[Senate Report 106-106]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 205
106th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 106-106
_______________________________________________________________________
FEDERAL RESEARCH INVESTMENT ACT
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 296
July 12, 1999.--Ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
69-010 WASHINGTON : 1999
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred sixth congress
first session
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
SLADE GORTON, Washington JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi Virginia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
OLYMPIA SNOWE, Maine JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
BILL FRIST, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan RON WYDEN, Oregon
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MAX CLELAND, Georgia
Mark Buse, Staff Director
Martha P. Allbright, General Counsel
Ivan A. Schlager, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic General Counsel
(ii)
Calendar No. 205
106th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 106-106
======================================================================
FEDERAL RESEARCH INVESTMENT ACT
_______
July 12, 1999.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. McCain, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 296]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 296) ``A bill to provide for
continuation of the Federal research investment in a fiscally
sustainable way, and for other purposes'', having considered
the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendments and
recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of the bill, as reported, is to provide for the
continuation of the Federal research investment in a fiscally
sustainable way.
BACKGROUND AND NEEDS
Technical innovation is a driving force behind the Nation's
long-term economic growth and rising standards of living.
Federal investments in research and development (R&D) have
resulted in enormous financial and employment growth of the
private and public sectors. Studies show that 50% of all post-
World War II economic growth is a direct result of
technological innovation.
Contrary to popular belief, the R&D enterprise in the United
States receives nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of its funding
from private industry. The Federal government supports much of
the balance, with the remainder comprised of funding from
colleges and universities, other non-profit institutions, and
state and local governments. The role of the Federal government
is particularly pivotal in funding basic research, supporting
nearly 60 percent of the national budget for such research at
both public and private institutions. A comparable portion of
the applied research performed
in U.S. colleges and universities also is funded Federally.
Because private sector R&D investments are stimulated
principally by individual company interests, the Federal
government's impact on national R&D priorities is profound,
particularly in areas such as health, space, and national
defense.
Since the 1960's, trends in R&D funding have paralleled those
of overall discretionary spending. Thus, Federal investment in
R&D has expanded by slow, steady growth. However, increasing
mandatory spending levels have begun to constrain discretionary
spending, and to decrease fiscal flexibility for those
programs. As the discretionary portion of the budget declines
and spending caps continue to be imposed, R&D programs will
compete increasingly with funding for public infrastructure,
housing, social services, education, transportation, and
military operations. While Federal R&D funding has increased in
constant dollars from a peak in 1968, outlays have decreased
from about 11 percent of the total budget in 1966, during the
buildup for the space program, to less than 3 percent today. As
a proportion of discretionary spending, outlays have decreased
from 16 percent in 1966 to about 13 percent today. Budget
trends continue to demonstrate preferences for selective
increases in the funding of the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), with constant
dollar decreases in many other areas.
The Administration's fiscal year (FY) 2000 R&D budget request
is $78 billion. Approximately 51 percent of that request is
designated for civilian programs, with health consuming the
largest portion and defense programs receiving about 41
percent. As indicated above, these proposed R&D expenditures
represent 4.3 percent of the total budget and 13 percent of the
discretionary allocation. The FY 2000 request represents a 1.7
percent overall decrease from FY 1999 and includes a 3.6
percent increase for civilian R&D. The request reflects the
Administration's priorities in health, energy, commerce, and
general science, proposing a 6.5 percent increase for NSF, an
8.3 percent increase for non-defense R&D within the Department
of Energy (DOE), and a 2.1 percent increase for NIH. The
proposed budget seeks increases of 0.6 percent for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and 38.7 percent
for the Department of Transportation (DOT). The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) would decrease by 3.5 percent and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would remain
the same.
While funding levels are one important consideration for
Federal R&D programs, another issue is improving the
effectiveness of such programs. On August 3, 1993, the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) was signed into
law. GPRA requires that all Federal agencies move toward
performance budgeting by the year 2001. The President submitted
a government-wide performance plan with the FY 2000 budget, and
individual agencies are submitting performance plans to
Congress during the FY 2000 authorization and appropriations
cycle. The General Accounting Office reports that research
agencies have encountered difficulties in preparing strategic
plans and in developing performance measures.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
On April 16, 1997, April 28, 1998, and April 15, 1999, the
Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space conducted
hearings on Federal R&D funding. Witnesses included: Dr. Neal
Lane, Advisor to the President, Office of Science and
Technology Policy; Senators Phil Gramm, Joseph Lieberman, and
Jeff Bingaman; Dr. Kerri-Ann Jones, Acting Director, Office of
Science and Technology Policy; Dr. Judith Rodin, President of
the University of Pennsylvania; Dr. Albert Teich, Director of
Science and Policy Programs, American Association for the
Advancement of Science; and Mr. Dan Peterson, President, DAP &
Associates. On October 8, 1998, S. 2217, the Federal Research
Investment Act of 1998 passed the Senate with an amendment by
unanimous consent. S. 296 is the successor to S. 2217.
On January 22, 1999, Senators Bill Frist and Jay Rockefeller,
Chairman and Member of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on
Science, Technology, and Space, introduced S. 296, the Federal
Research Investment Act. The bill is cosponsored by Senators
Domenici, Lieberman, Gramm, Bingaman, Burns, Breaux, Moynihan,
Cleland, Kerry, Kerrey, Allard, Abraham, Boxer, DeWine, Snowe,
Feinstein, Hutchison, Durbin, Dodd, Cochran, Landrieu,
Ashcroft, Thompson, Akaka, Robb, Crapo, Sarbanes, Lott, Murray,
Roberts, Levin, Santorum, Kennedy, Conrad, and Daschle.
On May 5, 1999, the Committee met in open executive session
and, by a voice vote, ordered S. 296 to be reported with an
amendment. The amendment incorporates several suggested changes
to the bill, makes a number of technical corrections, and
provides an exclusion clause for any agencies covered by the
Act that accelerate at a rate above 8 percent. Such an agency
would be removed from the base calculation until the growth in
its R&D budget dipped below an annualized goal of 5.5 percent,
the aggregate annual authorization target for the Act.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS
Authorization of appropriations. S. 296, as reported,
authorizes appropriations for the R&D programs of the following
Federal departments and agencies: the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA); NIH; NSF; the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST); NASA; NOAA; the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC); DOE; DOT; the Smithsonian Institution;
EPA; the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); the
United States Department of Education (USDE); the Department of
the Interior (DOI); and the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA).
A total of $39.8 billion is authorized to be appropriated in FY
2000, increasing to almost $70 billion in FY 2010. The bill
states that the increases called for are not intended to exceed
discretionary budget caps.
National R&D findings, principles, and policy. S. 296, as
reported, outlines key findings regarding the value, impact,
and status of R&D in the United States and the link between the
research process and useful technology. Four major topics are
identified: (1) the flow of science, engineering, and
technology; (2) excellence in the American research
infrastructure; (3) commitment to a broad
range of research initiatives; and (4) partnerships among
industry, universities, and Federal laboratories. The bill also
establishes principles for maintaining the Federal research
effort, including ensuring good peer-reviewed science,
demanding fiscal accountability, funding programs with
measurable results, and selecting programs that adhere to
established national priorities. In addition, S. 296
establishes as a national policy the importance of Federal
investments in research and technology development to the
economy and the American standard of living.
Annual budget report. S. 296, as reported, requires the
President to submit, in coordination with his annual budget
request, a report detailing the Federal R&D commitment. The
report would include a focused strategy for meeting
Congressional funding targets for civilian R&D and an analysis
of the Administration's funding methodology.
Accountability for R&D programs. As reported, the bill
requires the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in
consultation with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to
enter into a contract with the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) to complete a study containing recommendations for
criteria to evaluate Federal R&D programs. In addition, S. 296
amends GPRA to require that such criteria be used to set
performance goals under that law and establishes a process to
ensure that R&D programs meet those goals. If programs do not
meet the goals, they must be brought into compliance, or may be
terminated if such compliance efforts fail.
ESTIMATED COSTS
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
[Insert CBO letter, attached as pages 4A through 4E]
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED
The Committee believes that the bill will not subject any
individuals or businesses affected by the legislation to any
additional regulation.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
This legislation will not have an adverse economic impact on
the Nation. It authorizes funding to ensure sustained levels of
Federally-funded scientific, medical and pre-competitive
engineering research over an 11-year period. In addition, the
bill requires the OMB Director to submit an annual report to
Congress outlining Federally-funded program activities which do
not meet acceptable GPRA criteria. This action will provide
oversight of agency programs and promote more cost-effective
use of Federal funds.
PRIVACY
This legislation will not have a negative impact on the
personal privacy of individuals.
PAPERWORK
This legislation will not increase the paperwork requirement
for private individuals or businesses. It contains four Federal
reporting requirements: (1) the President is to include in his
annual budget request to Congress a report detailing the total
level of funding for R&D programs throughout all civilian
agencies, and outlining the Administration's strategy for
meeting Congressional funding targets through 2010; (2) the
OSTP Director, in consultation with the OMB Director, is to
contract with NAS for a comprehensive study to be submitted to
OMB and the Congress on methods for evaluating Federally-funded
R&D programs; (3) the OMB Director is to identify the civilian
R&D program activities which do not meet the criteria defined
in GPRA in an annual report to the President and to Congress;
and (4) the head of an agency whose program activities do not
meet the GPRA criteria for two years is to submit to Congress a
strategic plan for bringing the program into compliance or
terminating it, including any necessary legislative changes.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS
This section cites the short title of the reported bill as
the ``Federal Research Investment Act.''
SECTION 2. GENERAL FINDINGS REGARDING FEDERAL INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH
This section of the reported bill outlines key findings
regarding the value of R&D to the United States and the status
of the Federal R&D investment. The findings state that current
projections for Federal research funding show a downward trend.
This trend reflects the confluence of increased national
dependency on technology, increased targets of opportunity, and
decreased flexibility in apportioning dwindling discretionary
funds. Indicators show that more funding for science,
engineering, and technology is needed, but, even with increased
funding, priorities must be established among different
programs.
SECTION 3. SPECIAL FINDINGS REGARDING HEALTH-RELATED RESEARCH
This section of the reported bill emphasizes specific
observations regarding the economic benefits of health-related
research. It recognizes the current Congressional support for
increased funding in the near term and stresses potential
difficulty in fully achieving this investment in health
research if other fields of science and engineering are not
properly preserved.
SECTION 4. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS REGARDING THE LINK BETWEEN THE RESEARCH
PROCESS AND USEFUL TECHNOLOGY
This section of the reported bill highlights four major
observations: (1) the current flow of science, engineering, and
technology from early stages of research through pre-
commercialization should be less discrete and better
coordinated; (2) the relationship between Federal research and
education should be expanded to include geographically-diverse
states, primary and secondary educational institutions, and the
community college system; (3) the United States should
encourage research opportunities for interdisciplinary projects
that foster collaboration among fields of research; and (4)
partnerships among industry, universities, and Federal
laboratories should be optimized.
SECTION 5. MAINTENANCE OF FEDERAL RESEARCH EFFORT; GUIDING PRINCIPLES
This section of the reported bill outlines four guiding
principles for maintenance of Federal research efforts. First,
Federal programs must be focused, peer-reviewed, merit-based,
and not unnecessarily duplicative. They must address both
knowledge-driven and mission-driven scientific requirements.
The second principle guiding the maintenance of Federal
research efforts requires programs to be fiscally accountable.
Congress must exercise oversight to ensure that programs funded
with scarce Federal dollars are properly managed. Third,
government programs must have measurable results, and the
effectiveness of these programs in achieving their goals must
be evaluated. Fourth, selection of programs for Federal funding
must balance the Nation's two traditional priorities: (1) basic
scientific and technological research that represents an
investment in the Nation's long-term scientific and
technological capacity; and (2) mission-related research that
derives from necessary public functions such as defense,
health, education, and environmental protection. Because
government investments should not compete nor displace short-
term, market-driven private-sector funding, they should be
restricted to pre-competitive activities rather than commercial
technologies.
SECTION 6. POLICY STATEMENT
Subsection (a) of this section states the overall goal of the
bill to assure a base level of Federal funding for basic,
scientific, biomedical, and precompetitive engineering
research, with this base level defined as a doubling of Federal
basic research funding over the 11-year period following the
date of enactment of this Act.
Subsection (b) identifies the agencies covered by the
authorizations in the bill as: NIH, NSF, NIST, NASA, NOAA, CDC,
DOE, DOT, the Smithsonian Institution, EPA, USDA, USDE, DOI,
FDA, and VA. The Committee intends that the programs of these
agencies be covered only to the extent that such programs
involve activities that support basic scientific, medical, or
pre-competitive engineering research.
Subsection (c) discusses historic investment trends and
potential damage to the U.S. research infrastructure from
continued inadequate funding levels.
Subsection (d) authorizes the following aggregate
appropriation levels for civilian R&D for FY 2000 through FY
2010:
$39.79 billion for FY 2000;
$41.98 billion for FY 2001;
$44.29 billion for FY 2002;
$46.72 billion for FY 2003;
$49.29 billion for FY 2004;
$52.00 billion for FY 2005;
$54.87 billion for FY 2006;
$57.88 billion for FY 2007;
$61.07 billion for FY 2008;
$64.42 billion for FY 2009; and
$67.97 billion for FY 2010.
Subsection (d) creates an exclusionary clause whereby any
agency included in this Act under subsection (b) which
increases its R&D funding by more than 8 percent over the
amount appropriated for its R&D in the preceding fiscal year
shall be removed from the total fiscal year authorization in
subsection (d) until that agency's annualized appropriation
meets or falls below the aggregate 5.5 percent target for
increased funding under the Act.
Subsection (e) requires that no funds be made available under
the bill in a manner that does not conform with the
discretionary spending caps provided in the most recently
adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
Subsection (f) calls for the aggregate funding levels
authorized by section 5 to be balanced among various scientific
and engineering disciplines and geographically dispersed
throughout the states.
SECTION 7. PRESIDENT'S ANNUAL BUDGET REQUEST
This section of the reported bill requires the President, as
part of the annual budget request process, to submit a report
on implementation of the commitment to support Federally-funded
R&D. The report must provide: (1) a detailed summary of the
total level of funding for R&D programs throughout civilian
agencies; (2) a focused strategy reflecting annual funding
projections for R&D through FY 2010; (3) an analysis of funding
levels across Federal agencies by methodology of funding,
including grant agreements, procurement contracts, and
cooperative agreements; and (4) specific proposals to improve
R&D infrastructure and capacity in States with less
concentrated R&D resources in order to create a nationwide R&D
community.
SECTION 8. COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNTABILITY STUDY FOR FEDERALLY-FUNDED
RESEARCH
Subsection (a) of this section of the reported bill requires
the Director of OSTP, in consultation with the Director of OMB,
to contract with NAS for a comprehensive study. The goal of the
study is to develop methods for evaluating Federally-funded R&D
programs by: (1) describing the research process in various
scientific and engineering disciplines; (2) examining the
measures and criteria employed by each discipline to evaluate
the success or failure of a program both for exploratory long-
range work and short-term goals; and (3) recommending how these
measures may be adapted for use by Federally-funded R&D
programs.
This subsection also calls for the study to assess the extent
to which agencies incorporate independent merit-based review
into the formulation of strategic plans, as well as the
quantity and quality of this type of input. NAS would evaluate
mechanisms for identifying poorly performing programs and the
extent to which an independent merit-based review would
contribute to addressing those problems. In addition, NAS is
required to report on the validity of using quantitative
performance goals for administrative aspects of a program
including: paperwork requirements for contractors, grant
recipients and external reviewers; cost and schedule controls
for any associated construction projects; the ratio of overhead
costs relative to other program costs; and responsiveness to
requests for funding, participation, or equipment use. Finally,
the study would examine the extent to which Federal funding
decisions support the Nation's historical R&D priorities.
Subsection (b) of this section provides for integration of
the results of the NAS study into GPRA requirements. Within six
months of study completion, the Director of OMB is required to
promulgate one or more alternative forms for performance goals
under GPRA (31 U.S.C. 1115(b)(10)(B)) based upon the study
recommendations. In the development of such alternatives the
OMB Director is required to provide for public notice and
comment, obtain the approval of the Director of OSTP, and
consult with the National Science and Technology Council. The
goal of this subsection is to offer the head of each agency
that conducts R&D activities alternative and more appropriate
mechanisms to successfully comply with GPRA.
Subsection (c) of this section requires each agency that
carries out R&D activities, upon updating or revising their
strategic plan under subsection 306(b) of title 5, United
States Code, to describe its current and future use of the
alternative performance goals consistent with the NAS study.
Subsection (d) provides definitions for several terms used in
this section of the reported bill, including ``Director,''
``program activity,'' and ``independent merit-based
evaluation.'' Finally, subsection (e) authorizes appropriations
of $600,000 for carrying out the NAS study.
SECTION 9. EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM FOR FEDERALLY-
FUNDED RESEARCH
Section 9(a) of the reported bill amends GPRA to add a new
section 1120 dealing with accountability for R&D programs.
Subsection (a) of new section 1120 of GPRA requires the
Director of OMB, based upon annual performance reports
submitted by the President to Congress under GPRA, to identify
civilian R&D program activities or components of such
activities that do not meet an acceptable level of success as
defined by alternative performance goals developed under
section 8 of the reported bill. The OMB Director is required to
submit a report to the President and Congress that lists
program activities or components identified under this
subsection within 30 days after each agency submits its annual
GPRA report to the President.
Subsection (b) of new section 1120 of GPRA establishes a
process for addressing programs that have failed to meet
performance goals. When a program is identified as being below
acceptable success levels in two consecutive OMB reports, the
head of the responsible agency is required to submit a
statement to the Congressional committees of jurisdiction
outlining steps that will be taken to (1) bring the program
into compliance with applicable performance goals; or (2) to
terminate the program if compliance efforts have failed. A
submission under this subsection also is required to identify
any legislative changes needed for its implementation or
termination. In establishing the process under this subsection,
the Committee intends to improve accountability for R&D
spending and to encourage cost-efficiencies in Federally-funded
R&D programs. However, this process should not be used to
impose substantial new paperwork burdens on R&D programs that
are not required of other Federal programs. Nor does the
Committee intend that the process be used to target Federal R&D
programs for which the funding reflects Congressional rather
than Administration priorities.
Section 9(b) of the reported bill makes two technical and
conforming amendments to GPRA.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill,
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new material is printed
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown
in roman):
TITLE 31. MONEY AND FINANCE
SUBTITLE II. THE BUDGET PROCESS
CHAPTER 11. THE BUDGET AND FISCAL, BUDGET, AND PROGRAM INFORMATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. . 1115. Performance plans
(a) In carrying out the provisions of section 1105(a)(29),
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
require each agency to prepare an annual performance plan
covering each program activity set forth in the budget of such
agency. Such plan shall--
(1) establish performance goals to define the level
of performance to be achieved by a program activity;
(2) express such goals in an objective, quantifiable,
and measurable form unless authorized to be in an
alternative form under subsection (b);
(3) briefly describe the operational processes,
skills and technology, and the human, capital,
information, or other resources required to meet the
performance goals;
(4) establish performance indicators to be used in
measuring or assessing the relevant outputs, service
levels, and outcomes of each program activity;
(5) provide a basis for comparing actual program
results with the established performance goals; and
(6) describe the means to be used to verify and
validate measured values.
(b) If an agency, in consultation with the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, determines that it is not
feasible to express the performance goals for a particular
program activity in an objective, quantifiable, and measurable
form, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget may
authorize an alternative form. Such alternative form shall--
(1) include separate descriptive statements of--
(A)(i) a minimally effective program, and
(ii) a successful program, or
(B) such alternative as authorized by the
Director of the Office of Management and
Budget,
with sufficient precision and in such terms that would
allow for an accurate, independent determination of
whether the program activity's performance meets the
criteria of the description; or
(2) state why it is infeasible or impractical to
express a performance goal in any form for the program
activity.
(c) For the purpose of complying with this section, an agency
may aggregate, disaggregate, or consolidate program activities,
except that any aggregation or consolidation may not omit or
minimize the significance of any program activity constituting
a major function or operation for the agency.
(d) An agency may submit with its annual performance plan an
appendix covering any portion of the plan that--
(1) is specifically authorized under criteria
established by an Executive order to be kept secret in
the interest of national defense or foreign policy; and
(2) is properly classified pursuant to such Executive
order.
(e) The functions and activities of this section shall be
considered to be inherently Governmental functions. The
drafting of performance plans under this section shall be
performed only by Federal employees.
(f) For purposes of this section and sections 1116 [through
1119,] through 1120 and sections 9703 and 9704 the term--
(1) ``agency'' has the same meaning as such term is
defined under section 306(f) of title 5;
(2) ``outcome measure'' means an assessment of the
results of a program activity compared to its intended
purpose;
(3) ``output measure'' means the tabulation,
calculation, or recording of activity or effort and can
be expressed in a quantitative or qualitative manner;
(4) ``performance goal'' means a target level of
performance expressed as a tangible, measurable
objective, against which actual achievement can be
compared, including a goal expressed as a quantitative
standard, value, or rate;
(5) ``performance indicator'' means a particular
value or characteristic used to measure output or
outcome;
(6) ``program activity'' means a specific activity or
project as listed in the program and financing
schedules of the annual budget of the United States
Government; and
(7) ``program evaluation'' means an assessment,
through objective measurement and systematic analysis,
of the manner and extent to which Federal programs
achieve intended objectives.
* * * * * * *
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 necessary to--
(A) bring such program into compliance with
performance goals; or
(B) terminate such program should compliance
efforts fail; and
(2) any legislative changes needed to put the steps
contained in such statement into effect.