progression of science, engineering, and technology
from the earliest stages of research up to a pre-com-
mercialization 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 edu-
cational institutions and to better utilize the commu-
nity college system to prepare many students for vo-
cational opportunities in an increasingly technical
workplace.
(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 United States must continue to encour-
age this trend by providing and encouraging oppor-
tunities for interdisciplinary projects that foster col-
laboration among fields of research.
(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 three major players
through partnerships that do not distort the mis-
sions of each partner. For that reason, Federal dol-
lars 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 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 measur-
ing the effectiveness of a broad science, engineering,
and technology program by passing judgment on in-
dividual projects. Lastly, the Congress must recog-
nize 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 re-
quire a long-term horizon, with specific relevance to
a Federal mission requirement, or with broad knowl-
edge-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 commer-
cial technology that is in the product development
stage, very close to the broad commercial market-
place, except to meet a specific agency goal. When
the government provides funding for any science, en-
gineering, and technology investment program, it
must take reasonable steps to ensure that the poten-
tial 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 dou-
bling of the annual authorized amount of Federal
funding for basic scientific, medical, and pre-com-
petitive 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, en-
gineering, and technology had previously been af-
forded 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 tech-
nology.
(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 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 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 re-
search and development efforts has increased stead-
ily from approximately 10 percent in 1980 to ap-
proximately 14 percent for fiscal year 1998. The in-
crease 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 de-
velopment 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 in-
dustrial 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 in-
creased to equal approximately 2.6 percent of the total an-
nual 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 an-
nual 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 in-
frastructure 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 authoriza-
tions contained in paragraph (3) assume that the
rate of inflation for each year will be 3 percent.
(3) AUTHORIZATION.—There are authorized to
be appropriated for civilian research and develop-
ment 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.—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 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 coordina-
tion with the President’s annual budget request, include
a report that parallels Congress’ commitment to support
Federally-funded research and development by provid-
ing—
(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 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;
(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 unsatisfactory;
(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; and
(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.
(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)(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 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) 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
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, 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:
‘‘§ 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 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 ex-
tent necessary to increase the effectiveness of the assess-
ment. 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 compo-
nent 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 para-
graph (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 jurisdic-
tion a concise statement of the steps needed to ter-
minate the program activity or component, together
with the legislation needed to put the plan into ef-
fect.
‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—A program subject to termi-
nation 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 pro-
gram determine that the program should be contin-
ued. Each time after a program continued under
this paragraph is identified in a subsequent annual
report, a statement of termination shall be submit-
ted under paragraph (1), unless the Directors renew
their joint determination under the preceding sen-
tence.
‘‘(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 pro-
gram.
‘‘(c) 
TREATMENT
OF
TERMINATED
PROGRAM
FUNDS.—A statement of termination under subsection
(b)(1) shall recommend a disposition for any funds appro-
priated or obligated to a program activity or component
terminated under subsection (b) that remain unexpended
and unobligated upon its termination. Nothing in this sub-
section shall be construed to modify any requirement re-
garding the reprogramming or transfer of funds author-
ized or appropriated for a terminated program activity or
component.
‘‘(d) DIRECTOR DEFINED.—For purposes of this sec-
tion, 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’’.
Æ