II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 296

To provide for continuation of the Federal research investment in a fiscally

sustainable way, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 22, 1999

Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. LIEBERMAN,

Mr. GRAMM, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. BURNS, Mr. BREAUX, Mrs.

HUTCHISON, Mr. CLELAND, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. KERRY, Mr. DEWINE,

Mr. KERREY, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. ALLARD, Mrs. BOXER, Mr.

ROBERTS, and Mr. ROBB) introduced the following bill; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To provide for continuation of the Federal research investment in a fiscally sustainable way, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Research In5 vestment Act’’.
2

S 296 IS

1 SEC. 2. GENERAL FINDINGS REGARDING FEDERAL INVEST2 MENT IN RESEARCH.

3 (a) VALUE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.—The

4 Congress makes the following findings with respect to the

5 value of research and development to the United States:

6 (1) Federal investment in research has resulted

7 in the development of technology that saves lives in

8 the United States and around the world.

9 (2) Research and development investment

10 across all Federal agencies has been effective in cre11 ating technology that has enhanced the American

12 quality of life.

13 (3) The Federal investment in research and de14 velopment conducted or underwritten by both mili15 tary and civilian agencies has produced benefits that

16 have been felt in both the private and public sector.

17 (4) Discoveries across the spectrum of scientific

18 inquiry have the potential to raise the standard of

19 living and the quality of life for all Americans.

20 (5) Science, engineering, and technology play a

21 critical role in shaping the modern world.

22 (6) Studies show that about half of all United

23 States post-World War II economic growth is a di24 rect result of technical innovation; and science, engi25 neering, and technology contribute to the creation of

26 new goods and services, new jobs and new capital.
3

S 296 IS

1 (7) Technical innovation is the principal driving

2 force behind the long-term economic growth and in3 creased standards of living of the world’s modern in4 dustrial societies. Other nations are well aware of

5 the pivotal role of science, engineering, and tech6 nology, and they are seeking to exploit it wherever

7 possible to advance their own global competitiveness.

8 (8) Federal programs for investment in re9 search, which lead to technological innovation and

10 result in economic growth, should be structured to

11 address current funding disparities and develop en12 hanced capability in States and regions that cur13 rently underparticipate in the national science and

14 technology enterprise.

15 (b) STATUS OF THE FEDERAL INVESTMENT.—The

16 Congress makes the following findings with respect to the

17 status of the Federal Investment in research and develop18 ment activities:

19 (1) Federal investment of approximately 13 to

20 14 percent of the Federal discretionary budget in re21 search and development over the past 11 years has

22 resulted in a doubling of the nominal amount of

23 Federal funding.

24 (2) Fiscal realities now challenge Congress to

25 steer the Federal government’s role in science, engi-
4

S 296 IS

1 neering, and technology in a manner that ensures a

2 prudent use of limited public resources. There is

3 both a long-term problem—addressing the ever-in4 creasing level of mandatory spending—and a near5 term challenge—apportioning a dwindling amount of

6 discretionary funding to an increasing range of tar7 gets in science, engineering, and technology. This

8 confluence of increased national dependency on tech9 nology, increased targets of opportunity, and de10 creased fiscal flexibility has created a problem of na11 tional urgency. Many indicators show that more

12 funding for science, engineering, and technology is

13 needed but, even with increased funding, priorities

14 must be established among different programs. The

15 United States cannot afford the luxury of fully fund16 ing all deserving programs.

17 (3) Current projections of Federal research

18 funding show a downward trend.

19 SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS REGARDING THE LINK BE20 TWEEN THE RESEARCH PROCESS AND USE21 FUL TECHNOLOGY.

22 The Congress makes the following findings:

23 (1) FLOW OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND

24 TECHNOLOGY.—The process of science, engineering,

25 and technology involves many steps. The present
5

S 296 IS

1 Federal science, engineering, and technology struc2 ture reinforces the increasingly artificial distinctions

3 between basic and applied activities. The result too

4 often is a set of discrete programs that each support

5 a narrow phase of research or development and are

6 not coordinated with one another. The government

7 should maximize its investment by encouraging the

8 progression of science, engineering, and technology

9 from the earliest stages of research up to a pre-com10 mercialization stage, through funding agencies and

11 vehicles appropriate for each stage. This creates a

12 flow of technology, subject to merit review at each

13 stage, so that promising technology is not lost in a

14 bureaucratic maze.

15 (2) EXCELLENCE IN THE AMERICAN RESEARCH

16 INFRASTRUCTURE.—Federal investment in science,

17 engineering, and technology programs must foster a

18 close relationship between research and education.

19 Investment in research at the university level creates

20 more than simply world-class research. It creates

21 world-class researchers as well. The Federal strategy

22 must continue to reflect this commitment to a strong

23 geographically-diverse research infrastructure. Fur24 thermore, the United States must find ways to ex25 tend the excellence of its university system to pri-
6

S 296 IS

1 mary and secondary educational institutions and to

2 better utilize the community college system to pre3 pare many students for vocational opportunities in

4 an increasingly technical workplace.

5 (3) COMMITMENT TO A BROAD RANGE OF RE6 SEARCH INITIATIVES.—An increasingly common

7 theme in many recent technical breakthroughs has

8 been the importance of revolutionary innovations

9 that were sparked by overlapping of research dis10 ciplines. The United States must continue to encour11 age this trend by providing and encouraging oppor12 tunities for interdisciplinary projects that foster col13 laboration among fields of research.

14 (4) PARTNERSHIPS AMONG INDUSTRY, UNIVER15 SITIES, AND FEDERAL LABORATORIES.—Each of

16 these contributors to the national science and tech17 nology delivery system has special talents and abili18 ties that complement the others. In addition, each

19 has a central mission that must provide their focus

20 and each has limited resources. The nation’s invest21 ment in science, engineering, and technology can be

22 optimized by seeking opportunities for leveraging the

23 resources and talents of these three major players

24 through partnerships that do not distort the mis-
7

S 296 IS

1 sions of each partner. For that reason, Federal dol2 lars are wisely spent forming such partnerships.

3 SEC. 4. MAINTENANCE OF FEDERAL RESEARCH EFFORT;

4 GUIDING PRINCIPLES.

5 (a) MAINTAINING UNITED STATES LEADERSHIP IN

6 SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY.—It is im7 perative for the United States to nurture its superb re8 sources in science, engineering, and technology carefully

9 in order to maintain its own globally competitive position.

10 (b) GUIDING PRINCIPLES.—Federal research and de11 velopment programs should be conducted in accordance

12 with the following guiding principles:

13 (1) GOOD SCIENCE.—Federal science, engineer14 ing, and technology programs include both knowl15 edge-driven science together with its applications,

16 and mission-driven, science-based requirements. In

17 general, both types of programs must be focused,

18 peer- and merit-reviewed, and not unnecessarily du19 plicative, although the details of these attributes

20 must vary with different program objectives.

21 (2) FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY.—The Congress

22 must exercise oversight to ensure that programs

23 funded with scarce Federal dollars are well man24 aged. The United States cannot tolerate waste of

25 money through inefficient management techniques,
8

S 296 IS

1 whether by government agencies, by contractors, or

2 by Congress itself. Fiscal resources would be better

3 utilized if program and project funding levels were

4 predictable across several years to enable better

5 project planning; a benefit of such predictability

6 would be that agencies and Congress can better ex7 ercise oversight responsibilities through comparisons

8 of a project’s and program’s progress against care9 fully planned milestones.

10 (3) PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS.—The United

11 States needs to make sure that government pro12 grams achieve their goals. As the Congress crafts

13 science, engineering, and technology legislation, it

14 must include a process for gauging program effec15 tiveness, selecting criteria based on sound scientific

16 judgment and avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy.

17 The Congress should also avoid the trap of measur18 ing the effectiveness of a broad science, engineering,

19 and technology program by passing judgment on in20 dividual projects. Lastly, the Congress must recog21 nize that a negative result in a well-conceived and

22 executed project or program may still be critically

23 important to the funding agency.

24 (4) CRITERIA FOR GOVERNMENT FUNDING.—

25 Program selection for Federal funding should con-
9

S 296 IS

1 tinue to reflect the nation’s two traditional research

2 and development priorities: (A) basic, scientific, and

3 technological research that represents investments in

4 the nation’s long-term future scientific and techno5 logical capacity, for which government has tradition6 ally served as the principal resource; and (B) mis7 sion research investments, that is, investments in re8 search that derive from necessary public functions,

9 such as defense, health, education, environmental

10 protection, and raising the standard of living, which

11 may include pre-commercial, pre-competitive engi12 neering research and technology development. Addi13 tionally, government funding should not compete

14 with or displace the short-term, market-driven, and

15 typically more specific nature of private-sector fund16 ing. Government funding should be restricted to

17 precompetitive activities, leaving competitive activi18 ties solely for the private sector. As a rule, the gov19 ernment should not invest in commercial technology

20 that is in the product development stage, very close

21 to the broad commercial marketplace, except to meet

22 a specific agency goal. When the government pro23 vides funding for any science, engineering, and tech24 nology investment program, it must take reasonable
10

S 296 IS

1 steps to ensure that the potential benefits derived

2 from the program will accrue broadly.

3 SEC. 5. POLICY STATEMENT.

4 (a) POLICY.—This Act is intended—

5 (1) to encourage, as an overall goal, the dou6 bling of the annual authorized amount of Federal

7 funding for basic scientific, medical, and pre-com8 petitive engineering research over the 11-year period

9 following the date of enactment of this Act;

10 (2) to invest in the future of the United States

11 and the people of the United States by expanding

12 the research activities referred to in paragraph (1);

13 (3) to enhance the quality of life for all people

14 of the United States;

15 (4) to guarantee the leadership of the United

16 States in science, engineering, medicine, and tech17 nology; and

18 (5) to ensure that the opportunity and the sup19 port for undertaking good science is widely available

20 throughout the States by supporting a geographi21 cally-diverse research and development enterprise.

22 (b) AGENCIES COVERED.—The agencies intended to

23 be covered to the extent that they are engaged in science,

24 engineering, and technology activities for basic scientific,
11

S 296 IS

1 medical, or pre-competitive engineering research by this

2 Act are—

3 (1) the National Institutes of Health, within the

4 Department of Health and Human Services;

5 (2) the National Science Foundation;

6 (3) the National Institute for Standards and

7 Technology, within the Department of Commerce;

8 (4) the National Aeronautics and Space Admin9 istration;

10 (5) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad11 ministration, within the Department of Commerce;

12 (6) the Centers for Disease Control, within the

13 Department of Health and Human Services;

14 (7) the Department of Energy (to the extent

15 that it is not engaged in defense-related activities);

16 (8) the Department of Agriculture;

17 (9) the Department of Transportation;

18 (10) the Department of the Interior;

19 (11) the Department of Veterans Affairs;

20 (12) the Smithsonian Institution;

21 (13) the Department of Education;

22 (14) the Environmental Protection Agency; and

23 (15) the Federal Drug Administration, within

24 the Department of Health and Human Services.
12

S 296 IS

1 (c) CURRENT INVESTMENT.—The investment in civil2 ian research and development efforts for fiscal year 1998

3 was 2.1 percent of the overall Federal budget.

4 (d) DAMAGE TO RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE.—A

5 continued trend of funding appropriations equal to or

6 lower than current budgetary levels will lead to permanent

7 damage to the United States research infrastructure. This

8 could threaten American dominance of high-technology in9 dustrial leadership.

10 (e) INCREASE FUNDING.—In order to maintain and

11 enhance the economic strength of the United States in the

12 world market, funding levels for fundamental, scientific,

13 and pre-competitive engineering research should be in14 creased to equal approximately 2.6 percent of the total an15 nual budget.

16 (f) FUTURE FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS.—

17 (1) GOALS.—The long-term strategy for re18 search and development funding under this section

19 would be achieved by a steady 2.5 percent annual in20 crease above the rate of inflation throughout a 11-

21 year period.

22 (2) INFLATION ASSUMPTION.—The authoriza23 tions contained in paragraph (3) assume that the

24 rate of inflation for each year will be 3 percent.
13

S 296 IS

1 (3) AUTHORIZATION.—There are authorized to

2 be appropriated for civilian research and develop3 ment in the agencies listed in subsection (b)—

4 (A) $39,790,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;

5 (B) $41,980,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;

6 (C) $42,290,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;

7 (D) $46,720,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;

8 (E) $49,290,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;

9 (F) $52,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;

10 (G) $54,870,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;

11 (H) $57,880,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;

12 (I) $61,070,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;

13 (J) $64,420,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;

14 and

15 (K) $67,970,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.

16 (g) CONFORMANCE WITH BUDGETARY CAPS.—Not17 withstanding any other provision of law, no funds may be

18 made available under this Act in a manner that does not

19 conform with the discretionary spending caps provided in

20 the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the

21 budget or threatens the economic stability of the annual

22 budget.

23 (h) BALANCED RESEARCH PORTFOLIO.—Because of

24 the interdependent nature of the scientific and engineering

25 disciplines, the aggregate funding levels authorized by the
14

S 296 IS

1 section assume that the Federal research portfolio will be

2 well-balanced among the various scientific and engineering

3 disciplines, and geographically dispersed throughout the

4 States.

5 SEC. 6. PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL BUDGET REQUEST.

6 The President of the United States shall, in coordina7 tion with the President’s annual budget request, include

8 a report that parallels Congress’ commitment to support

9 Federally-funded research and development by

10 providing—

11 (1) a detailed summary of the total level of

12 funding for research and development programs

13 throughout all civilian agencies;

14 (2) a focused strategy that reflects the funding

15 projections of this Act for each future fiscal year

16 until 2010, including specific targets for each agency

17 that funds civilian research and development;

18 (3) an analysis which details funding levels

19 across Federal agencies by methodology of funding,

20 including grant agreements, procurement contracts,

21 and cooperative agreements (within the meaning

22 given those terms in chapter 63 of title 31, United

23 States Code); and

24 (4) specific proposals for infrastructure develop25 ment and research and development capacity build-
15

S 296 IS

1 ing in States with less concentrated research and de2 velopment resources in order to create a nationwide

3 research and development community.

4 SEC. 7. COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNTABILITY STUDY FOR

5 FEDERALLY-FUNDED RESEARCH.

6 (A) STUDY.—The Director of the Office of Science

7 and Technology Policy, in consultation with the Director

8 of the Office of Management and Budget, shall enter into

9 agreement with the National Academy of Sciences for the

10 Academy to conduct a comprehensive study to develop

11 methods for evaluating Federally-funded research and de12 velopment programs. This study shall—

13 (1) recommend processes to determine an ac14 ceptable level of success for Federally-funded re15 search and development programs by—

16 (A) describing the research process in the

17 various scientific and engineering disciplines;

18 (B) describing in the different sciences

19 what measures and what criteria each commu20 nity uses to evaluate the success or failure of a

21 program, and on what time scales these meas22 ures are considered reliable—both for explor23 atory long-range work and for short-range

24 goals; and
16

S 296 IS

1 (C) recommending how these measures

2 may be adapted for use by the Federal govern3 ment to evaluate Federally-funded research and

4 development programs;

5 (2) assess the extent to which agencies incor6 porate independent merit-based review into the for7 mulation of the strategic plans of funding agencies

8 and if the quantity or quality of this type of input

9 is unsatisfactory;

10 (3) recommend mechanisms for identifying Fed11 erally-funded research and development programs

12 which are unsuccessful or unproductive;

13 (4) evaluate the extent to which independent,

14 merit-based evaluation of Federally-funded research

15 and development programs and projects achieves the

16 goal of eliminating unsuccessful or unproductive pro17 grams and projects; and

18 (5) investigate and report on the validity of

19 using quantitative performance goals for aspects of

20 programs which relate to administrative manage21 ment of the program and for which such goals would

22 be appropriate, including aspects related to—

23 (A) administrative burden on contractors

24 and recipients of financial assistance awards;
17

S 296 IS

1 (B) administrative burdens on external

2 participants in independent, merit-based evalua3 tions;

4 (C) cost and schedule control for construc5 tion projects funded by the program;

6 (D) the ratio of overhead costs of the pro7 gram relative to the amounts expended through

8 the program for equipment and direct funding

9 of research; and

10 (E) the timeliness of program responses to

11 requests for funding, participation, or equip12 ment use.

13 (6) examine the extent to which program selec14 tion for Federal funding across all agencies exempli15 fies our nation’s historical research and development

16 priorities—

17 (A) basic, scientific, and technological re18 search in the long-term future scientific and

19 technological capacity of the nation; and

20 (B) mission research derived from a high21 priority public function.

22 (b) ALTERNATIVE FORMS FOR PERFORMANCE

23 GOALS.—Not later than 6 months after transmitting the

24 report under subsection (a) to Congress, the Director of

25 the Office of Management and Budget, after public notice,
18

S 296 IS

1 public comment, and approval by the Director of the Of2 fice of Science and Technology Policy and in consultation

3 with the National Science and Technology Council shall

4 promulgate one or more alternative forms for performance

5 goals under section 115(b)(10)(B) of title 31, United

6 States Code, based on the recommendations of the study

7 under subsection (a) of this section. The head of each

8 agency containing a program activity that is a research

9 and development program may apply an alternative form

10 promulgated under this section for a performance goal to

11 such a program activity without further authorization by

12 the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

13 (c) STRATEGIC PLANS.—Not later than one year

14 after promulgation of the alternative performance goals in

15 subsection (b) of this section, the head of each agency car16 rying out research and development activities, upon updat17 ing or revising a strategic plan under subsection 306(b)

18 of title 5, United States Code, shall describe the current

19 and future use of methods for determining an acceptable

20 level of success as recommended by the study under sub21 section (a).

22 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

23 (1) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means

24 the Director of the Office of Science and Technology

25 Policy.
19

S 296 IS

1 (2) PROGRAM ACTIVITY.—The term ‘‘program

2 activity’’ has the meaning given that term by section

3 1115(f)(6) of title 31, United States Code.

4 (3) INDEPENDENT MERIT-BASED EVALUA5 TION.—The term ‘‘independent merit-based evalua6 tion’’ means review of the scientific or technical

7 quality of research or development, conducted by ex8 perts who are chosen for their knowledge of sci9 entific and technical fields relevant to the evaluation

10 and who—

11 (A) in the case of the review of a program

12 activity, do not derive long-term support from

13 the program activity; or

14 (B) in the case of the review of a project

15 proposal, are not seeking funds in competition

16 with the proposal.

17 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

18 are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the study

19 required by subsection (a) $600,000 for the 18-month pe20 riod beginning October 1, 2000.

21 SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

22 FOR FEDERALLY-FUNDED RESEARCH.

23 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 11 of title 13, United

24 States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the

25 following:
20

S 296 IS

1 ‘‘§ 1120. Accountability for research and development

2 programs

3 ‘‘(a) IDENTIFICATION OF UNSUCCESSFUL PRO4 GRAMS.—Based upon program performance reports for

5 each fiscal year submitted to the President under section

6 1116, the Director of the Office of Management and

7 Budget shall identify the civilian research and develop8 ment program activities, or components thereof, which do

9 not meet an acceptable level of success as defined in sec10 tion 1115(b)(1)(B). Not later than 30 days after the sub11 mission of the reports under section 1116, the Director

12 shall furnish a copy of a report listing the program activi13 ties or component identified under this subsection to the

14 President and the Congress.

15 ‘‘(b) ACCOUNTABILITY IF NO IMPROVEMENT

16 SHOWN.—For each program activity or component that

17 is identified by the Director under subsection (a) as being

18 below the acceptable level of success for 2 fiscal years in

19 a row, the head of the agency shall no later than 30 days

20 after the Director submits the second report so identifying

21 the program, submit to the appropriate congressional com22 mittees of jurisdiction:

23 ‘‘(1) a concise statement of the steps necessary

24 to—

25 ‘‘(A) bring such program into compliance

26 with performance goals; or
21

S 296 IS

1 ‘‘(B) terminate such program should com2 pliance efforts fail; and

3 ‘‘(2) any legislative changes needed to put the

4 steps contained in such statement into effect.’’.

5 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

6 (1) The chapter analysis for chapter 11 of title

7 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at

8 the end thereof the following:

‘‘1120. Accountability for research and development programs’’.

9 (2) Section 1115(f) of title 31, United States

10 Code, is amended by striking ‘‘through 1119,’’ and

11 inserting ‘‘through 1120’’.

Æ