I
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 3161
To provide for continuation of the Federal research investment in a fiscally
sustainable way, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OCTOBER 28, 1999
Mrs. WILSON (for herself, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. COOK, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FRANKS
of New Jersey, Mr. HOLT, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut,
Mr. ROGAN, and Mrs. TAUSCHER) introduced the following bill; which
was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Com-
mittees on Commerce, Armed Services, Resources, and Agriculture, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the com-
mittee concerned
A BILL
To provide for continuation of the Federal research invest-
ment in a fiscally sustainable way, and for other pur-
poses.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Research In-
vestment Act’’.
SEC. 2. GENERAL FINDINGS REGARDING FEDERAL INVEST-
MENT 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 cre-
ating technology that has enhanced the American
quality of life.
(3) The Federal investment in research and de-
velopment conducted or underwritten by both mili-
tary 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) Approximately half of all United States
post-World War II economic growth is a direct re-
sult of technical innovation; and science, engineer-
ing, 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 in-
creased standards of living of the world’s modern in-
dustrial societies. Other nations are well aware of
the pivotal role of science, engineering, and tech-
nology, and they are seeking to exploit it wherever
possible to advance their own global competitiveness.
(8) Historically, Federal investment in science,
engineering, and technology was largely justified by
the needs of national security or public health.
America’s 
Federal 
spending 
in 
precompetitive
science, engineering, and technology is fully justified
without relying on a compelling national security
need.
(b) STATUS OF THE FEDERAL INVESTMENT.—The
Congress makes the following findings with respect to the
status of the Federal Investment in research and develop-
ment activities:
(1) Federal investment of approximately 13 to
14 percent of the Federal discretionary budget in re-
search and development over the past 11 years has
resulted in a doubling of the nominal amount of
Federal funding.
(2) The increase in national dependency on
technology, the greater breadth of meaningful re-
search opportunities, and the continuing need to be
fiscally responsible demands that Congress guide the
Federal Government’s role in science, engineering,
and technology in a manner that ensures a prudent
use of public resources. Many indicators show that
more funding for science, engineering, and tech-
nology is needed but, even with increased funding,
priorities must be established among different pro-
grams. Congress must ensure that Federal research
and development investment are justified with long
term results to Americans.
(3) Current projections of Federal research
funding show a downward trend.
SEC. 3. SPECIAL FINDINGS REGARDING HEALTH-RELATED
RESEARCH.
The Congress makes the following findings with re-
spect to health-related research:
(1) HEALTH
AND
ECONOMIC
BENEFITS
PRO-
VIDED BY HEALTH-RELATED RESEARCH.—Because
of health-related research, cures for many debili-
tating and fatal diseases have been discovered and
deployed. At present, the medical research commu-
nity is on the cusp of creating cures for a number
of leading diseases and their associated burdens. In
particular, medical research has the potential to de-
velop treatments that can help manage the esca-
lating costs associated with the aging of the United
States population.
(2) 
FUNDING
OF
HEALTH-RELATED
RE-
SEARCH.—Many studies have recognized that clinical
and basic science are in a state of crisis because of
a failure of resources to meet the opportunity. Con-
sequently, health-related research has emerged as a
national priority and has been given significantly in-
creased funding by Congress in fiscal year 1999. In
order to continue addressing this urgent national
need, the pattern of substantial budgetary expansion
begun in fiscal year 1999 should be maintained.
(3) INTERDISCIPLINARY NATURE OF HEALTH-
RELATED RESEARCH.—Because all fields of science
and engineering are interdependent, full realization
of the nation’s historic investment in health will de-
pend on major advances both in the biomedical
sciences and in other science and engineering dis-
ciplines. Hence, the vitality of all disciplines must be
preserved, even as special considerations are given to
the health research field.
SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS REGARDING THE LINK BE-
TWEEN THE RESEARCH PROCESS AND USE-
FUL TECHNOLOGY.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) INTERRELATIONSHIP
OF
SCIENCE, ENGI-
NEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY.—Science, engineering,
and technology rely on many overlapping and inter-
related processes. The present Federal science, engi-
neering, and technology structure reinforces the in-
creasingly artificial distinctions between basic and
applied activities. Such structure is based upon a
model of sequential transition from basic research
through development to focused application that no
longer adequately captures the dynamic research and
innovation. The result too often is a set of discrete
Federal programs that each support a narrow phase
of research or development. There is less inter-
disciplinary interaction than there might be and
some promising discoveries or technologies are not
pursued because they are outside the scope of the
sponsoring Federal program. The government should
maximize its research investment by identifying
areas of priority interest in science, engineering, and
technology from the earliest stages of research up to
a precommercialization stage, through funding agen-
cies and vehicles appropriate for each stage.
(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 as engineers, sci-
entists, and technicians able to apply the fruits of
research in the world economy. The Federal strategy
must continue to reflect this commitment to a strong
geographically-diverse research infrastructure. Fur-
thermore, the United States must use the excellence
of its university system to inspire primary and sec-
ondary students to pursue further study in math,
science, and engineering, and to strengthen the cur-
ricula of primary and secondary schools in math and
science.
(3) COMMITMENT TO A BROAD RANGE OF RE-
SEARCH
INITIATIVES.—An increasingly common
theme in many recent technical breakthroughs has
been the importance of revolutionary innovations
that were sparked by overlapping of research dis-
ciplines. The most valuable work is often at the
boundaries between fields. The United States must
continue to encourage this trend by providing and
encouraging 
opportunities 
for 
interdisciplinary
projects that foster collaboration among fields of re-
search.
(4) PARTNERSHIPS AMONG INDUSTRY, UNIVER-
SITIES, AND
FEDERAL
LABORATORIES.—Each of
these contributors to the national science and tech-
nology delivery system has special talents and abili-
ties that complement the others. In addition, each
has a central mission that must provide their focus
and each has limited resources. The nation’s invest-
ment in science, engineering, and technology can be
optimized by seeking opportunities for leveraging the
resources and talents of these 3 sectors through
partnerships that do not distort the missions of each
partner. For that reason, Federal dollars are wisely
spent forming such partnerships.
SEC. 5. MAINTENANCE OF FEDERAL RESEARCH EFFORT;
GUIDING PRINCIPLES.
(a) MAINTAINING UNITED STATES LEADERSHIP IN
SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY.—It is im-
perative for the United States to nurture its superb re-
sources in science, engineering, and technology carefully
in order to maintain its own globally competitive position.
(b) GUIDING PRINCIPLES.—Federal research and de-
velopment programs should be conducted in accordance
with the following guiding principles:
(1) GOOD SCIENCE.—Federal science, engineer-
ing, and technology programs include both knowl-
edge-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 du-
plicative, 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 man-
aged. 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 ex-
ercise oversight responsibilities through comparisons
of a project’s and program’s progress against care-
fully planned milestones.
(3) PROGRAM
EFFECTIVENESS.—The United
States needs to make sure that government pro-
grams achieve their goals. As the Congress crafts
science, engineering, and technology legislation, it
must include a process for gauging program effec-
tiveness, selecting criteria based on sound scientific
judgment and avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy.
The Congress should also avoid the trap of meas-
uring the effectiveness of a broad science, engineer-
ing, 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 criti-
cally important to the funding agency.
(4) CRITERIA FOR GOVERNMENT FUNDING.—
Program selection for Federal funding should con-
tinue to reflect the nation’s 2 traditional research
and development priorities: (A) basic, scientific, and
technological research that represents investments in
the nation’s long-term future scientific and techno-
logical capacity, for which government has tradition-
ally served as the principal resource; and (B) mis-
sion research investments, that is, investments in re-
search that derive from necessary public functions,
such as defense, health, education, environmental
protection, and raising the standard of living, which
may include precommercial, precompetitive engineer-
ing research and technology development. Addition-
ally, government funding should not compete with
or displace the short-term, market-driven, and typi-
cally more specific nature of private-sector funding.
Government 
funding 
should 
be 
restricted 
to
precompetitive activities, leaving competitive activi-
ties solely for the private sector. As a rule, the gov-
ernment 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 pro-
vides funding for any science, engineering, and tech-
nology investment program, it must take reasonable
steps to ensure that the potential benefits derived
from the program will accrue broadly.
SEC. 6. POLICY STATEMENT.
(a) POLICY.—This Act is intended to—
(1) assure a base level of Federal funding for
basic scientific, biomedical, and precompetitive engi-
neering research;
(2) invest in the future economic growth of the
United States by expanding the research activities
referred to in paragraph (1);
(3) enhance the quality of life and health for all
people of the United States through expanded sup-
port for health-related research;
(4) guarantee the leadership of the United
States in science, engineering, medicine, and tech-
nology; and
(5) ensure that the opportunity and the support
for undertaking good science is widely available
throughout the United States by supporting a geo-
graphically-diverse research and development enter-
prise.
(b) AGENCIES COVERED.—The agencies intended to
be covered to the extent that they are engaged in science,
engineering, and technology activities for basic scientific,
medical, or precompetitive engineering research 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 of Standards and
Technology, within the Department of Commerce;
(4) the National Aeronautics and Space Admin-
istration;
(5) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration, 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 engaged in non-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;
(14) the Environmental Protection Agency; and
(15) the Food and Drug Administration, within
the Department of Health and Human Services.
(c) FUTURE FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS.—
(1) GOALS.—The long-term strategy for re-
search and development funding under this section
would be achieved by a steady annual increase above
the rate of inflation so that by fiscal year 2010, 2.6
percent of the Federal budget is spent on non-de-
fense research and development.
(2) AUTHORIZATION.—There are authorized to
be appropriated for civilian research and develop-
ment in the agencies listed in subsection (b)—
(A) $39,790,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
(B) $41,980,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
(C) $44,290,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(D) $46,720,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(E) $49,290,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(F) $52,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(G) $54,870,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(H) $57,880,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
(I) $61,070,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(J) $64,420,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
and
(K) $67,970,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(3) 
ACCELERATION
TO
MEET
NATIONAL
NEEDS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—If the amount appro-
priated for any fiscal year to an agency for the
purposes stated in paragraph (2) increases by
more than 8 percent over the amount appro-
priated to it for those purposes for the pre-
ceding fiscal year, then the amounts authorized
by paragraph (2) for subsequent fiscal years for
that agency and other agencies shall be deter-
mined under subparagraphs (B) and (C).
(B) EXCLUSION
OF
AGENCY
IN
DETER-
MINING OTHER AGENCY AMOUNTS FOR NEXT
FISCAL YEAR.—For the next fiscal year after a
fiscal year described in subparagraph (A), the
amount authorized to be appropriated to other
agencies under paragraph (2) shall be deter-
mined by excluding the agency described in sub-
paragraph (A). Any amount that would, but for
this subparagraph, be authorized to be appro-
priated to that agency shall not be appro-
priated.
(C) RESUMPTION
OF
REGULAR
TREAT-
MENT.—Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), an
agency may not be excluded from the deter-
mination of the amount authorized to be appro-
priated under paragraph (2) for a fiscal year
following a fiscal year for which the sum of the
amounts appropriated to that agency for fiscal
year 2000 and all subsequent fiscal years for
the purposes described in paragraph (2) does
not exceed the sum of—
(i) the amount appropriated to that
agency for such purposes for fiscal year
2000; and
(ii) the amounts that would have been
appropriated for such purposes for subse-
quent fiscal years if the goal described in
paragraph (1) had been met (and not ex-
ceeded) with respect to that agency’s fund-
ing.
(D) NO
LIMITATION
ON
OTHER
FUND-
ING.—Nothing in this paragraph limits the
amount that may be appropriated to any agency
for the purposes described in paragraph (2).
(d) CONFORMANCE WITH BUDGETARY CAPS.—Not-
withstanding 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.
(e) BALANCED RESEARCH PORTFOLIO.—Because of
the interdependent nature of the scientific and engineering
disciplines, the aggregate funding levels authorized by this
section assume that the Federal research portfolio will be
well-balanced among the various scientific and engineering
disciplines, and geographically dispersed throughout the
States.
SEC. 7. PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL BUDGET REQUEST.
The President of the United States shall, in coordina-
tion 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;
(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); and
(4) specific proposals for infrastructure develop-
ment and research and development capacity build-
ing in States with less concentrated research and de-
velopment resources in order to create a nationwide
research and development community.
SEC. 8. 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 de-
velopment programs. This study shall—
(1) recommend processes to determine an ac-
ceptable level of success for federally-funded re-
search and development programs by—
(A) describing the research process in the
various scientific and engineering disciplines
and characterizing how these processes evolved;
(B) describing in the different sciences
what measures and what criteria each commu-
nity uses to evaluate the success or failure of a
program, and on what time scales these meas-
ures are considered reliable—both for explor-
atory long-range work and for short-range
goals; and
(C) recommending how these measures
may be adapted for use by the Federal govern-
ment to evaluate federally-funded research and
development programs;
(2) assess the extent to which agencies incor-
porate independent merit-based review into the for-
mulation of the strategic plans of funding agencies
and if the quantity or quality of this type of input
is satisfactory;
(3) recommend mechanisms for identifying fed-
erally-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 pro-
grams and projects;
(5) investigate and report on the validity of
using quantitative performance goals for aspects of
programs which relate to administrative manage-
ment 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 evalua-
tions;
(C) cost and schedule control for construc-
tion projects funded by the program;
(D) the ratio of overhead costs of the pro-
gram 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 equip-
ment use;
(6) examine the extent to which program selec-
tion for Federal funding across all agencies exempli-
fies our nation’s historical research and development
priorities—
(A) basic, scientific, and technological re-
search in the long-term future scientific and
technological capacity of the nation; and
(B) mission research derived from a high-
priority public function; and
(7) examine the conceptual scientific model
which assumes a progression from basic research
through technological application, including—
(A) whether it adequately describes the
process of scientific discovery and innovation at
the cusp of the 21st century;
(B) whether it encourages an investment
strategy or research infrastructure that hinders
discovery and innovation;
(C) whether there is a better model which
is likely to yield improved results; and
(D) what changes would need to be made
in Federal funding mechanisms, agencies, and
programs to align with this different model.
(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 Of-
fice 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)(1)(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 1 year after
promulgation of the alternative performance goals in sub-
section (b) of this section, the head of each agency car-
rying out research and development activities, upon updat-
ing 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 sub-
section (a).
(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) PROGRAM ACTIVITY.—The term ‘‘program
activity’’ has the meaning given that term by section
1115(f)(6) of title 31, United States Code.
(2) 
INDEPENDENT
MERIT-BASED
EVALUA-
TION.—The term ‘‘independent merit-based evalua-
tion’’ means review of the scientific or technical
quality of research or development, conducted by ex-
perts who are chosen for their knowledge of sci-
entific 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 pe-
riod beginning October 1, 2000.
SEC. 9. 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:
‘‘§ 1120. Accountability for research and develop-
ment programs
‘‘(a) IDENTIFICATION
OF
UNSUCCESSFUL
PRO-
GRAMS.—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 develop-
ment program activities, or components thereof, which do
not meet an acceptable level of success as defined in sec-
tion 1115(b)(1). Not later than 30 days after the submis-
sion 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 Presi-
dent and the Congress.
‘‘(b) 
ACCOUNTABILITY
IF
NO
IMPROVEMENT
SHOWN.—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