[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12052-S12054]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    FEDERAL RESEARCH INVESTMENT ACT

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 697, S. 2217.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2217) to provide for continuation of the Federal 
     research investment in a fiscally sustainable way, and for 
     other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, 
which had been reported from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting 
clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

     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

[[Page S12053]]

     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.

[[Page S12054]]

       (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''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I'm pleased to see the Federal Research 
Investment Act presented for approval to the Senate. This bill, S. 
2217, is one that I've supported through-out its history, because it 
addresses the health of our nation's science and technology base.
  Our science and technology base is vital to the nation's future. Any 
number of studies have confirmed its importance. As one excellent 
example, the National Innovation Summit, organized by MIT with the 
Council on Competitiveness, confirmed that the integrity of that base 
is one of the cornerstones to our future economic prosperity. At that 
Summit, many of the nation's top CEOs emphasized that the nation's 
climate for innovation is a major determinant of our ability to 
maintain and advance our high standard of living and strong economy.
  Advanced technologies are responsible for driving half of our 
economic growth since World War II, and that growth has developed our 
economy into the envy of the world. We need to continually refresh our 
stock of new products and processes that enable good jobs for our 
citizens in the face of increasing global challenges to all our 
principal industries.
  The Federal Research Investment Act continues the goal first 
expressed in S. 1305, that I co-sponsored with Senators Gramm, 
Lieberman, and Bingaman, to double the nation's investment in science 
and technology. Among other improvements, S. 2217 proposes a more 
realistic time scale for achieving this expanded support.
  This doubling must be accomplished within a balanced budget that 
avoids deficits, thus a longer period is a better choice. That balanced 
budget is essential, it enables the economic health that is fundamental 
to our ability to really use advanced technologies.
  The new bill continues to emphasizes a broad range of research 
targets, from fundamental and frontier exploration, through pre-
competitive engineering research. This emphasis on a spectrum of 
research maturity is absolutely critical. The nation is not well served 
by a focus on so-called ``basic'' research that can open new fields, 
but then leave those fields wanting for resources to develop these new 
ideas to a pre-competitive stage applicable to future commercial 
products and processes.
  The new bill addresses a spectrum of research fields with its 
emphasis on expanding S&T funding in many agencies. We need technical 
advances in many fields simultaneously. In more and more cases, the 
best new ideas are not flowing from explorations in a single narrow 
field, but instead are coming from inter-disciplinary studies that 
bring experts from diverse fields together for fruitful collaboration. 
This is especially evident in medical and health fields, where 
combinations of medical science with many other specialities are 
critical to the latest health care advances.
  This new bill has additional features that weren't part of the 
earlier one. It proposes to utilize the National Academy of Science in 
developing approaches to evaluation of program and project performance. 
This should lead to better understanding of how GPRA goals and 
scientific programs can be best coordinated. The new role for the 
National Academy can help define criteria to guide decisions on 
continued and future funding. The bill also sets up procedures to use 
these evaluations to terminate federal programs that are not performing 
at acceptable levels.
  The new bill incorporates a set of well-developed principles for 
federal funding of science and technology. These principles were 
developed by the Senate Science and Technology Caucus. Those 
principles, when carefully applied, can lead to better choices among 
the many opportunities for federal S&T funding. The new bill also 
incorporates recommendations for independent merit-based review of 
federal S&T programs, which should further strengthen them.
  Many aspects of the Federal Research Investment Act support and 
compliment key points in the new study released by Representative Vern 
Ehlers just recently. His study, ``Unlocking our Future,'' will serve 
as an important focal point for continuing discussions on the critical 
goal of strengthening our nation's science and technology base. I've 
certainly appreciated interactions with Representative Ehlers as he 
developed his study and as S. 2217 was developed.
  The new Federal Research Investment Act builds and improves on the 
goals of the previous bill. With S. 2217, we will build stronger 
federal Science and Technology programs that will underpin our nation's 
ability to compete effectively in the global marketplace of the 21st 
century.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
committee substitute be agreed to, the bill be considered read the 
third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, 
and that any statements relating to the bill be printed at this point 
in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendment was agreed to.
  The bill (S. 2217), as amended, was considered read the third time, 
and passed.

                          ____________________