H.R. 3085, S.Rept. 109-109) would provide $742 million for R&D
in FY2006, $2 million below FY2005 estimated funding levels. The FAA would
receive $285 million, an increase of 8.4% because the Committee added $21 million

for an airport technology R&D program, and restored proposed cuts to other aviation
research programs.
According to P. L. 109-115, Congress approved a record $841million for
transportation R&D in FY2006, a 13% increase over FY2005 estimated funding
level. Despite recommending a cut in FAA’s R&D budget, Congress approved a 5%
increase in FAA’s R&D spending. (CRS Contact: Mike Davey.)
Table 10. Department of Transportation R&D
($ in millions)
FY2005FY2006FY2006 b
Department of TransportationEstimateRequestTotal
Federal Highway Administration337444
Federal Aviation Administration263233276
Others a144131
a. “Other” includes Office of the Secretary, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Federal
Railroad Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and the
Research and Innovative Technology Administration.
b. FY2006 R&D data for the House, and Senate is from the American Association for the
Advancement of Science. FY2006 funding levels do not include the 1% across-the-board
fund i ng.
Department of the Interior (DOI)
The Administration requested $581 million for R&D in the Department of the
Interior (DOI) (see Table 11), a 4.9% decline from the $611 million the agency
estimates it received in FY2005. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the primary
supporter of R&D (over 90 % of the total) within DOI. The USGS areas of research
include mapping, research in geological resources, water quality, and biological
resources. The proposed FY2006 budget for R&D within the USGS would decline
from $541 million in FY2005 to $515 million. The USGS is one of the major
sponsors of earth science research, along with NSF, DOE, and NASA.
As indicated in the table, Geological Mineral Resources research funding is
proposed to decline 13%, while Water Resources is scheduled to decline 5.5%. The
Geological hazards programs conducts basic and applied research, collects long-term
data, operates a variety of monitoring networks, and helps to warn the public of
impending disasters such as earthquakes. Recently, the Administration announced
that NOAA and the DOI, will work together to develop an improved tsunami and
earthquake warning system in the United States. The Water Resources research
focuses on activities aimed at improving the quality of the U.S. ground water.
Within the earth sciences, the USGS plays a major role in important geological
hazards research, including research on earthquakes and volcanoes.

The USGS Biological Research Activity develops and distributes information
needed in the conservation and management of the Nation’s biological resources.
This program serves as the Department’s research arm utilizing the capabilities of 17
research centers, as well as 40 Cooperative Research Units that support research on
fish, wildlife, and natural habitats. Major research initiatives are carried out by
USGS scientists by collecting scientific information through research, inventory and
monitoring investigations. These activities develop new methods and techniques to
identify, observe, and manage fish and wildlife, including invasive species and their
habitats. Nearly 90% of USGS research is performed within Interior labs to address
the science needs of Interior and other agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the Bureau of Land Management. If Congress approves the President’s
proposed budget for FY2006, funding for DOI R&D will have declined 18%, in real
dollars, since FY2004.
Both the House (H.R. 2361, H.Rept. 109-80) and Senate passed bill (H.R. 2361,
S.Rept. 109-80) rejected the Administration’s proposal to cut funding for DOI’s
R&D programs. The House bill would increase funding for USGS R&D programs
by $12 million over FY2005 estimates, while the Senate bill approved a $9 million
increase. The Administration has proposed to cut Geological Resources program by
13%, however both the House and Senate approved a modest increases for that
program. Given the funding similarities in both bills, it is likely the DOI R&D
funding will essentially remain flat, in real dollars, for FY2006. Congress approved
an estimated $555 million for USGS R&D for FY2006, a 2.5% increase over
FY2005. Total Interior R&D spending increased 1.4% to $620 million in FY2006
(see P.L. 109-54). (CRS Contact: Mike Davey.)
Table 11. Department of Interior R&D
($ in millions)
U. S. Geological SurveyRequestHouseSenate2006
National Mapping434139
Geological Resources179210208
Water Resources119126128
Biological Research173175174
Enterprise Informationa111
USGS totalb515553550555
Other agenciesc66666665
Total all agencies581619616620
a. Transfers of IT -related programs from other accounts beginning in FY2005.
b. USGS R&D estimates are from the USGS budget office, and the USGS FY2006 Budget
Justification documents.
c. Other includes, the Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, the Minerals
Management Service, and the National Park Services.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Environmental Protection Agency’s Science and Technology (S&T)
account incorporates elements of the former research and development account (also
called extramural research) and EPA’s in-house research, development, and
technology work. For FY2006, P.L. 109-54 provides $772.3 million for all S&T
activities, which includes $30.6 million transferred from the Superfund account (see
Table 12). Incorporating the 0.476% across-the-board rescission, the FY2006 S&T
total is $768.6 million, including $30.5 million transferred from Superfund. The
FY2005 data shown here reflect rescissions. The FY2006 S&T total exceeds the
amount passed by the Senate, but is less than the amount passed by the House, the
amount requested for FY2006, or the amount enacted for FY2005.
Among the noteworthy details are these. The FY2006 amount of $18.9 million
(including the rescission) for climate protection programs is slightly less than the
FY2005 level of $19.0 million. The FY2006 amount of $33.1 million for
“Research/Congressional Priorities” (for research projects such as the Center for Air
Toxic Metals at the University of North Dakota, the Environmental Systems Center
of Excellence at Syracuse University, the Texas Air Quality Study 2, and the National
Alternative Fuels Training Consortium at West Virginia University, each getting
about $2 million) is much less than the FY2005 level of $65.7 million. The FY2006
amount of $19.8 million for global change clean air research is slightly greater than
the FY2005 level of $19.6 million. The FY2006 amount of $50.9 million for water
quality—clean water research exceeds the FY2005 level of $45.0 million. The
FY2006 amount of $11.9 million for human health and ecosystem research
fellowships is slightly less than the FY2005 level of $12.0 million. The FY2006
amount of $11.3 million for land protection and restoration research exceeds the
FY2005 level of $9.1 million. Beyond the appropriateness of funding levels, a
continuing question is the degree to which efforts to insure sound science (such as
the Information Quality Act (IQA) and the Office of Management and Budget’s Peer
Review guidelines) will impact EPA’s S&T work, including the magnitude of
Agency resources to satisfy IQA requirements and peer-review guidelines. (CRS
Contact: Michael Simpson.)
Table 12. EPA
($ in millions)
P.L. 109-54
FY2005FY2006H.R. 2361H.R. 2361[reflecting
EP A Ena c t e d Request H o use- pa ssed Sena t e - pa ssed rescission]
S&T total779.9791.2795.9761.4772.3
Specifically for S&T744.1760.6765.3730.8741.7
Transferred from35.830.630.630.630.6
Superf und [30.5]

Table 13. FY2006 Federal R&D Appropriation in the 109th
($ millions)
FY2006 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006
Ag ency FY2005 Request House Sena t e Appropriatio n
Department of Defense69,19969,35571,65770,40772,132
Homeland Security1,3131,3681,2901,4541,520
Nat. Institutes of Health28,55028,74528,74529,55328,470
NASA10,726 11,49711,54211,46411,538
Nat. Science Foundation5,4735,6055,6435,5315,653
EPA 780 791 796 761 772
NIST 695 532 549 845 762
NOAA 626 534 501 693 661
Dept. of Energy8,8098,4038,4969,1088,916
Dept. of Transportation744808727742841
Dept. of Interior611581619616620
Dept. of Agriculture2,6922,6662,8933,0282,537
Other 1 ,808 1,537 1,463 1,804 1,497
To t a l 132,026 132,425 134,921 136,006 135,669
The Bush Administration requested $132.4 billion in federal research and
development (R&D) funding for FY2006. This sum represents a $400 million
increase over the FY2005 estimated funding level of $132 billion. CRS estimates that
Congress has approved a record $135.7 billion for federal R&D in FY2006, a 2.8%
increase over the FY2005 estimated funding level. However, nearly all of that
increase can be attributed to increases in defense weapons systems and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration’s $877 million increase for human space
exploration technology.6
Basic research funding would decline by 0.5% below the FY2005 estimated
level, declining to an estimated $26.7 billion in FY2006. Five agencies account for
90% of all federal basic research expenditures. Total federal research funding (the
sum of basic and applied research) is projected to increase $1 billion to $57 billion.
However, the majority of that increase would go to NASA, while most of the
remaining federal agencies would receive below inflation increases for research

6 The FY2006 R&D funding totals, in this section do not reflect the 1% across-the-board
funding recision approved by Congress. see P. L. 109-148

While the President essentially requested flat funding for the Department of
Defense (DOD) R&D programs, Congress approved an estimated $ 72.1 billion DOD
R&D, a 4.2 % increase over FY2005 funding levels. Most of that increase is a result
of Congress increasing DOD’s proposed S&T budget by $2.5 billion more than was
requested by the Administration.
Funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would decline, in nominal
dollars for the first time in 36 years. Since the completion of doubling NIH’s budget
(between 1998-2003), funding has declined to the FY2003 funding level, after
adjusting for inflation.
Most R&D funding agencies now face budgets that are shrinking to levels of
years past, in real dollars. While it has been 24 years since NIH’s budget declined in
real dollars, other agencies such as the National Science Foundation, DOE’s Office
of Science, NASA (excluding human space exploration), and Agriculture, have lived
with stagnate budgets for several years. Consequently, in real dollars, all of these
agencies will have less R&D funding in FY2006 than they did in FY2003.