# Presentation: 722545

## R&D in the 

**R&D in the **
**President’s 2006 Budget**

- David Trinkle and Amy Kaminski
- February 15, 2005

**Notes:**
Thanks to the Engineering Deans Council of the American Society for Engineering Education.
I am Marcus Peacock, the Program Associate Director for Natural Resources, Energy, and Science at the Office of Management and Budget. 
One of my primary jobs is to take all the requests for things Departments would like to fund and make them fit into a budget. Someone recently told me that it is the agency that allocates money while OMB allocates pain.

First, I’ll lay out the context of the overall 2005 budget. Second, I will discuss the President’s Management Agenda and how it is affecting science and technology programs. This will provide important context for the R&D proposals Kathie will discuss.

## The 2006 BudgetBroad National Priorities 

**Promoting Economic Growth **
**Protecting America**
**Supporting a Compassionate Society**
**Making Government More Effective**

**Notes:**
The Budget has two overriding priorities.  

The first is the safety of our people. This budget continues its focus on: winning the war on terrorism and strengthening homeland defense.  The two go hand in hand.

The second top priority is building on the economic recovery that is beginning to take hold.

Science and technology play an important role in both of these priorities.

## The Deficit in Context: Percent of GDP

**Notes:**
The President’s budget projects a deficit of $521 billion for FY04 or 4.5% of our GDP.  This number, while understandable given a recession, an attack on our country and a subsequent war, is unwelcome and the President has committed to cutting the deficit in half over the next five years. The budget lays out a responsible plan for not only meeting but exceeding this goal.  Next year’s projection is for the deficit to be reduced to 3% of GDP and the 2009 deficit is projected to 1.6% of GDP.

The budget accomplishes this reduction using three methods. First, the Administration continues pro-growth economic policies. For the near term, the budget makes permanent the President’s tax cuts.

Second, the President proposes increased budget enforcement tools. We will submit to Congress legislation that will reinstate discretionary caps and PAYGO will create a 60 vote point of order in the Senate against legislation that would increase long-term unfunded obligations in major entitlement programs.

## Growth in Discretionary Spending Declines

- Growth in Discretionary Spending Declines

**Percent Growth in non-defense, non-homeland budget authority excluding supplementals**

**Notes:**
Finally, there is restraint in spending. This is my fourth budget and it is certainly the most austere. As the President indicated in his State of the Union speech, this budget keeps overall discretionary growth under 4% -- at 3.9%.  For non-defense/non-homeland security, the budget grows at less than 1% -- in fact it is at a mere 0.5% increase.

The preliminary feedback from the Budget Committees is that the congressional Budget Resolution will assume slightly less discretionary spending than the President proposed.

## R&D Budget

|   | 2005 | 2006 Req | Diff. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Defense | 70,422 | 70,839 | 1% |
| Health and Human Services | 28,752 | 28,807 | 0% |
| NASA | 10,990 | 11,527 | 5% |
| Energy | 8,629 | 8,528 | -1% |
| National Science Foundation | 4,082 | 4,194 | 3% |
| Agriculture | 2,415 | 2,039 | -16% |
| Homeland Security | 1,185 | 1,467 | 24% |
| Commerce | 1,134 | 1,013 | -11% |
| Transportation | 748 | 808 | 8% |
| Veterans Affairs | 784 | 786 | 0% |
| Interior | 615 | 582 | -5% |
| Environmental Protection Agency | 572 | 569 | -1% |
| Other | 1,243 | 1,145 | -8% |
| TOTAL | 131,571 | 132,304 | 1% |

**Notes:**
Now, while it is an austere budget, the Administration recognizes the importance science and technology play in meeting the President’s priorities and that is reflected in this request. 

Recognizing this, the President’s budget requests a record high level of funding for federal R&D: $132 billion or a 5% increase over what was enacted in 2004. This is, of course, higher than the average increase in the budget overall.

As the budget priorities reflect, much of that increase goes to the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.  But even ignoring those agencies, the rest of the government receives a 2.3-percent increase in R&D overall.  This is well above the 0.5 percent growth mentioned earlier for non-security related discretionary spending.

## Federal S&T Budget

|   | 2005 | 2006 Req | Diff. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| National Institutes of Health | 28,444 | 28,607 | 1% |
| NASA  | 9,116 | 9,493 | 4% |
| National Science Foundation | 5,473 | 5,605 | 2% |
| Defense | 6,363 | 5,458 | -14% |
| Energy | 5,635 | 5,358 | -5% |
| Agriculture | 2,122 | 1,922 | -9% |
| Interior (USGS) | 935 | 934 | 0% |
| Commerce | 992 | 846 | -15% |
| Environmental Protection Agency | 780 | 792 | 2% |
| Veterans Affairs | 784 | 786 | 0% |
| Transportation | 697 | 673 | -3% |
| Education | 355 | 345 | -3% |
|     TOTAL | 61,696 | 60,819 | -1% |

**Notes:**
We also measure a subset of R&D called the Federal Science and Technology crosscut. This tends to focus more on basic research. Just looking at the dollars on this crosscut, the 2005 budget requests $60.4 billion, a 0.4% (-$245 million) reduction from the budget Congress just passed.  

This reduction is entirely attributable to the removal of over a billion dollars in earmarks, most notably in the Departments of Defense and the Department of Agriculture.  R&D earmarks continue to be a problem which I will touch on later.

## 2006 Request for NSF’s Astro-Related Research

| 

NSF Discretionary |  |  |  | 2005

5,473  | 2006

5,605  | 

 | % Diff

+2% |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Research and
Related Activities |  |  | 4,221  | 4,333  |  | +3% |
|  |  | Mathematical and
Physical Sciences |  | 1,070  | 1,086  |  | +2% |
|  |  |  | - Astronomy | 195  | 199  |  | +2% |
|  |  |  | - Physics | 225  | 230  |  | +2% |

## 2006 Request for NSF’s Astro-Related Facilities

| MREFC |  |  |  | 2005 |  | 2006 |  |  | %Diff |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | ALMA |      49  |  |  |  49  |  |   | 0% |  |  |
|  |  | IceCube |   48  |  |  |   50  |  |  | +6% |  |  |
|  |  | AdvLIGO | (2008 start; 3rd in MREFC queue) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Others |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  | Gemini |  15  |  |  |        19  |  |  |  | +25% |  |
|  |  | LIGO |    32  |  |  |        32  |  |  |  | +0% |  |
|  |  | Centers/
Observatories |  |  (more or less flat)  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  | Tech. Development |  |  (increasing for LSST and GSMT)  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

## The Basis for NASA’s Budget and Transformation: The President’s Space Exploration Vision 

- Announced January 14, 2004
- Response to *Columbia* tragedy
- Calls for a sustained, affordable program of human and robotic exploration of the solar system and beyond

## NASA’s 2005 Budget

- President’s 2005 budget request for NASA was $16.244 billion (+5.6% over 2004 budget)
- Congress funded NASA in 2005 at $16.1 billion*
- 2005 funds allow NASA to return the Shuttle to flight, begin work on new Crew Exploration Vehicle and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, and conduct a wide range of space science programs.
- * Includes Congressional 0.8% government-wide rescission; excludes supplemental funds for KSC hurricane damage

## Transformation

- Change from Six “Enterprises” and 18 “Themes” to Four “Mission Directorates” and 12 Themes
- Earth/Space Science Enterprises merge into Science Mission Directorate
- Origins/Structure & Evolution of Universe themes merge into “Universe” theme; Sun-Earth Connection and Earth Science themes merged into “Earth-Sun System” theme
- Beginning to redefine agency objectives
- Conduct advanced telescope searches for Earth-like planets/habitable environments around other stars
- Explore the universe to understand its origin, structure, evolution, and destiny

## Total NASA Budget($16.5 billion requested for 2006)

**Actual**

**Requested/projected**

**$ in Millions**

## NASA Science Budget($5.5 billion requested for 2006)

**$ in Millions**

**Actual**

**Requested/projected**

## 2006 Budget – Universe Theme

- Virtually no change from 2005 ($1,513 million to $1,512 million), following a 12% increase from 2004 to 2005
- Keeps JWST, GLAST, Kepler, and WISE missions on track to launch as scheduled
- Provides increases for TPF and LISA to carry out early mission work
- Fully funds all operating missions (Hubble, Spitzer, Chandra, Swift, etc.)

## 2006 Budget – Universe Theme

- Maintains R&A at the $60+ million level
- Provides funding for Hubble de-orbit and ground-based life extension activities; no funds for Shuttle-based or robotic servicing
- Delays SIM by two years, to 2011 launch
- Explorer Program projection reduced over next four years; NASA is examining how budget profile will support future selections

## The focus should be not only how much but also how well

**Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) is a vehicle used to improve program performance**
**Most sweeping assessment of federal programs – over 600 programs **
**20% of programs to be added each year**
**Of the 600+ programs, 84 have been R&D**

**Notes:**
This year was the second year of using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to evaluate programs across the government.

## Ratings of Sample R&D Programs

| Effective | NASA: Mars Exploration
NASA: Solar System Exploration
NASA: Structure and Evolution of the Universe
NASA: Sun-Earth Connection
NSF: All programs assessed to date |
| --- | --- |
| Moderately Effective | NASA: Earth System Science
NASA: Mission and Science Measurement
NASA: Space Station |
| Adequate | NASA: Education
NASA: Space and Flight Support |
| Ineffective | DOE: Oil Technology |
| Results Not Demonstrated | NASA: Earth Science Applications
NASA: Space Shuttle |

**Notes:**
This chart displays some examples of the R&D programs we evaluated using the PART this year.

## PART Assessments of 58 R&D Programs

**45%**

**Notes:**
Application of the criteria and the R&D PART have led to recommendations to add, redirect, or terminate funding for some activities.  For example, the budget proposes to cut DOE’s Oil Technology Program, but to add funding for the Basic Energy Sciences Program.

This was the second year of implementation of the investment criteria for most of the R&D agencies.  Some of the R&D agencies have made good progress towards integrating R&D criteria meaningfully into their management processes and budget decisions, but all of them have more work to do. OMB and OSTP will continue to work with the agencies to improve their implementation of the criteria.

## Summary of the 2006 Budget

**Sets priority on war against terrorism, overseas and at home**
**Funds high-priority initiatives; restrains spending throughout the rest of government**
**Maintains focus on results instead of dollars**

**Notes:**
The 2005 Budget
Sets priority on war against terrorism, overseas and at home
Funds high-priority initiatives; restrains spending throughout the rest of government
Maintains focus on results instead of dollars

## Backup Slides

**Notes:**
The 2005 Budget
Sets priority on war against terrorism, overseas and at home
Funds high-priority initiatives; restrains spending throughout the rest of government
Maintains focus on results instead of dollars

## R&D Investment Criteria

**Retrospective Assessment**

**Prospective Planning**

**Notes:**
The Administration has broadened the application of these criteria to programs across the government in the 2005 budget process.  
Based on recommendations from COSEPUP and the Army Research Lab, and integrating the input of stakeholders from government, industry, and academia, we defined a framework for all R&D, based on Quality, Relevance, and Performance. 

This was the second year of implementation of the investment criteria for most R&D agencies.  Some of the R&D agencies have made good progress towards integrating the R&D criteria meaningfully into their management processes and budget decisions, but all of them have more work to do.  OMB and OSTP will continue to work with the agencies to improve their implementation of the criteria.

## Exploration Vision Objectives

- Sustained, affordable human/robotic program to explore solar system and beyond
- Human presence across solar system, starting w/human return to Moon by 2020, to prepare for human exploration of Mars and beyond
- Innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructure to explore/support human destination decisions
- International and commercial participation in exploration