```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2217 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2217

  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

                             June 25, 1998

 Mr. Frist (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Lieberman, 
  Mr. Burns, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Gramm, and Mr. Breaux) 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.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Research Investment Act''.

SEC. 2. GENERAL FINDINGS REGARDING FEDERAL INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH.

    (a) Value of Research and Development.--The Congress makes the 
following findings with respect to the value of research and 
development to the United States:
            (1) Federal investment in research has resulted in the 
        development of technology that saved lives in the United States 
        and around the world.
            (2) Research and development investment across all Federal 
        agencies has been effective in creating technology that has 
        enhanced the American quality of life.
            (3) The Federal investment in research and development 
        conducted or underwritten by both military and civilian 
        agencies has produced benefits that have been felt in both the 
        private and public sector.
            (4) Discoveries across the spectrum of scientific inquiry 
        have the potential to raise the standard of living and the 
        quality of life for all Americans.
            (5) Science, engineering, and technology play a critical 
        role in shaping the modern world.
            (6) Studies show that about half of all United States post-
        World War II economic growth is a direct result of technical 
        innovation; and science, engineering, and technology contribute 
        to the creation of new goods and services, new jobs and new 
        capital.
            (7) Technical innovation is the principal driving force 
        behind the long-term economic growth and increased standards of 
        living of the world's modern industrial societies. Other 
        nations are well aware of the pivotal role of science, 
        engineering, and technology, and they are seeking to exploit it 
        wherever possible to advance their own global competitiveness.
    (b) Status of the Federal Investment.--The Congress makes the 
following findings with respect to the status of the Federal Investment 
in research and development activities:
            (1) Federal investment of approximately 13 to 14 percent of 
        the Federal discretionary budget in research and development 
        over the past 11 years has resulted in a doubling of the 
        nominal amount of Federal funding.
            (2) Fiscal realities now challenge Congress to steer the 
        Federal government's role in science, engineering, and 
        technology in a manner that ensures a prudent use of limited 
        public resources. There is both a long-term problem--addressing 
        the ever-increasing level of mandatory spending--and a near-
        term challenge--apportioning a dwindling amount of 
        discretionary funding to an increasing range of targets in 
        science, engineering, and technology. This confluence of 
        increased national dependency on technology, increased targets 
        of opportunity, and decreased fiscal flexibility has created a 
        problem of national urgency. Many indicators show that more 
        funding for science, engineering, and technology is needed but, 
        even with increased funding, priorities must be established 
        among different programs. The United States cannot afford the 
        luxury of fully funding all deserving programs.
            (3) Current projections of Federal research funding show a 
        downward trend.

SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS REGARDING THE LINK BETWEEN THE RESEARCH 
              PROCESS AND USEFUL TECHNOLOGY.

    The Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) Flow of science, engineering, and technology.--The 
        process of science, engineering, and technology involves many 
        steps. The present Federal science, engineering, and technology 
        structure reinforces the increasingly artificial distinctions 
        between basic and applied activities. The result too often is a 
        set of discrete programs that each support a narrow phase of 
        research or development and are not coordinated with one 
        another. The government should maximize its investment by 
        encouraging the progression of science, engineering, and 
        technology from the earliest stages of research up to a pre-
        commercialization stage, through funding agencies and vehicles 
        appropriate for each stage. This creates a flow of technology, 
        subject to merit review at each stage, so that promising 
        technology is not lost in a bureaucratic maze.
            (2) Excellence in the american research infrastructure.--
        Federal investment in science, engineering, and technology 
        programs must foster a close relationship between research and 
        education. Investment in research at the university level 
        creates more than simply world-class research. It creates 
        world-class researchers as well. The Federal strategy must 
        continue to reflect this commitment to a strong research 
        infrastructure. Furthermore, the United States must find ways 
        to extend the excellence of its university system to primary 
        and secondary educational institutions and to better utilize 
        the community college system to prepare many students for 
        vocational opportunities in an increasingly technical 
        workplace.
            (3) Commitment to a broad range of research initiatives.--
        An increasingly common theme in many recent technical 
        breakthroughs has been the importance of revolutionary 
innovations that were sparked by overlapping of research disciplines. 
The United States must continue to encourage this trend by providing 
and encouraging opportunities for interdisciplinary projects that 
foster collaboration among fields of research.
            (4) Partnerships among industry, universities, and federal 
        laboratories.--Each of these contributors to the national 
        science and technology delivery system has special talents and 
        abilities that complement the others. In addition, each has a 
        central mission that must provide their focus and each has 
        limited resources. The nation's investment in science, 
        engineering, and technology can be optimized by seeking 
        opportunities for leveraging the resources and talents of these 
        three major players through partnerships that do not distort 
        the missions of each partner. For that reason, Federal dollars 
        are wisely spent forming such partnerships.

SEC. 4. MAINTENANCE OF FEDERAL RESEARCH EFFORT; GUIDING PRINCIPLES.

    (a) Maintaining United States Leadership in Science, Engineering, 
and Technology.--It is imperative for the United States to nurture its 
superb resources in science, engineering, and technology carefully in 
order to maintain its own globally competitive position.
    (b) Guiding Principles.--Federal research and development programs 
should be conducted in accordance with the following guiding 
principles:
            (1) Good science.--Federal science, engineering, and 
        technology programs include both knowledge-driven science 
        together with its applications, and mission-driven, science-
        based requirements. In general, both types of programs must be 
        focused, peer- and merit-reviewed, and not unnecessarily 
        duplicative, although the details of these attributes must vary 
        with different program objectives.
            (2) Fiscal accountability.--The Congress must exercise 
        oversight to ensure that programs funded with scarce Federal 
        dollars are well managed. The United States cannot tolerate 
        waste of money through inefficient management techniques, 
        whether by government agencies, by contractors, or by Congress 
        itself. Fiscal resources would be better utilized if program 
        and project funding levels were predictable across several 
        years to enable better project planning; a benefit of such 
        predictability would be that agencies and Congress can better 
        exercise oversight responsibilities through comparisons of a 
        project's and program's progress against carefully planned 
        milestones.
            (3) Program effectiveness.--The United States needs to make 
        sure that government programs achieve their goals. As the 
        Congress crafts science, engineering, and technology 
        legislation, it must include a process for gauging program 
        effectiveness, selecting criteria based on sound scientific 
        judgment and avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy. The Congress 
        should also avoid the trap of measuring the effectiveness of a 
        broad science, engineering, and technology program by passing 
        judgment on individual projects. Lastly, the Congress must 
        recognize that a negative result in a well-conceived and 
        executed project or program may still be critically important 
        to the funding agency.
            (4) Criteria for government funding.--Program selection for 
        Federal funding should require a long-term horizon, with 
        specific relevance to a Federal mission requirement, or with 
        broad knowledge-based goals. Additionally, government funding 
        should not compete with or displace the short-term, market-
        driven, and typically more specific nature of private-sector 
        funding. Government funding should be restricted to pre-
        competitive activities, leaving competitive activities solely 
        for the private sector. As a rule, the government should not 
        invest in commercial technology that is in the product 
        development stage, very close to the broad commercial 
        marketplace, except to meet a specific agency goal. When the 
        government provides funding for any science, engineering, and 
        technology investment program, it must take reasonable steps to 
        ensure that the potential benefits derived from the program 
        will accrue broadly.

SEC. 5. POLICY STATEMENT.

    (a) Policy.--This Act is intended--
            (1) to encourage, as an overall goal, the doubling of the 
        annual authorized amount of Federal funding for basic 
        scientific, medical, and pre-competitive engineering research 
        over the 12-year period following the date of enactment of this 
        Act;
            (2) to set a minimum level of investment in order to 
        maintain the high priority that science, engineering, and 
        technology had previously been afforded in the Federal budget;
            (3) to invest in the future of the United States and the 
        people of the United States by expanding the research 
        activities referred to in paragraph (1);
            (4) to enhance the quality of life for all people of the 
        United States; and
            (5) to guarantee the leadership of the United States in 
        science, engineering, medicine, and technology.
    (b) Agencies Covered.--The agencies intended to be covered by this 
Act are--
            (1) the National Institutes of Health, within the 
        Department of Health and Human Services;
            (2) the National Science Foundation;
            (3) the National Institute for Standards and Technology, 
        within the Department of Commerce;
            (4) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
            (5) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
        within the Department of Commerce;
            (6) the Centers for Disease Control, within the Department 
        of Health and Human Services;
            (7) the Department of Energy (to the extent that it is not 
        engaged in defense-related activities);
            (8) the Department of Agriculture;
            (9) the Department of Transportation;
            (10) the Department of the Interior;
            (11) the Department of Veterans Affairs;
            (12) the Smithsonian Institution;
            (13) the Department of Education; and
            (14) the Environmental Protection Agency (to the extent 
        that it is engaged in science, engineering, and technology 
        activities for basic scientific, medical, or pre-competitive 
        engineering research).
    (c) Historical Investment Trend.--
            (1) Over the past 20 years, the percentage of the civilian 
        discretionary budget allocated to research and development 
        efforts has increased steadily from approximately 10 percent in 
        1980 to approximately 14 percent for fiscal year 1998. The 
        increase in Federal investment in civilian research and 
        development from fiscal years 1988 through 1998 resulted in an 
        overall doubling of funding across the major federal research 
        and development agencies.
            (2) The investment in civilian research and development 
        efforts for fiscal year 1998 is 2.11876 percent of the overall 
        Federal budget.
    (d) Damage to Research Infrastructure.--A continued trend of 
funding appropriations equal to or lower than current budgetary levels 
will lead to permanent damage to the United States research 
infrastructure. This could threaten American dominance of high-
technology industrial leadership.
    (e) Increase Funding.--In order to maintain and enhance the 
economic strength of the United States in the world market, funding 
levels for fundamental, scientific, and pre-competitive engineering 
research should be increased to equal approximately 2.6 percent of the 
total annual budget.
    (f) Future Fiscal Year Allocations.--
            (1) Goals.--
                    (A) The long-term strategy for research and 
                development funding under this section would be 
                achieved by a steady 2.5 percent annual increase above 
                the rate of inflation throughout a 12-year period.
                    (B) There is a minimum threshold below which long-
                term harm to both the research infrastructure and 
                economic strength of the United States would be caused, 
                therefore it shall be the goal of the President and 
                Congress to prevent the total amount of Federally-
                funded research and development from falling below 2.1 
                percent of the overall Federal budget at any point in 
                the budget process.
            (2) Inflation assumption.--The authorizations contained in 
        paragraph (3) assume that the rate of inflation for each year 
        will be 3 percent.
            (3) Authorization.--Therea reautjorized to be appropriated 
        for civilian research and development in the agencies listed in 
        subsection (b)--
                    (A) $37,720,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
                    (B) $39,790,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
                    (C) $41,980,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
                    (D) $42,290,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
                    (E) $46,720,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
                    (F) $49,290,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
                    (G) $52,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
                    (H) $54,870,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
                    (I) $57,880,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
                    (J) $61,070,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
                    (K) $64,420,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
                    (L) $67,970,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
    (g) Conformance With Budgetary Caps.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, no funds may be made available under this Act in a 
manner that does not conform with the discretionary spending caps 
provided in the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the 
budget or threatens the economic stability of the annual budget.
    (h) Balanced Research Portfolio.--Because of the interdependent 
nature of the scientific and engineering disciplines, the aggregate 
funding levels authorized by the section assume that the Federal 
research portfolio will be well-balanced among the various scientific 
and engineering disciplines.

SEC. 6. PRESIDENT'S ANNUAL BUDGET REQUEST.

    The President of the United States shall, in coordination with the 
President's annual budget request, include a report that parallels 
Congress' commitment to support Federally-funded research and 
development by providing--
            (1) a detailed summary of the total level of funding for 
        research and development programs throughout all civilian 
        agencies;
            (2) a focused strategy that reflects the funding 
        projections of this Act for each future fiscal year until 2010, 
        including specific targets for each agency that funds civilian 
        research and development; and
            (3) an analysis which details funding levels across Federal 
        agencies by methodology of funding, including grant agreements, 
        procurement contracts, and cooperative agreements (within the 
        meaning given those terms in chapter 63 of title 31, United 
        States Code).

SEC. 7. COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNTABILITY STUDY FOR FEDERALLY-FUNDED 
              RESEARCH

    (a) Study.--The Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget, shall enter into agreement with the National Academy of 
Sciences for the Academy to conduct a comprehensive study to develop 
methods for evaluating Federally-funded research and development 
programs. This study shall--
            (1) recommend processes to determine an acceptable level of 
        success for Federally-funded research and development programs 
        by--
                    (A) describing the research process in the various 
                scientific and engineering disciplines;
                    (B) describing in the different sciences what 
                measures and what criteria each community uses to 
                evaluate the success or failure of a program, and on 
                what time scales these measures are considered 
                reliable--both for exploratory long-range work and for 
                short-range goals; and
                    (C) recommending how these measures may be adapted 
                for use by the Federal government to evaluate 
                Federally-funded research and development programs;
            (2) assess the extent to which agencies incorporate 
        independent merit-based review into the formulation of the 
        strategic plans of funding agencies and if the quantity or 
        quality of this type of input is unsatisfactory;
            (3) recommend mechanisms for identifying Federally-funded 
        research and development programs which are unsuccessful or 
        unproductive;
            (4) evaluate the extent to which independent, merit-based 
        evaluation of Federally-funded research and development 
        programs and projects achieves the goal of eliminating 
        unsuccessful or unproductive programs and projects; and
            (5) investigate and report on the validity of using 
        quantitative performance goals for aspects of programs which 
        relate to administrative management of the program and for 
        which such goals would be appropriate, including aspects 
        related to--
                    (A) administrative burden on contractors and 
                recipients of financial assistance awards;
                    (B) administrative burdens on external participants 
                in independent, merit-based evaluations;
                    (C) cost and schedule control for construction 
                projects funded by the program;
                    (D) the ratio of overhead costs of the program 
                relative to the amounts expended through the program 
                for equipment and direct funding of research; and
                    (E) the timeliness of program responses to requests 
                for funding, participation, or equipment use.
    (b) Alternative Forms for Performance Goals.--Not later than 6 
months after transmitting the report under subsection (a) to Congress, 
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, after public 
notice, public comment, and approval by the Director of the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy and in consultation with the National 
Science and Technology Council shall promulgate one or more alternative 
forms for performance goals under section 1115(b)(10)(B) of title 31, 
United States Code, based on the recommendations of the study under 
subsection (a) of this section. The head of each agency containing a 
program activity that is a research and development program may apply 
an alternative form promulgated under this section for a performance 
goal to such a program activity without further authorization by the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
    (c) Strategic Plans.--Not later than one year after promulgation of 
the alternative performance goals in subsection (b) of this section, 
the head of each agency carrying out research and development 
activities, upon updating or revising a strategic plan under subsection 
306(b) of title 5, United States Code, shall describe the current and 
future use of methods for determining an acceptable level of success as 
recommended by the study under subsection (a).
    (d) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
        the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
            (2) Program activity.-- The term ``program activity'' has 
        the meaning given that term by section 1115(f)(6) of title 31, 
        United States Code.
            (3) Independent merit-based evaluation.--The term 
        ``independent merit-based evaluation'' means review of the 
        scientific or technical quality of research or development, 
        conducted by experts who are chosen for their knowledge of 
        scientific and technical fields relevant to the evaluation and 
        who--
                    (A) in the case of the review of a program 
                activity, do not derive long-term support from the 
                program activity; or
                    (B) in the case of the review of a project 
                proposal, are not seeking funds in competition with the 
                proposal.
    (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out the study required by subsection (a) $600,000 
for the 18-month period beginning October 1, 1998.

SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM FOR FEDERALLY-FUNDED 
              RESEARCH.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
``Sec.  1120. Accountability for research and development programs
    ``(a) Identification of Unsuccessful Programs.--Based upon program 
performance reports for each fiscal year submitted to the President 
under section 1116, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
shall identify the civilian research and development program 
activities, or components thereof, which do not meet an acceptable 
level of success as defined in the study in section 7(a). In carrying 
out this subsection, the Director and the agency for which the programs 
are being evaluated may disaggregate program activities to the extent 
necessary to increase the effectiveness of the assessment. Not later 
than 30 days after the submission of the reports under section 1116, 
the Director shall furnish a copy of a report listing the program 
activities or component identified under this subsection to the 
President and the Congress.
    ``(b) Termination of Unsuccessful Program if No Improvement 
Shown.--
            ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), for 
        each program activity or component that is identified by the 
        Director under subsection (a) as being below the acceptable 
        level of success for 2 fiscal years in a row, the head of the 
        agency shall no later than 30 days after the Director submits 
        the second report so identifying the program, submit to the 
        appropriate congressional committees of jurisdiction a concise 
        statement of the steps needed to terminate the program activity 
        or component, together with the legislation needed to put the 
        plan into effect.
            ``(2) Exception.--A program subject to termination under 
        paragraph (1) shall not be terminated under that paragraph if 
        the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 
        the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the 
        head of the department or agency responsible for the program 
        determine that the program should be continued. Each time after 
        a program continued under this paragraph is identified in a 
        subsequent annual report, a statement of termination shall be 
        submitted under paragraph (1), unless the Directors renew their 
        joint determination under the preceding sentence.
            ``(3) Report.--The Director shall explain the rationale for 
        not terminating any program continued under paragraph (2) in a 
        written report submitted to the President and the Congress 
        within 30 days after making the determination to continue the 
        program.
    ``(c) Treatment of Terminated Program Funds.--A statement of 
termination under subsection (b)(1) shall recommend a disposition for 
any funds appropriated or obligated to a program activity or component 
terminated under subsection (b) that remain unexpended and unobligated 
upon its termination. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
modify any requirement regarding the reprogramming or transfer of funds 
authorized or appropriated for a terminated program activity or 
component.
    ``(d) Director Defined.--For purposes of this section, the term 
`Director' means the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) The chapter analysis for chapter 11 of title 31, United 
        States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following:

``1120. Accountability for research and development programs''.
            (2) Section 1115(f) of title 31, United States Code, is 
        amended by striking ``through 1119,'' and inserting ``through 
        1120''.

                                 <all>
```