Federal Research Investment Act - Calls for: (1) Federal research and development programs to be conducted in accordance with specified guiding principles with respect to good science, fiscal accountability, program effectiveness, and criteria for government funding; and (2) doubling Federal basic research funding over 11 years.
Authorizes aggregate funding levels for civilian research and development (R&D) in specified agencies for FY 2000 through 2010. Sets forth requirements for adjusting amounts received by agencies for which appropriations increase by more than eight percent in a covered fiscal year.
Directs the President to include with the annual budget request a report providing: (1) a summary of the total level of Federal funding for R&D by civilian agencies; (2) a strategy reflecting funding projections of this Act; (3) an analysis of funding levels across Federal agencies by funding methodology; and (4) specific proposals for infrastructure development and R&D capacity building in States with less concentrated R&D resources.
Requires the Director of the Office of Science Technology Policy to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study to develop methods for evaluating federally-funded R&D programs. Requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), based on study results, to promulgate one or more alternative forms for Federal R&D performance goals. Permits an agency head to apply such an alternative form without further authorization by OMB. Requires agency heads carrying out R&D activities, upon updating a strategic plan, to describe the current and future use of methods for determining an acceptable level of R&D success as recommended by the study. Authorizes appropriations for the study.
Requires the OMB Director, based upon program performance reports, to identify the civilian R&D program activities or components which do not meet an acceptable level of success as defined under current law. Directs the head of an agency, for each program activity or component identified as being below the acceptable level of success for two consecutive fiscal years, to submit to the appropriate congressional committees: (1) a concise statement of the steps necessary to bring such program into compliance with performance goals or to terminate such program should compliance efforts fail; and (2) any legislative changes needed to effectuate the steps contained in such statement.
[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[S. 296 Introduced in Senate (IS)]
1st Session
S. 296
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
January 22, 1999
Mr. Frist (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Lieberman,
Mr. Gramm, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Burns, Mr. Breaux, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr.
Cleland, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Kerry, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Abraham,
Mr. Akaka, Mr. Allard, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Robb)
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
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,
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 saves 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 two
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 principal 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
precompetitive 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 11-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;
(14) the Environmental Protection Agency; and
(15) the Federal Drug Administration, within the Department
of Health and Human Services.
(c) Current Investment.--The investment in civilian research and
development efforts for fiscal year 1998 was 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 11-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) $39,790,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
(B) $41,980,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
(C) $42,290,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(D) $46,720,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(E) $49,290,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(F) $52,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(G) $54,870,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(H) $57,880,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
(I) $61,070,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(J) $64,420,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
and
(K) $67,970,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(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 115(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, 2000.
SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM FOR FEDERALLY-FUNDED
RESEARCH.
(a) In General.--Chapter 11 of title 13, 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 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.''.
(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''.
<all>
Introduced in Senate
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S897-898)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Committee on Commerce. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Committee on Commerce. Reported to Senate by Senator McCain with amendments. With written report No. 106-106.
Committee on Commerce. Reported to Senate by Senator McCain with amendments. With written report No. 106-106.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 205.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S9304-9309)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.
Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Llama 3.2 · runs locally in your browser
Ask anything about this bill. The AI reads the full text to answer.
Enter to send · Shift+Enter for new line
Referred to the House Committee on Science.