Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2006
Released: 2006-02-01T00:00:00

Summary:
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 estimatedfunding level of $132 billion. CRS estimates that Congress has approved a record $135.7 billion forfederal R&D in FY2006, a 2.8% increase over the FY2005 estimated funding level. However, nearlyall of that increase can be attributed to increases in defense weapons systems and the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration's $877 million increase for human space explorationtechnology. (1) (See Table13)
Basic research funding would decline by 0.5% below the FY2005 estimated level, decliningto an estimated $26.7 billion in FY2006. Five agencies account for 90% of all federal basic researchexpenditures. Total federal research funding (the sum of basic and applied research) is projected toincrease $1 billion to $57 billion. However, the majority of that increase would go to NASA, whilemost of the remaining federal agencies would receive below inflation increases for research funding.
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 overFY2005 funding levels. Most of that increase is a result of Congress increasing DOD's proposedscience 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 forthe 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, inreal dollars. While it has been 24 years since NIH's budget declined in real dollars, other agenciessuch as the National Science Foundation, DOE's Office of Science, NASA (excluding human spaceexploration), and Agriculture, have lived with stagnate budgets for several years. Consequently, inreal dollars, all of these agencies will have less R&D funding in FY2006 than they did in FY2003.

subsections: section_title: Recent Developments
paragraphs: 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 estimatedfunding level of $132 billion. CRS estimates that Congress has approved a record $135.7 billion forfederal R&D in FY2006, a 2.8% increase over the FY2005 estimated funding level. However, nearlyall of that increase can be attributed to increases in defense weapons systems and the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration's $877 million increase for human space explorationtechnology. (2) (See Table13) 
section_title: Department of Agriculture (USDA)
paragraphs: On November 10, 2005, the President signed into law the FY2006 Agriculture, RuralDevelopment, 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 theFY2005 level. (See Table 1 ). The USDA conducts in-house basic and applied research. TheAgricultural Research Service (ARS) is the lead federal agency for nutrition research, operating fivemajor laboratories in this area, including the world's largest multi-disciplinary agricultural researchcenter located at Beltsville, Maryland. There are approximately 100 research facilities throughoutthe U.S. and abroad. ARS laboratories focus on efficient food and fiber production, preservation ofgenetic resources, development of new products and uses for agricultural commodities, developmentof effective biocontrols for pest management, and support of USDA regulatory and technicalassistance 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 priorityprogram increases. However, conference report language continues funding at the FY2005 levelfor all of these projects, including hyperspectral imaging in New Orleans, LA. The ARS reports thatthe majority of its facilities, constructed prior to 1960, have become functionally obsolete. Manyof the facilities are not in total compliance with current health and safety standards. Included in theFY2006 appropriation for ARS is $131.2 million for buildings and facilities, $66.4 million abovethe 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 coordinatedwith ongoing genomics initiatives supported by other federal agencies and facilitated by interagencyworking groups. Increases are provided animal genomes and plant genomes research. Also, theFY2006 appropriation provides an increase in support of research on emerging and exotic diseasesas part of the infrastructure to enhance homeland security. USDA states that this research issignificant to protecting the Nation from deliberate or unintentional introduction of an agriculturalhealth threat. The USDA has biocontainment complexes where research and diagnostic work is doneon organisms that pose serious threats to the crop, poultry, and livestock industries. Other researchareas receiving increased support by conferees include bovine spongiform encephalopathy, air andwater quality, food safety, obesity/nutrition, biobased products/bioenergy research, and agriculturalinformation. Conferees have instructed ARS not to redirect support for programs from one state toanother without prior notification and approval of the Committee on Appropriations.
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) distributesfunds to State Agricultural Experiment Stations, State Cooperative Extension Systems, land-grantuniversities, and other institutions and organizations that conduct agricultural research. Included inthese partnerships is funding for research at the 1862 institutions, 1890 historically black collegesand universities, and 1994 tribal land-grant colleges. Funding is distributed to the states throughcompetitive awards, statutory formula funding, and special grants. The FY2006 appropriation forCSREES is $1,194.6 million, an increase of $153.4 million above the request and $10.6 million overthe FY2005 enacted. Funding for formula distribution in FY2006 to the state AgriculturalExperiment 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, reportlanguage includes $9.5 million for the Tropical and Subtropical Research program, $600,000 foraquaculture 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 $128.2million by the conferees. Report language detailed the need to address the many issues of AmericanIndian tribal nations. Conferees directed the Department to work with the tribal nations and todevelop staffing needs for additional Indian reservation extension agents.
The Economic Research Service (ERS) is the principal intramural economic and socialscience research agency in USDA. The FY2006 appropriation for ERS is $75.9 a $1.8 millionincrease over FY2005. The increase will continue the development of a consumer data andinformation system. In addition, the increase will support a cooperative study with the NationalAcademy 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 andeconomic indicators of the well-being of the farm sector. The FY2006 appropriation for the NASSis $140.7 million, $4.5 million below the request and $12.3 million above the FY2005 level. Funding would support both Presidential and Department eGovernment initiatives, such as eTrainingand eTravel. NASS will continue the development of the USDA Enterprise Architecture and theUSDA Enablers initiatives.
(CRS Contact: Christine Matthews.) 
 Table 1. U.S. Department of AgricultureR&D
($ in millions)
a. Funding levels are contained in U.S Department of Agriculture FY2006 Budget Summary andother documents internal to the agency.
b. Higher education includes payments to 1994 institutions and 1890 Capacity Building Grantsprogram, the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, and the Alaska Native andNative Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Education Grants.
c. Program totals may reflect set-asides (non-add) or contingencies. The CSREES total includessupport for Integrated Activities, Community Food Projects, and the Organic AgricultureResearch and Education Initiative.
d. Funding levels for specific programs are not yet available.
section_title: Department of Energy (DOE)
paragraphs: The Department of Energy requested $8.4 billion for R&D in FY2006, including activitiesin each of the department's four business lines: Science, National Security, Energy Supply, andEnvironmental Quality. This request was 4.6% below the FY2005 level of $8.8 billion. The Houseprovided $8.5 billion, the Senate $9.1 billion, and the final bill $8.9 billion. For details, see Table2 .
The requested funding for Science was $3.5 billion, a 3.8% decrease from FY2005. TheHouse and Senate each provided $3.7 billion; the final bill provided $3.6 billion. In the BasicEnergy Sciences program, DOE expects to complete construction of the Spallation Neutron Sourcein the third quarter of FY2006, so funds will start to shift from construction to operations. In FusionEnergy Sciences, the congressional debate has centered on U.S. participation in the InternationalThermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER).In June 2005, after an 18-month delay, theparticipating countries agreed to build ITER in France. Both House and Senate shifted funds fromITER to the domestic fusion program pending the decision on a site; the final bill provided therequested amount. In the Biological and Environmental Research program, the request was adecrease of $126 million, of which $80 million corresponded to one-time projects funded atcongressional direction in FY2005. The House and Senate restored about half of this requestedreduction and allocated $35 million and $51 million respectively for directed projects; the final billrestored the entire reduction, with $130 million for congressionally directed projects. To improveutilization of Office of Science research facilities in several programs, the House and Senateprovided $66 million and $100 million respectively to fund increased facility operating time; theconference report was silent on this issue.
The requested funding for R&D in National Security was $3.3 billion, a 3.8% decrease. TheHouse decreased R&D in Weapons Activities by $224 million below the request, while the Senateincreased it by $73 million; the final bill provided $3.4 billion, an increase of $147 million abovethe request. Within these totals, the House increased Inertial Confinement Fusion and reduced mostother programs, the Senate did the opposite (completely eliminating funding for continuedconstruction of the National Ignition Facility), and the final bill approximately accepted the Houseincrease for Inertial Confinement Fusion but omitted most of the decreases. The request would haveincreased funding for R&D on nuclear proliferation detection by $46 million or 43%; the House, theSenate, 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% fromFY2005. Within this total, Fossil Energy R&D was down $80 million, with the natural gas and oiltechnology programs proposed for termination. The Senate provided $305 million more than therequest, 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 increasesallocated similarly to the Senate bill.
The requested funding for R&D in Environmental Quality was $21 million. This was lessthan half the FY2005 level and followed several years of substantial reductions that resulted froma reorientation of the program after an internal review of the Office of Environment in 2002. TheHouse provided the requested amount; the Senate provided $56 million; the final figure was $30million. (CRS Contact: [author name scrubbed].) 
 Table 2. Department of Energy R&D
($ in millions)
a. Includes Stockpile Services (R&D Support, R&D Certification and Safety, Advanced Concepts,Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, and Reliable Replacement Warhead only), ScienceCampaigns, Engineering Campaigns (except Enhanced Surety and Enhanced Surveillance),Inertial Confinement Fusion, Advanced Simulation and Computing, and a prorated share ofReadiness in Technical Base and Facilities. Additional R&D activities may take place in thesubprograms of Directed Stockpile Work that are devoted to specific weapon systems, butthese funds are not included in the table because detailed funding schedules for thosesubprograms are classified.
b. Excluding Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.
c. FY2006 enacted figures do not reflect the government-wide 1% rescission enacted in the FY2006defense appropriations act (PL 109-148, Section 3801).
section_title: Department of Defense (DOD)
paragraphs: Nearly all of what the Department of Defense spends on Research, Development, Test andEvaluation (RDT&E) is appropriated in Title IV of the defense appropriation bill (see Table 3 ). ForFY2006, the Bush Administration is requesting $69.4 billion for Title IV RDT&E. This isessentially unchanged from the $69.2 billion available for Title IV in FY2005. RDT&E funds arealso requested as part of the Defense Health Program ($169 million) and the Chemical Agents andMunitions Destruction Program ($48 million). The six-year budget plan estimates spending $404.6billion for RDT&E through FY2011. When compared to last year's budget estimate, funding forRDT&E would be reduced by nearly $9 billion between FY2006 and FY2009, reflecting an overallreduction 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 overlast year, Science and Technology (S&T) funding would drop significantly. S&T consists of basicand 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, notcounting inflation (all dollar figures and comparisons made in this discussion do not considerinflation). Congress increased the FY2005 appropriation for S&T above what the Administrationhad requested. The FY2006 S&T budget request is $31 million (less than 1%) below the amountrequested 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 theChemical and Biological Defense Program which would be increased by 34%. Over half of DOD'sbasic research budget is spent at universities and represents the major contribution of funds in someareas of science and technology. The FY2006 S&T request is 2.5% of the overall Department ofDefense budget request of $419.3 billion. This is below the 3% target that both the BushAdministration and Congress have set. The FY2006 budget request for Missile Defense RDT&Eis $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 theAdministration's request. In this appropriation the House also provided an additional $45 billion tocover expenses for the first six months of FY2006, for troops in the field and other supportassociated 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 MissileDefense. Nearly half ($480 million) of the Army's $1.2 billion increase went to the Army's medicaltechnologies programs. Major reductions were made to the Army's Future Combat System, theNavy's DD(X) Next Generation destroyer project, and the Air Force's Transformational Satellite andSpaced Based Radar programs. Missile Defense programs were reduced a net $143 million fromwhat the Administration requested. The House appropriated $13 billion for S&T, over 3.6% of thetotal amount they recommend in the defense appropriations bill. The House appropriated more forbasic 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 Affairsand Military Construction appropriations into a new Military Quality of Life and Veteran's Affairsand Related Agencies appropriation. This new appropriations also includes some accounts formerlyfalling within the Defense appropriations. In particular, the Defense Health Program was transferredto this new appropriation, including the program's RDT&E funding. The House passed the MilitaryQuality 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 millionfor the Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research program and $80 million for the Peer ReviewedProstrate Cancer Research program. The House provided $48 million, as requested, for the RDT&Eportion of the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program, which remains in the Defenseappropriations 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 theDefense Health Program (including $150 million for peer reviewed breast cancer research and $85million for peer reviewed prostrate cancer research) and $73 million for RDT&E within theChemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program. As did the House, the Senate providedadditional 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 andbeyond Title IV funding.
The Senate funded S&T at $12.2 billion, or roughly 3.1% of its total DOD appropriation, notcounting the contingency funds. Basic research received $1.4 billion. However, an approved flooramendment (No. 1991) would allow additional funds from each RDT&E account to be spent onbasic research. The amendment states a sense of congress that basic research should be 15% of theS&T budget. As appropriated, i.e. without using the authority granted by the amendment to allocateup to a certain amount in additional funds, basic research received approximately 11% of the S&Tfunding.
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 onDecember 21. The final bill provided $72.1 billion for Title IV RDT&E. It also provided $67.8million for the RDT&E within the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program and $542million 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, whichincluded $1.5 billion for basic research. S&T funding remained 3% of the total DOD appropriationof $442.8 billion.
(CRS Contact: John Moteff.) 
 Table 3. Department of Defense RDT&E
($ in millions)
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 MunitionsDestruction 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 allocatedto the Navy and Defense Agencies RDT&E accounts.
g. This program is now funded through the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, andRelated 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 thereduction could be taken from other accounts. 
section_title: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
paragraphs: NASA's total congressionally-approved FY2006 funding is a combination of $16.456 billionprovided 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-boardrescission 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 figuresin 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 fundingfor 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 thespace shuttle program, space flight support, and Inspector General. Using that definition, NASAreceived an estimated $10.7 billion for R&D in FY2005, the FY2006 R&D request was $11.5billion, and Congress appropriated approximately $11.5 billion for R&D. Those numbers should beused cautiously, however. NASA has repeatedly changed its budget structure, and shifted programsfrom one account to the other, making comparisons across fiscal years, and between requested andappropriated levels, difficult. In addition, funding requirements for the space shuttle program duringthe "return to flight" effort following the 2003 Columbia tragedy remain unsettled, meaning thatfunds might be shifted into the shuttle program from R&D programs. More definitive figures maybecome available when the FY2007 budget request is submitted.
In January 2004, President Bush directed NASA to focus its efforts on returning humans tothe Moon by 2020, and someday sending them to Mars and "worlds beyond." Most of the fundingfor this "Vision for Space Exploration" would come from redirecting money from other NASAactivities. For example, the space shuttle program would be terminated in 2010, when space stationconstruction is expected to be completed; U.S. space station research activities would be descopedfrom the broadly-based program that was planned, to only research needed to support extended staysby humans on the Moon and eventual trips to Mars; and NASA would end its involvement in thespace 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 otheraspects of the Vision. NASA is building a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), and a launchvehicle for it (the Crew Launch Vehicle or CLV), whose primary purpose is transporting astronautsto and from the Moon. It also could be used to take astronauts to and from the space station. ThePresident directed that the CEV be available by 2014, but NASA Administrator Michael Griffinwants to accelerate that to 2012 in order to minimize the gap between the end of the space shuttleand the availability of the CEV. During that gap, U.S. astronauts would have to rely on Russia totake them to and from space. NASA's support for activities in the fields of aeronautics, and Earthand space science, also could be affected by the need to fund the Vision. In the FY2006 SSJCappropriations act, and the 2005 NASA authorization act, Congress expressed its support for theVision, but stressed that NASA needs to maintain a balanced program that includes aeronautics andscience. Other issues include whether the shuttle should be terminated in 2010, or retained until theCEV is available, and whether U.S. use of the space station should end in 2016 and its researchagenda narrowed, or if NASA should continue using it as originally planned. See CRS Issue Brief IB93062, Space Launch Vehicles: Government Activities, Commercial Competition, and SatelliteExports ; and CRS Issue Brief IB93017, Space Stations , both by [author name scrubbed], for moreinformation. 
Another issue is whether NASA should send a servicing mission to the Hubble SpaceTelescope so it can continue scientific operations with new instruments. A shuttle servicing missionhad been planned prior to the 2003 space shuttle Columbia accident, but then-NASA AdministratorO'Keefe canceled that mission, primarily because of shuttle safety concerns. Hubble advocatessought a reversal of that decision, arguing that Hubble can continue to deliver important scientificdata for many more years if the new instruments and other equipment are installed. NASA's currentAdministrator, Dr. Griffin, pledged to revisit the Hubble issue after the space shuttle completes itstwo "return to flight" missions and its current safety characteristics are better understood. The firstreturn to flight mission, in July-August 2005, experienced problems during launch, but was generallyjudged 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[author name scrubbed], for more on the Hubble issue. (CRS Contacts: Marcia Smith and DanielMorgan.) 
 Table 4. NASA R&D Funding
($ in millions of Budget Authority)
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 NASA's September 30, 2005 operating plan update forFY2005 and are not final. NASA continues to change its budget structure and shift programsfrom one account to the other, making comparisons across fiscal years, and betweenrequested and appropriated amounts, difficult. The figures in this table should be usedcautiously.
b. NASA submitted an amended FY2006 request in July 2005, but the appropriations committeesacted on the original request, so the original request is shown here.
c. The amounts shown here are estimates, based on appropriations conference committee reportlanguage ( H.Rept. 109-272 ) stating that the final bill cuts $80 million from the InternationalSpace 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%). 
section_title: National Institutes of Health (NIH)
paragraphs: 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 firstdecrease in NIH's appropriation since 1970. The conference report ( H.Rept. 109-337 ) on theLabor-HHS-Education appropriations act ( H.R. 3010 , P.L. 109-149 ) had given NIHenough 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 increaseof $195 million (0.7%) over the FY2005 level. The House ( H.Rept. 109-143 ) accepted thePresident's funding levels, while making some shifts in the accounts that supply the funds. TheSenate ( S.Rept. 109-103 ) provided a higher program level of $29.553 billion, an increase of $1,003million (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 budgetcomes through the Labor-HHS-Education appropriation. An additional small amount forenvironmental work related to Superfund comes from the Interior, Environment, and RelatedAgencies appropriation ( H.R. 2361 , P.L. 109-54 ). (Formerly, the funding came throughthe VA-HUD appropriations bill.) Those two sources constitute NIH's discretionary budgetauthority. In addition, NIH receives $150 million pre-appropriated in separate funding for diabetesresearch, 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 FY1998base of $13.6 billion to the FY2003 level of $27.1 billion. The annual increases for FY1999 throughFY2003 were in the 14%-15% range each year. For FY2004 and FY2005, faced with competingpriorities and a changed economic climate, Congress and the President gave increases of between2% and 3%, levels which were below the estimated 3.5% and 3.3% biomedical inflation index forthose two years. The research advocacy community had originally urged that the NIH budget growby about 10% per year in the post-doubling years. For FY2006, advocates modified theirrecommendation, maintaining that a 6% increase would be needed to keep up the momentum ofscientific discovery made possible by the increased resources of the doubling years (the projectedbiomedical inflation index for FY2006 is 3.2%).
The agency's organization consists of the Office of the NIH Director and 27 institutes andcenters. The Office of the Director (OD) sets overall policy for NIH and coordinates the programsand activities of all NIH components. The individual institutes and centers (ICs), each with a focuson particular diseases, areas of human health and development, or aspects of research support, planand manage their own research programs in coordination with the Office of the Director. As shownin Table 5, Congress provides a separate appropriation to 24 of the 27 ICs, to OD, and to a buildingsand facilities account. (The other three centers, not included in the table, are funded through the NIHManagement Fund, financed by taps on other NIH appropriations.) On average, the ICs devote over80% of their budgets to supporting peer-reviewed extramural research by awarding research projectgrants (RPGs), research center grants, contracts, training grants, construction grants, and many othertypes of funding to researchers in universities and other institutions around the country. The other15%-20% of the IC budgets supports their intramural research programs and research managementcosts. An alternate way, therefore, to describe the NIH budget is by "funding mechanism," whichreveals the balance between extramural and intramural funding, as well as the relative emphasis onsupport of individual investigator-initiated research versus funding of larger projects, comprehensiveresearch 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 itwould apply for funding RPGs and other award mechanisms. All non-competing RPG awards willbe reduced by 2.35% below committed levels. The average cost of competing RPGs (new andrenewal awards) will be maintained at FY2005 levels, with the number of awards at 1% below whatthe 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 belevel with the conference amount. By undertaking these measures, NIH expects that the "successrate" of applicants receiving funding will be about 19.5% compared to 22.3% in FY2005. Theyexpect to fund a total of about 38,300 competing and non-competing RPGs, representing a decreaseof about 570 RPGs, or 1.5%, below FY2005. NIH is quite concerned about the support of newinvestigators, particularly younger scientists making the transition from training to independentresearch. In January 2006, NIH announced a new Pathway to Independence Award program tosupport promising postdoctoral scientists. The five-year awards will have a two-year mentored phaseand 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 $400million.
As shown in Table 5, only two accounts received an increase in the final FY2006appropriation compared to FY2005. Most of the institutes and centers received decreases in the0.3% to 0.7% range. The National Center for Research Resources was decreased by 1.4% becauseof the elimination of the $30 million program for non-biodefense extramural research facilitiesconstruction. The 26.5% decline in NIH's intramural Buildings and Facilities account reflectscompletion of several construction and renovation projects. The National Institute of Allergy andInfectious 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 GlobalFund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The Office of the NIH Director (OD) receivedthe only large increase, growing 33.5% to $478 million. Of the $120 million increase, $97 millionis biodefense funding previously included in the Office of the HHS Secretary. It targets research oncountermeasures against nuclear and radiological threats ($47 million, same as FY2005) andchemical 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 MedicalResearch. The Roadmap addresses scientific gaps in biomedical research that need to be approachedon an NIH-wide basis. A list of initiatives in high-risk basic research, clinical research, andmultidisciplinary collaborative research will receive up to $333 million for FY2006 ($250 millionfrom the institutes and centers and $83 million from the Office of the Director), up $98 million, or42%, from FY2005.
NIH and other Public Health Service (PHS) agencies are subject to a budget "tap" called thePHS Program Evaluation Transfer (section 241 of the PHS Act), which has the effect ofredistributing appropriated funds among PHS agencies. The appropriation keeps the tap at 2.4%,the same as in FY2005.
After a hiatus of a dozen years, there has been some congressional movement toward actionon reauthorization legislation for NIH. A number of hearings have been held in the past severalyears, and evolving drafts of proposed legislation are fostering discussions on such issues as thebalance of authority and control between the central NIH Director's Office and the individualinstitutes and centers; the best methods of facilitating and funding cross-institute research initiatives;and possible changes in how authorization and appropriations levels for the institutes and centers arehandled. (CRS Contact: Pamela Smith.) 
 Table 5. National Institutes of Health(NIH)
($ in millions)
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/Edreduction of $6.787m for salaries and expenses.
b. FY2006 reflects across-the-board rescission (1%) totaling $285.974m. Does not reflect $18mpandemic flu supplemental funding ( P.L. 109-148 ). Before rescission, NIH total programlevel was $28,745m from the House, $29,559m from the Senate, and $28,756m from theconferees.
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 theFY2006 appropriation, OD includes $96.0m for terrorism countermeasures (see note g).
e. Separate account in the Interior/Related Agencies appropriation for NIEHS activities mandatedin 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 HealthService Act), $8.2m for NLM each year; from the Public Health and Social ServicesEmergency Fund appropriation, $47m in both the FY2005 appropriation and the FY2006request for NIH research on nuclear and radiological countermeasures, and $50m in theFY2006 request for chemical countermeasures. The FY2006 bill placed the $97m (reducedto $96m) in OD instead.
section_title: National Science Foundation (NSF)
paragraphs: 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%, whilemaintaining 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 arecritical to the Nation in maintaining a competitive edge, addressing global issues, and capitalizingon 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 willprovide leadership in planning U.S. participation in observance of the International Polar Yearscheduled during 2007. Additional FY2006 highlights include funding for the NationalNanotechnology Initiative ($343.8 million), investments in Climate Change Science Program($196.9 million), continued support for homeland security ($344 million), and funding forNetworking 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 fundsresearch projects, research facilities, and education and training activities. Partly in response toconcerns in the scientific community about the imbalance between support for the life sciences andthe physical sciences, the FY2006 request provides increased funding for the physicalsciences--$230.1 million, a 2.3% increase ($5.2 million) over the FY2005 estimate. Research in thephysical 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 atU.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, a3.8% increase ($5 million) over the FY2005 estimate. The Office of Polar Programs is funded inthe R&RA. The FY2006 request would transfer responsibility to NSF from the U.S. Coast Guardfor funding the maintenance and operation of polar ice breaking activities.
Research project support in the FY2006 request totals $2,757.1 million. Support is providedto individuals and small groups conducting disciplinary and cross-disciplinary research. Includedin the total for research projects is support for centers, proposed at $358.5 million. NSF supportsa variety of individual centers and center programs. The FY2006 request provides $51 million forScience and Technology Centers, $58 million for Materials Centers, $61.8 million for EngineeringResearch Centers, $19.5 million for Physics Frontiers Centers, $36 million for the Plant GenomeVirtual Centers, and $17.2 million for the Mathematical Science Research Institutes.
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. TheMREFC supports the acquisition and construction of major research facilities and equipment thatextend the boundaries of science, engineering, and technology. Of all federal agencies, NSF is theprimary supporter of "forefront instrumentation and facilities for the academic research andeducation communities." First priority for funding is directed to ongoing projects. Second priorityis 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 theparadigm in scientific understanding and/or infrastructure technology." NSF contends that theprojects receiving support in the FY2006 request meet that qualification. There are no new startsproposed in the FY2006 request. However, two new starts are requested in FY2007, and one startis requested in FY2008. In the order of priority, they are the Ocean Observatories in FY2007; theAlaska Region Research Vessel in FY2007; and the Advanced Laser Interferometer GravitationalWave Observatory (LIGO) in FY2008. Those projects receiving support in the FY2006 request areAtacama Large Millimeter Array Construction ($49.2 million), EarthScope ($50.6 million), IceCubeNeutrino Observatory ($50.5 million), Rare Symmetry Violating Processes ($41.8 million), andScientific 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), andmathematical sciences ($89 million). Additional priority areas include those of strengthening coredisciplinary research, providing broadly accessible cyberinfrastructure and world-class researchfacilities, broadening participation in the science and engineering workforce, and sustainingorganizational excellence in NSF management practices. The NSF states that researchers need notonly access to cutting-edge tools to pursue the increasing complexity of research, but funding todevelop and design the tools critical to 21st century research and education. An investment of $509million in cyberinfrastructure will allow for funding of modeling, simulation, visualization and datastorage, and other communications breakthroughs. NSF anticipates that this level of funding willmake cyberinfrastructure more powerful, stable, and accessible to researchers and educators throughwidely shared research facilities. Increasing grant size and duration has been a long-term priorityfor NSF. The funding rate for research grants applications has declined from approximately 30% inthe late 1990s to an estimated 20% in FY2005.
The NSF was directed to improve its oversight of large projects by developing animplementation plan that included comprehensive guidelines and project oversight review. Onecontinuing question focused on the selection process for including major projects in the upcomingbudget cycle. In February 2004, the National Academies released the congressionally mandatedstudy of the process for prioritization and oversight of projects in the MREFC account. The reportrecommended a more open process for project selection, broadened participation from variousdisciplines, and well-defined criteria for the selection process. In May 2005, the National ScienceBoard (NSB) approved a report detailing the new guidelines for the development, review, andapproval of major projects-- Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by theNational Science Foundation . (3) Also at the May 2005 meeting, the NSB approved a facility plan,describing facilities under construction and those being considered for future funding. The facilityplan is to be made available when final edits identified by the NSB are completed.
 Table 6. National Science Foundation
($ in millions)
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 bedetermined 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 focusedon, among other things, increasing the technological literacy of all citizens, preparing the nextgeneration of science, engineering, and mathematics professionals, and closing the achievement gapin 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 atthe precollege level in FY2006 is for teacher development activities ($58.8 million) and informalscience education ($63.1 million). At the undergraduate level, approximately 72% of the fundingis in support of new awards and activities. Priorities at the undergraduate level include the RobertNoyce Scholarship Program, Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement, STEM TalentExpansion Program, the National STEM Education Digital Library, the Federal Cyber Service, andAdvanced Technological Education. At the graduate level, priorities are those of IntegrativeGraduate Education and Research Traineeship, Graduate Research Fellowship, and the GraduateTeaching Fellows in K-12 Education. The request provides $60 million for the President's Math andScience Partnerships program (MSP), a 24.4% decrease from the FY2005 estimate. (The MSP is afive-year investment to improve the performance of U.S. students in science and mathematics at theprecollege level). Funding in the FY2006 request will provide support for ongoing awards, inaddition to data collection, evaluation, knowledge management, and dissemination. The MSP hasmade 80 awards in a three year period, with an overall funding rate of approximately 9%. No newpartnership awards are proposed in the FY2006 request. Several programs are directed at increasingthe number of underrepresented minorities in science and engineering. Among these targetedprograms in the FY2006 request are the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Programs ($25million), Tribal Colleges and Universities Program ($10 million), Louis Stokes Alliances forMinority 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 thebalance supporting awards made in previous years. 
Both the House and Senate have passed the conference agreement on FY2006 appropriationsfor the NSF, contained in the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related AgenciesAppropriations Bill, FY2006, ( H.R. 2862 , H.Rept. 109-272 ). The House passed theconference 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 theAdministration'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 FY2005level. 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 forMinority Participation program at $25.8 million and the Historically Black Colleges and UniversitiesUndergraduate Program at $35.8 million. Funds have been provided for continued support of theTribal Colleges and Universities Program, the Robert Noyce Scholarship program and the AdvancedTechnological Education program. Conferees agreed with the Senate in providing $64 million forthe MSP. Also, the Committee rejected the Administration's request to have the MSP operate onlyin the Department of Education. 
H.R. 2862 funds the MREFC at $208.2 million in FY2006, $41.8 million belowthe request and $34.5 million above the FY2005 estimate. The projects receiving support are theAtacama Large Millimeter Array ($49.2 million), EarthScope ($50.6 million), IceCube NeutrinoObservatory ($50.5 million), and Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel ($57.9 million). Support is notprovided for the Rare Symmetry Violating Processes (RSVP). The Committee is concerned withthe "unacceptable increases" in the project cost and suggests that the RSVP proposal be altered ordescoped. If the necessary changes can be made, the restructured RSVP can be considered forinclusion for project support within the R&RA. EPSCoR is funded at $100 million in FY2006, $6million above the request and $6.7 million above the FY2005 estimate. The Senate Committeedirects the NSF to assume polar icebreaking activities from the Coast Guard. If the Coast Guard isunable to provide icebreaking services, the NSF is directed to obtain services from other sources. (CRS Contact: Christine Matthews.) 
section_title: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) R&D
paragraphs: The Department of Homeland Security requested $1.37 billion for the Directorate of Scienceand Technology in FY2006. (For details see Table 7 .) For the first time, all R&D funding for thedepartment was included in this request. Compared with the enacted FY2005 funding for the S&TDirectorate alone ($1.12 billion) the FY2006 request was a 23% increase. However, if one includesthe enacted FY2005 funding for R&D programs formerly funded elsewhere in the department, therequested 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 $1.45billion, 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 GuardR&D.
R&D programs formerly in the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and CoastGuard, together with some other smaller programs, would all have been consolidated into the S&TDirectorate under the proposed FY2006 budget. This move reflected direction originally given in theFY2004 appropriations conference report ( H.Rept.108-280 ).Consolidating the Coast Guard R&Dprogram was proposed in the FY2005 budget request as well, but the change was controversial, andCongress did not approve it. For FY2006, the House accepted the Coast Guard move, but the Senateagain rejected it, and the conference agreement again followed the Senate. The House, Senate, andconference agreement all accepted the other proposed FY2006 consolidations as requested. TheFY2006 budget was the first to propose consolidation for the TSA R&D program because theHomeland Security Act, which established DHS, required that TSA be maintained as a single distinctentity until November 2004 ( P.L.107-296 , Â§424).
The request for the newly created Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) was $227million Although funded under S&T, DNDO has been made a freestanding office that reportsdirectly to the Secretary. Noting this fact, the House report provided $100 million less than wasrequested and stated that "DHS still needs to clarify its role in regard to other federal agencies ... thathave similar and more mature programs." The Senate committee, stating that it was "troubled by themanner in which this initiative has been handled," also recommended $100 million less thanrequested for DNDO, and recommended restricting the obligation of all but $15 million until furtherdetails are provided to the appropriations committees. Some DNDO activities were formerly fundedby the S&T Directorate's radiological and nuclear countermeasures program, whose FY2006 requestwas $19 million, down from $123 million. The House provided the requested amount forradiological and nuclear countermeasures, while the Senate provided an increase to $226 million,including $125 million requested under Customs and Border Prevention for testing, 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 theobligation of another $145 million pending approval of an expenditure plan by the appropriationscommittees. The conference agreement provided $19 million for radiological and nuclearcountermeasures and concurred with the plan to transfer most funding for this activity into DNDO. (CRS Contact: [author name scrubbed].) 
 Table 7. Department of Homeland SecurityR&D
($ in millions)
section_title: Department of Commerce (DOC)
subsections: section_title: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
paragraphs: 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 $92million, or 14.6% less than the estimated $626 million appropriated for FY2005. (See Table 8 .) TheOffice of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) conducts most of NOAA's R&D program andmanages 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&Dprograms, 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 FY2005levels, 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 , andcongressional action, see CRS Issue Brief IB10132, Ocean Commissions: Ocean Policy Review andOutlook. ) The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2862 proposed increases for NOAA's R&Dand a total of $693 million most of which would be for implementing OPC recommendations andexpanding oceanic research. The total is $32 million more than FY2005 estimated funding of $626million; $15 million more than the request, and $192 million more than the House level. The Senatereport recommended increasing OAR funding from $338 million in FY2005 to $380 million inFY2006, 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. Confereesalso agreed to $373 million for OAR. The greatest change for R&D at NOAA in FY2006 relates toindividually funded ocean science educational programs. These have been consolidated underNOAA's Program Support base. Also, funding for ocean research programs under OAR, includingthe National Sea Grant Program, and NOAA's National Ocean Service ocean sciences programs hasbeen cut. Conferees directed NOAA to compile a plan for implementing OPC recommendations thatincluded estimated costs, before reconsidering funding for associated programs in the FY2007budget ( H.Rept. 109-272 ). H.R. 2862 became P.L. 109-108 on November 22, 2005. Forinformation on NOAA's full budget request for FY2006, see CRS Report RS22109 , NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Budget for FY2006: President's Request,Congressional Appropriations, and Related Issues . (CRS Contact: [author name scrubbed].) 
 Table 8. NOAA R&D
($ in millions)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Officeof 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 theAdvancement of Science Budget and Policy Program (AAAS). OAR funding is from House, Senateand conference committee reports. P.L. 109-108 totals are subject to a 1% across the boardrescission pending OMB action.
section_title: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
paragraphs: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a laboratory of the Departmentof Commerce. It is mandated to increase the competitiveness of U.S. companies through appropriatesupport for industrial development of pre-competitive generic technologies and the diffusion ofgovernment-developed technological advances to users in all segments of the American economy. NIST research also provides the measurement, calibration, and quality assurance techniques thatunderpin U.S. commerce, technological progress, improved product reliability, manufacturingprocesses, and public safety.
The President's FY2006 budget requested $532 million in funding for NIST, a 23% decreasefrom 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 inthe 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 was12.5% above the previous fiscal year and included $5.7 million for the Baldrige National QualityProgram. MEP was to be funded at $46.8 million, 56% below FY2005 support. The constructionbudget was $58.9 million. (See Table 9 .)
H.R. 2862 , as originally passed by the House, would have provided $548.7million 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 $106million, a decrease of 1.4% from the earlier fiscal year and over twice the Administration's budgetrequest. 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 fundedNIST at $844.5 million, almost 21% above the FY2005 budget. Included in this amount was $399.9million for the STRS account (incorporating $7.2 million for the Quality Program), an increase of5.6% over previous funding. MEP was to receive $106 million. Support for ATP, absent from boththe 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 $198.6million, more than double the earlier figure. This construction funding was over three times thatproposed by the Administration and more than four times that included in the original House versionof the bill.
Subsequently, the final FY2006 appropriations legislation, P.L. 109-108 , provides $761.8million for NIST, an increase of almost 9% over funding in FY2005. Support for the STRS accounttotals $399.9 million and includes $7.1 million for the Quality Program. This amount is an increaseof 5.6% over the previous fiscal year. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership is to receive $106million and the Advanced Technology Program is financed at $80 million. The funding for MEPis a small decrease from FY2005 while support for ATP declines 41% from the earlier figure. Theconstruction budget more than doubles to $175.9 million. (Please note that the legislation alsoincludes a 0.28% rescission on all discretionary budget authority.) 
For FY2005, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-447 , provided the NIST with $695.3million (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. Internalresearch and development under the STRS account was $378.8 million (including funding for theBaldrige National Quality Program), almost 12% over the previous fiscal year. The ManufacturingExtension Partnership was funded at $107.5 million, an increase of 178% that brought support forthe program up to pre-FY2004 levels. The Advanced Technology Program was financed at $136.5million (20% below FY2004) and the construction budget received $72.5 million. The legislationalso 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 thathave 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, theyargue, should be conducted by the private sector. Others defend ATP, arguing that it assistsbusinesses (and small manufacturers) in developing technologies that, while crucial to industrialcompetitiveness, would not or could not be developed by the private sector alone. While Congresshas maintained support for the Advanced Technology Program, the initial appropriation bills passedby the House since FY2002 provided no funding for ATP. While support again is provided in theFY2006 appropriations legislation, it is 41% below the earlier fiscal year.
The budget for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, another extramural programadministered by NIST, was an issue during the FY2004 appropriations deliberations. While in therecent past, congressional support for MEP remained constant, the Administration's FY2004 budgetrequest, the initial House-passed bill, and the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act substantiallydecreased federal funding for this initiative reflecting the President's recommendation thatmanufacturing extension centers "... with more than six years experience operate without federalcontribution." However, P.L. 108-447 restored financing for MEP in FY2005 to the level thatexisted prior to the 63% reduction taken in FY2004. This level of support has been maintained forFY2006. For additional information see CRS Report 95-30 , The National Institute of Standardsand 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 WendySchacht. (CRS Contact: [author name scrubbed].) 
 Table 9. NIST
($ in millions)
* After mandated rescissions (but not including those to unobligated balances).
** Includes funding for the Baldrige National Quality Program.
â  Does not include a 0.28% rescission on all discretionary budget authority.
section_title: Department of Transportation (DOT)
paragraphs: 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 theFY2005 estimated funding level of $744 million. (see Table 10 .) Support for the Federal HighwayAdministration (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 fromstate highway grants to highway research, an approach Congress rejected in FY2005. R&D fundingfor the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would decline11%, to $233 million, primarily dueto a 27% cut in FAA development activities, as well as the Administration proposal to eliminate $17million in FY2005 Congressional earmarks. FAA research focuses on a number of topics includingweather research, air craft safety, human factors research, and the development of "free flighttechnology to improve aviation system capacity." Finally funding for FAA security R&D hasdeclined 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 FY2005estimated levels. While the Administration had recommended a 32% increase for FHWA R&D, theHouse approved a modest 2.4% increase for FY2006. The House also approved a 6.5% reductionfor 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 FAAwould receive $285 million, an increase of 8.4% because the Committee added $21 million for anairport technology R&D program, and restored proposed cuts to other aviation research programs. 
According to P. L. 109-115, Congress approved a record $841million for transportation R&Din FY2006, a 13% increase over FY2005 estimated funding level. Despite recommending a cut inFAA's R&D budget, Congress approved a 5% increase in FAA's R&D spending. (CRS Contact:Mike Davey.) 
 Table 10. Department of TransportationR&D
($ in millions)
a. "Other" includes Office of the Secretary, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and theResearch and Innovative Technology Administration.
b. FY2006 R&D data for the House, and Senate is from the American Association for theAdvancement of Science. FY2006 funding levels do not include the 1% across-the-boardfunding.
section_title: Department of the Interior (DOI)
paragraphs: 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) withinDOI. 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 declinefrom $541 million in FY2005 to $515 million. The USGS is one of the major sponsors of earthscience research, along with NSF, DOE, and NASA.
As indicated in the table, Geological Mineral Resources research funding is proposed todecline 13%, while Water Resources is scheduled to decline 5.5%. The Geological hazardsprograms conducts basic and applied research, collects long-term data, operates a variety ofmonitoring 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 animproved tsunami and earthquake warning system in the United States. The Water Resourcesresearch focuses on activities aimed at improving the quality of the U.S. ground water. Within theearth sciences, the USGS plays a major role in important geological hazards research, includingresearch on earthquakes and volcanoes.
The USGS Biological Research Activity develops and distributes information needed in theconservation and management of the Nation's biological resources. This program serves as theDepartment's research arm utilizing the capabilities of 17 research centers, as well as 40 CooperativeResearch Units that support research on fish, wildlife, and natural habitats. Major research initiativesare carried out by USGS scientists by collecting scientific information through research, inventoryand 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 otheragencies 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 declined18%, 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&Dprograms. The House bill would increase funding for USGS R&D programs by $12 million overFY2005 estimates, while the Senate bill approved a $9 million increase. The Administration hasproposed to cut Geological Resources program by 13%, however both the House and Senateapproved a modest increases for that program. Given the funding similarities in both bills, it is likelythe DOI R&D funding will essentially remain flat, in real dollars, for FY2006. Congress approvedan estimated $555 million for USGS R&D for FY2006, a 2.5% increase over FY2005. Total InteriorR&D spending increased 1.4% to $620 million in FY2006 (see P.L. 109-54 ). (CRS Contact: MikeDavey.) 
 Table 11. Department of Interior R&D
($ in millions)
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 BudgetJustification documents.
c. Other includes, the Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, the MineralsManagement Service, and the National Park Services.
section_title: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
paragraphs: The Environmental Protection Agency's Science and Technology (S&T) account incorporateselements of the former research and development account (also called extramural research) andEPA'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 Superfundaccount (see Table 12 ). Incorporating the 0.476% across-the-board rescission, the FY2006 S&Ttotal is $768.6 million, including $30.5 million transferred from Superfund. The FY2005 data shownhere reflect rescissions. The FY2006 S&T total exceeds the amount passed by the Senate, but is lessthan the amount passed by the House, the amount requested for FY2006, or the amount enacted forFY2005.
Among the noteworthy details are these. The FY2006 amount of $18.9 million (includingthe rescission) for climate protection programs is slightly less than the FY2005 level of $19.0million. The FY2006 amount of $33.1 million for "Research/Congressional Priorities" (for researchprojects such as the Center for Air Toxic Metals at the University of North Dakota, theEnvironmental Systems Center of Excellence at Syracuse University, the Texas Air Quality Study2, and the National Alternative Fuels Training Consortium at West Virginia University, each gettingabout $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 $19.6million. The FY2006 amount of $50.9 million for water quality--clean water research exceeds theFY2005 level of $45.0 million. The FY2006 amount of $11.9 million for human health andecosystem research fellowships is slightly less than the FY2005 level of $12.0 million. The FY2006amount of $11.3 million for land protection and restoration research exceeds the FY2005 level of$9.1 million. Beyond the appropriateness of funding levels, a continuing question is the degree towhich efforts to insure sound science (such as the Information Quality Act (IQA) and the Office ofManagement and Budget's Peer Review guidelines) will impact EPA's S&T work, including themagnitude of Agency resources to satisfy IQA requirements and peer-review guidelines. (CRSContact: Michael Simpson.) 
 Table 12. EPA
($ in millions)
 Table 13. FY2006 Federal R&D Appropriation in the 109th Congress
($ millions)
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 estimatedfunding level of $132 billion. CRS estimates that Congress has approved a record $135.7 billion forfederal R&D in FY2006, a 2.8% increase over the FY2005 estimated funding level. However, nearlyall of that increase can be attributed to increases in defense weapons systems and the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration's $877 million increase for human space explorationtechnology. (6) 
Basic research funding would decline by 0.5% below the FY2005 estimated level, decliningto an estimated $26.7 billion in FY2006. Five agencies account for 90% of all federal basic researchexpenditures. Total federal research funding (the sum of basic and applied research) is projected toincrease $1 billion to $57 billion. However, the majority of that increase would go to NASA, whilemost of the remaining federal agencies would receive below inflation increases for research funding. 
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 overFY2005 funding levels. Most of that increase is a result of Congress increasing DOD's proposedS&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 forthe 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, inreal dollars. While it has been 24 years since NIH's budget declined in real dollars, other agenciessuch as the National Science Foundation, DOE's Office of Science, NASA (excluding human spaceexploration), and Agriculture, have lived with stagnate budgets for several years. Consequently, inreal dollars, all of these agencies will have less R&D funding in FY2006 than they did in FY2003.