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





                                                       Calendar No. 697

105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2217

                          [Report No. 105-364]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 2, 1998

                       Reported with an amendment





                                                       Calendar No. 697
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2217

                          [Report No. 105-364]

  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, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Cleland, Mr. 
 D'Amato, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. 
Allard, Mr. Abraham, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. DeWine, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Feinstein, 
 Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Cochran, Mr. 
   Ashcroft, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Warner, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
  Santorum, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Coverdell, and Mr. Robb) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                   Commerce, Science, and Technology

                            October 2, 1998

               Reported by Mr. McCain, with an amendment
 [Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed 
                               in italic]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 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,

<DELETED>SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.</DELETED>

<DELETED>    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Research Investment 
Act''.</DELETED>

<DELETED>SEC. 2. GENERAL FINDINGS REGARDING FEDERAL INVESTMENT IN 
              RESEARCH.</DELETED>

<DELETED>    (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:</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (1) Federal investment in research has resulted in 
        the development of technology that saved lives in the United 
        States and around the world.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (2) Research and development investment across all 
        Federal agencies has been effective in creating technology that 
        has enhanced the American quality of life.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (5) Science, engineering, and technology play a 
        critical role in shaping the modern world.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
<DELETED>    (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:</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (3) Current projections of Federal research 
        funding show a downward trend.</DELETED>

<DELETED>SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS REGARDING THE LINK BETWEEN THE 
              RESEARCH PROCESS AND USEFUL TECHNOLOGY.</DELETED>

<DELETED>    The Congress makes the following findings:</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>

<DELETED>SEC. 4. MAINTENANCE OF FEDERAL RESEARCH EFFORT; GUIDING 
              PRINCIPLES.</DELETED>

<DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
<DELETED>    (b) Guiding Principles.--Federal research and development 
programs should be conducted in accordance with the following guiding 
principles:</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>

<DELETED>SEC. 5. POLICY STATEMENT.</DELETED>

<DELETED>    (a) Policy.--This Act is intended--</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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;</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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;</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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);</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (4) to enhance the quality of life for all people 
        of the United States; and</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (5) to guarantee the leadership of the United 
        States in science, engineering, medicine, and 
        technology.</DELETED>
<DELETED>    (b) Agencies Covered.--The agencies intended to be covered 
by this Act are--</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (1) the National Institutes of Health, within the 
        Department of Health and Human Services;</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (2) the National Science Foundation;</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (3) the National Institute for Standards and 
        Technology, within the Department of Commerce;</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (4) the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration;</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (5) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration, within the Department of Commerce;</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (6) the Centers for Disease Control, within the 
        Department of Health and Human Services;</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (7) the Department of Energy (to the extent that 
        it is not engaged in defense-related activities);</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (8) the Department of Agriculture;</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (9) the Department of Transportation;</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (10) the Department of the Interior;</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (11) the Department of Veterans Affairs;</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (12) the Smithsonian Institution;</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (13) the Department of Education; and</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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).</DELETED>
<DELETED>    (c) Historical investment trend.--</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (2) The investment in civilian research and 
        development efforts for fiscal year 1998 is 2.11876 percent of 
        the overall Federal budget.</DELETED>
<DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
<DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
<DELETED>    (f) Future Fiscal Year Allocations.--</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (1) Goals.--</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (2) Inflation assumption.--The authorizations 
        contained in paragraph (3) assume that the rate of inflation 
        for each year will be 3 percent.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (3) Authorization.--Therea reautjorized to be 
        appropriated for civilian research and development in the 
        agencies listed in subsection (b)--</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (A) $37,720,000,000 for fiscal year 
                1999;</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (B) $39,790,000,000 for fiscal year 
                2000;</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (C) $41,980,000,000 for fiscal year 
                2001;</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (D) $42,290,000,000 for fiscal year 
                2002;</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (E) $46,720,000,000 for fiscal year 
                2003;</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (F) $49,290,000,000 for fiscal year 
                2004;</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (G) $52,000,000,000 for fiscal year 
                2005;</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (H) $54,870,000,000 for fiscal year 
                2006;</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (I) $57,880,000,000 for fiscal year 
                2007;</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (J) $61,070,000,000 for fiscal year 
                2008;</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (K) $64,420,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; 
                and</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (L) $67,970,000,000 for fiscal year 
                2010.</DELETED>
<DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
<DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>

<DELETED>SEC. 6. PRESIDENT'S ANNUAL BUDGET REQUEST.</DELETED>

<DELETED>    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--</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (1) a detailed summary of the total level of 
        funding for research and development programs throughout all 
        civilian agencies;</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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).</DELETED>

<DELETED>SEC. 7. COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNTABILITY STUDY FOR FEDERALLY-
              FUNDED RESEARCH</DELETED>

<DELETED>    (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--</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (1) recommend processes to determine an acceptable 
        level of success for Federally-funded research and development 
        programs by--</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (A) describing the research process in the 
                various scientific and engineering 
                disciplines;</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (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</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (C) recommending how these measures may be 
                adapted for use by the Federal government to evaluate 
                Federally-funded research and development 
                programs;</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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;</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (3) recommend mechanisms for identifying 
        Federally-funded research and development programs which are 
        unsuccessful or unproductive;</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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--</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (A) administrative burden on contractors 
                and recipients of financial assistance 
                awards;</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (B) administrative burdens on external 
                participants in independent, merit-based 
                evaluations;</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (C) cost and schedule control for 
                construction projects funded by the program;</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (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</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (E) the timeliness of program responses to 
                requests for funding, participation, or equipment 
                use.</DELETED>
<DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>
<DELETED>    (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).</DELETED>
<DELETED>    (d) Definitions.--In this section:</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the 
        Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
        Policy.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (2) Program Activity.-- The term ``program 
        activity'' has the meaning given that term by section 
        1115(f)(6) of title 31, United States Code.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (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--</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (A) in the case of the review of a program 
                activity, do not derive long-term support from the 
                program activity; or</DELETED>
                <DELETED>    (B) in the case of the review of a project 
                proposal, are not seeking funds in competition with the 
                proposal.</DELETED>
<DELETED>    (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.</DELETED>

<DELETED>SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM FOR 
              FEDERALLY-FUNDED RESEARCH.</DELETED>

<DELETED>    (a) In General.--Chapter 11 of title 31, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:</DELETED>

<DELETED>``Sec.  1120. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
              PROGRAMS</DELETED>

<DELETED>    ``(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.</DELETED>
<DELETED>    ``(b) Termination of Unsuccessful Program if No 
Improvement Shown.--</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    ``(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.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    ``(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.</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    ``(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.</DELETED>
<DELETED>    ``(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.</DELETED>
<DELETED>    ``(d) Director Defined.--For purposes of this section, the 
term `Director' means the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget.''.</DELETED>
<DELETED>    (b) Conforming Amendments.--</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (1) The chapter analysis for chapter 11 of title 
        31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof 
        the following:</DELETED>

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

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.
            (8) Federal programs for investment in research, which lead 
        to technological innovation and result in economic growth, 
        should be structured to address current funding disparities and 
        develop enhanced capability in States and regions that 
        currently underparticipate in the national science and 
        technology enterprise.
    (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 geographically-
        diverse 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 continue 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 
        technological capacity, for which government has traditionally 
        served as the principle resource; and (B) mission research 
        investments, that is, investments in research that derive from 
        necessary public functions, such as defense, health, education, 
        environmental protection, and raising the standard of living, 
        which may include pre-commercial, pre-competitive engineering 
        research and technology development. 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 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);
            (3) to enhance the quality of life for all people of the 
        United States;
            (4) to guarantee the leadership of the United States in 
        science, engineering, medicine, and technology; and
            (5) to ensure that the opportunity and the support for 
        undertaking good science is widely available throughout the 
        States by supporting a geographically-diverse research and 
        development enterprise.
    (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 pre-competitive 
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 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.
    (c) Current Investment.--The investment in civilian research and 
development efforts for fiscal year 1998 is 2.1 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.--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.
            (2) Inflation assumption.--The authorizations 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 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, and geographically dispersed throughout 
the States.

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;
            (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 development and 
        research and development capacity building in States with less 
        concentrated research and development resources in order to 
        create a nationwide research and development community.

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.
            (6) examine the extent to which program selection for 
        Federal funding across all agencies exemplifies our nation's 
        historical research and development priorities--
                    (A) basic, scientific, and technological research 
                in the long-term future scientific and technological 
                capacity of the nation; and
                    (B) mission research derived from a high-priority 
                public function.
    (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 section 1115(b)(1)(B). 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) 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 the 
program, submit to the appropriate congressional committees of 
jurisdiction:
            ``(1) a concise statement of the steps that will be taken--
                    ``(A) to bring such program into compliance with 
                performance goals; or
                    ``(B) to terminate such program should compliance 
                efforts have failed; and
            ``(2) any legislative changes needed to put the steps 
        contained in such statement into effect.''.
    (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''.