SOURCE: Q 127 .U6 S329 AUTHOR: Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government DOCTITLE: Science, Technology, and Congress: Organizational and Procedural Reforms SECTITLE: Science, Technology, and Congress: Organizational and Procedural Reforms DATE: 1994 SUBJECT: congressional S&T policy science and technology policy R&D funding research development Congress United States federal agencies PUBLISHER: Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government DOCTYPE: Book TITLEID: CC9105 ISBN_ISSN: 1881054187 Text: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND CONGRESS ORGANIZATIONAL AND PROCEDURAL REFORMS February 1994 CONTENTS FOREWORD PREFACE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Vision, Goals, and Priorities 1.2 Committee Reform, Leadership Initiatives, and Oversight 1.3 The Budget Process, Multiyear Funding, and Funding Categories 1.4 A Case Study: Academic Earmarking 2.0 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND CONGRESS: WHAT IS AT STAKE? 2.1 Is It Time for Change? 2.2 Context for Change: Separation of Powers, Divided Government, Political Parties, and Power of the Purse 2.3 The Budget Process 2.4 Challenges and Opportunities in Science and Technology Policy 3.0 A VISION FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND CONGRESS: SETTING GOALS AND PRIORITIES 3.1 Goals, Investment, and the S&T Base 3.2 Needed: A National Forum on Science and Technology Goals 3.3 Congress and the S&T Community 3.4 Within Congress 3.5 Congress and the Executive Branch 3.6 Civilian and Military S&T 4.0 COMMITTEE REFORM, LEADERSHIP INITIATIVES, AND OVERSIGHT 4.1 Less Is More for Members 4.2 Committee Coherence 4.3 S&T Subcommittee Consolidation 4.4 The Role of the Leadership 4.5 Oversight of S&T Policies and Programs 5.0 THE BUDGET PROCESS: S&T PRIORITIES AND MULTIYEAR FUNDING 5.1 Effects of Current System on S&T Programs 5.2 Multiyear Funding 5.3 The Two-Year Budget 5.4 Budget Categories for More Effective Policymaking 5.5 Linking Policy Debate to Actual Policy Decisions 5.6 Tracking the Total 5.7 Nonbudgetary Factors 6.0 A CASE STUDY: CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKING FOR RESEARCH FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS 6.1 The Nature of Earmarking 6.2 An End to Earmarking 6.3 Two Sides of the Controversy 6.4 Attempts To Curb Earmarks 6.5 The Balance of Power 6.6 Facilities Funding Needed 6.7 Earmarking for Research Programs 6.8 Criteria for Award of Federal Funds 6.9 Multiple Approaches Needed 7.0 CONCLUSION 8.0 APPENDIXES 8.1 Appendix A: Biographies of Members of the Committee on Science, Technology, and Congress 8.2 Appendix B: Papers Prepared for the Committee on Science, Technology, and Congress 9.0 NOTES AND REFERENCES 10.0 MEMBERS OF THE CARNEGIE COMMISSION ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND GOVERNMENT 11.0 MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL, CARNEGIE COMMISSION ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND GOVERNMENT 12.0 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND CONGRESS FOREWORD Since World War II, Congress has played a vital role in the advance of science and technology (S&T). The creation of the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Institutes of Health, the Office of Naval Research, the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency all required Congressional leadership, and Congress has consistently appropriated funds to support the science and technology that is vital for meeting government missions. Congressional committees actively oversaw the S&T activities of executive agencies and developed legislation that contributed significantly to the nation's technological growth. Activities involving S&T make up a large and increasing fraction of the federal government's discretionary spending. The enormous growth of activity in science and technology and the change in national priorities since the end of the Cold War now require changes in the structure and mechanisms that Congress uses for dealing with S&T. Congress has recognized the need for change in general with the establishment of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. Some of the leaders who called for the creation of the committee cited the difficulties of dealing effectively with issues involving science and technology as one of the principal reasons for its establishment. Because the Carnegie Commission recognized from the outset the importance of the role played by Congress, it established the Committee on Science, Technology, and Congress. The Committee remained active throughout the life of the Commission. The distinguished members of the committee, under the leadership of Dr. John Brademas, have already produced two reports that examine in depth the way Congress obtains scientific and technological advice. In this third and final report, they address the difficult problems of organizational and procedural reforms, looking particularly at long- range planning and goal setting, at committee structure, and at the budget process. In developing this report, the Committee consulted extensively with current and former Members of Congress, particularly the members of its Congressional Advisory Council, a bipartisan group of more than 40 Senators and Representatives; with current and former members of congressional staff; with public policy scholars; and with representatives of the scientific and engineering communities. The substance of this report was approved by the Carnegie Commission at its final meeting in April 1993. The Commission is grateful to Dr. Brademas for his dedicated leadership of the Committee on Science, Technology, and Congress, to the members of the Committee, to the staff, and to all the others who contributed to the report. A single report cannot explain all the complexities of congressional S&T policy or all of the aspects of reform. The Commission believes, however, that this report can be helpful to Congress as it tries to adapt its structure to the new realities. And members of the Commission and its staff remain available, as individuals, for discussion if called upon. William T. Golden, Co-Chair Joshua Lederberg, Co-Chair PREFACE The Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government was established in April 1988 to analyze the factors that shape the relationships between science and technology (S&T) and government and to seek ways to make those relationships more effective. The Commission established its Committee on Science, Technology, and Congress to consider ways to improve the structures, procedures, and resources Congress needs to develop effective science and technology policy. Science, Technology, and Congress: Organizational and Procedural Reforms is the last in a series of three reports prepared by the Committee on how Congress addresses science and technology issues. The Committee's first report, Science, Technology, and Congress: Expert Advice and the Decision-Making Process, published in February 1991, examines the mechanisms by which Congress receives and uses information, expert analyses, and advice from sources outside Congress, including academia, industry, and nongovernmental organizations. The second report, Science, Technology, and Congress: Analysis and Advice from the Congressional Support Agencies, published in October 1991, focuses on the contributions to S&T policymaking in Congress made by each of the four main congressional support agencies: the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, the General Accounting Office, and the Office of Technology Assessment. In this third and final report, the Committee examines how Congress is organized to consider S&T issues and what procedures it uses in this process. In Science, Technology, and Congress: Organizational and Procedural Reforms, the Committee on Science, Technology, and Congress presents a series of recommendations designed to enable Congress to develop more coordinated and effective public policy for science and technology and to employ S&T more effectively in developing policies in a range of fields. Chapter 2.0 documents the scope and significance of S&T policy and describes why we believe the time is right for such recommendations. Chapter 3.0 discusses the need for establishing long-term goals and priorities and recommends ways to incorporate more long-term thinking into congressional decision making for S&T issues. Chapter 4.0 examines the role of the congressional Leadership, congressional oversight of S&T activities, and the distribution of responsibility for S&T issues within the current committee structure. Chapter 5.0 describes the budget process for S&T and suggests areas for improvement. Chapter 6.0, a case study of how Congress makes decisions affecting science and technology, explores the reasons for academic earmarking and presents possible reforms to curtail the practice. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report of the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government was prepared by the Committee on Science, Technology, and Congress: John Brademas (Chair) Jimmy Carter Lawton Chiles Daniel J. Evans Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. H. Guyford Stever The Committee's work has been guided by a bipartisan Congressional Advisory Council. The members of the Council are Senators Brock Adams[*] Jeff Bingaman Robert Dole Pete V. Domenici Wendell Ford E. J. (Jake) Garn[*] John Glenn Albert Gore, Jr.[*] Charles E. Grassley Ernest F. Hollings Daniel K. Inouye Edward M. Kennedy Frank R. Lautenberg Howard Metzenbaum Claiborne Pell Larry Pressler Harry Reid John D. Rockefeller IV Terry Sanford[*] Ted Stevens Tim Wirth[*] Representatives Les Aspin[*] Sherwood L. Boehlert, Jr. Rick Boucher George E. Brown, Jr. Tom Campbell[*] Jim Cooper Harris W. Fawell Vic Fazio Hamilton Fish Richard A. Gephardt Bill Green[*] Lee H. Hamilton Paul B. Henry[+] William J. Hughes Joseph P. Kennedy II Norman Y. Mineta Constance A. Morella Sid Morrison[*] Robert Mrazek[*] Leon E. Panetta[*] David E. Price Don Ritter[*] Robert A. Roe[*] Tim Roemer James H. Scheuer[*] Mike Synar Ray Thornton Bob Traxler[*] Tim Valentine Robert S. Walker Dick Zimmer In the course of its studies, the Committee discussed issues and policy directions with current and former Members of Congress and their staff, staff members of the congressional support agencies, public policy scholars, and representatives of the scientific and engineering communities. The Committee greatly appreciates the thoughtful advice and suggestions that it has received. However, the conclusions and recommendations that follow are those of the Committee on Science, Technology, and Congress and the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government and are not necessarily endorsed by the members of the Congressional Advisory Council and others here acknowledged. The Committee is indebted to the many congressional staff members who have been particularly generous with their time and effort. Their insights and suggestions were indispensable. In addition, we wish to thank our principal consultants for their excellent and substantial contributions to this report. This report could not have been completed without their dedicated efforts. Richard P. Barke, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology Richard N. Brandon, Institute for Public Policy and Management, University of Washington Robert C. Ketcham, former Chief of Staff and General Counsel, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Patricia S. Warren, Higher Education Colloquium on Science Facilities The Committee greatly appreciates the work of the consultants who prepared background papers for the Committee's use in developing this report: Joel D. Aberbach, Dan Berger, Richard N. Brandon, Marcel C. LaFollette, Paul A. Locke, David C. Mowery, Bert A. Rockman, Jeffrey K. Stine, and Patricia S. Warren. The background papers written for the Committee's first and second reports also proved helpful in preparing this document, and we thank the authors: Bruce Bimber, James D. Carroll, John W. Ellwood, Henry Eschwege, James E. Katz, Toni Marzotto, Rodney W. Nichols, Mark Schaefer, Willis H. Shapley, and Raymond E. Barber. The Committee also acknowledges the many helpful suggestions of the participants in its October 1992 conference on Science, Technology, and Congress: Richard P. Barke, Richard N. Brandon, Gary Bryner, Michael Crow, Robert Dove, Kathryn L. Edmundson, Kathy Hudson, Robert C. Ketcham, Norine Noonan, David Z. Robinson, William H. Robinson, Dan Sarewitz, James Thurber, Austin Smythe, and Patricia S. Warren. We also appreciate the assistance of Lynne P. Brown, C. Lawrence Evans, and Jeffrey D. Porro, who reviewed the document and provided thoughtful comments. We wish as well to thank Jeannette Aspden, Jesse H. Ausubel, David Z. Beckler, Bonnie Bisol Cassidy, David Z. Robinson, and Maxine Rockoff for providing many helpful suggestions. We are indebted to John A. Yahner for reviewing and revising the report and to Jeannette Aspden for editing the final document. Finally, we would like to thank A. Bryce Hoflund for assisting in preparation of the report, Bonnie Bisol Cassidy for aiding in its release and distribution, and Alexandra M. Field for her assistance during its early stages of development. We are particularly grateful to the staff of the Committee on Science, Technology, and Congress: Mark Schaefer, Senior Staff Associate[#] Kathryn L. Edmundson, Assistant to John Brademas Christina E. Halvorson, Program Assistant Endnotes [*] Through 102nd Congress. [+] Deceased July 1993. [#] Through June 1993. 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY From the everyday to the extraordinary, scientific and technological breakthroughs have changed our lives dramatically in a short period of time. From the environment to foreign affairs, employment to education, transportation to health care, the issues that shape our lives are influenced by science and technology policy. Congress has been and will continue to be involved in formulating that policy; in doing so, Congress faces enormous challenges. In a time of scarce fiscal resources, Congress must decide among conflicting priorities and sort through contradictory advice. How much money should go to AIDS research versus cancer research? In a post-Cold War world how should Department of Energy National Laboratories be converted to civilian use? Should Congress continue to fund the space station? How can technology help in hazardous waste cleanup, pollution prevention, and energy efficiency? These important issues arise at a time when the American public is well aware of the many successes of science and technology, from laser surgery to space probes. It is also aware of failures, from Three-Mile Island to the lost Mars Observer. Past optimism has been tempered with skepticism. A blind faith in scientific progress has been replaced by a watchful eye. With the information age upon us, the first lanes of an "information superhighway" have already opened. The President and many Members of Congress receive hundreds of electronic mail messages every day. The nation's largest cable company and one of the largest telephone companies have proposed a merger to create a high-tech communications system of integrated voice, video, and computer services, raising concerns in Congress over antitrust issues. Disturbing images from around the globe are instantly accessible on television, affecting the debate about our foreign policy toward, for example, Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti. Disturbing images are also common on children's television programs, affecting the way young people think and act. In the information age, Congress faces difficult decisions about regulations, censorship, cost, quality, equity, and access. The only constant is rapid change. With both the scope and pace of change increasing exponentially, it is now more important than ever for Congress to equip itself to make wise choices. In some cases, the questions could not be more difficult: scientific advances have raised life-and-death issues, from genetic engineering to euthanasia. When it comes to science and technology policy, Congress is not well organized to address the broad spectrum of challenging issues it must face. In this report, the Commission offers suggestions for improving the way Congress formulates science and technology (S&T) policy. The report focuses on organizational and procedural reforms that will enable Congress to contribute more effectively to S&T policy. We are aware, however, that scientific and technological issues influence many policy debates beyond the obvious ones. In focusing on S&T policy, we also hope to illuminate other issues in need of improvement. To help Congress prepare for and manage change, the Commission makes recommendations in three areas: long-range planning and goal-setting; congressional committees, the Leadership, and oversight; and the budget process. We also examine academic earmarking as a case study illuminating the process of congressional decision making on science and technology. The controversial issue of academic earmarking offers insights into S&T policymaking in particular and congressional procedures in general. The practice illustrates tensions that have arisen between the scientific community and the federal government, between the executive branch and Congress, and in Congress between authorizing committees and appropriations committees over how to fund S&T facilities and research programs. Academic earmarking raises the most basic questions regarding national science policy: Who should decide about the distribution of federal funds for science and technology? What should be the criteria for award of those funds? And how should funds be distributed? We feel that these questions apply to other issues as well, and in that spirit offer the case study. We believe the time is right for debating and acting on S&T policy reforms for two reasons: The American people are increasingly aware of the successes -- and failures -- of science and technology; and, as the creation in 1992 of a Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress indicates, Congress seems ready for reform. 1.1 Vision, Goals, And Priorities Goals, Investment, and the S&T Base - Congress should help articulate long-term goals for S&T programs, foster a robust and resilient science and technology base as a resource for future generations, determine appropriate public investment in S&T, and promote private investment in S&T (see pages 31-32). In an era of severe resource constraints and increased international economic competition, enhancing the contributions of science and technology to our national security, economic strength, and quality of life will require careful consideration of S&T priorities in relation to societal goals. Congress plays a critical role in articulating national goals and in directing resources toward achieving them. The federal government currently spends tens of billions of dollars annually on research and development activities, many of which are closely related to national policy objectives. A clear long-term vision for science and technology policy would assist Congress in making decisions not only about S&T but also about a range of other policy areas. A National Forum on S&T Goals - Congress should enact legislation to establish an ongoing National Forum on Science and Technology Goals in order to facilitate the identification, articulation, and adoption of science and technology goals in the context of national and international objectives. Such a forum should also monitor the development and implementation of policies to achieve the agreed-upon goals. Congressional involvement in the Forum is vital to its success (see pages 32-33). An institution is needed that can communicate effectively with the federal government while retaining the independence required for objective analysis of the actions, as they relate to S&T goals, of the legislative and executive branches. A National Forum on Science and Technology Goals would bring together individuals from academia, nongovernmental organizations, industry, and the public to examine how science and technology could be used to promote national goals in such policy areas as agriculture, economic performance, education, energy, environmental protection, health, telecommunications, and transportation. The Forum should be established as a private, government-chartered entity in order to ensure its legitimacy as well as its independence from partisan influence. An act of Congress can confer such legitimacy. The S&T Community - Congress should encourage the S&T community to develop better mechanisms to consider long-range national goals, to suggest means for better use of S&T in helping to achieve national goals, and to help set priorities within and among disciplines (see page 33). Efforts by scientists to set long-range priorities for research have been sporadic, inconsistent, and limited to single disciplines. There is no established participatory or representative method for aggregating the needs and priorities of each research field or for communicating these needs and priorities to Congress. Expert Studies of Cross-Cutting Policy Issues - The congressional Leadership and their staff designees should facilitate the commissioning, by several relevant congressional committees acting jointly, of studies by the congressional support agencies of cross- cutting S&T issues, S&T funding priorities, and long-term S&T policy considerations. The findings of these studies should be reported and discussed at combined hearings of the participating committees (see pages 33-34). If, in developing and overseeing S&T policy, Members of Congress are to consider long-term issues and look beyond the borders of individual executive branch departments and agencies, they require appropriate data and policy options. The four main congressional support agencies (the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, the General Accounting Office, and the Office of Technology Assessment) should be commissioned to work together to provide such analyses. At present, the support agencies charged with providing data and analysis to Congress tend to respond to the requests of their particular client committees, which understandably place a high priority on the needs within their immediate jurisdictions. Commissioning studies by multiple committees jointly could ameliorate this problem and result in reports that address a broader range of issues. Congress and the Executive Branch - Congress and the executive branch should cooperate to create new mechanisms that would increase communication and cooperation between the branches in identifying S&T goals and monitoring progress in achieving them. Congress should work closely with established offices in the executive branch, particularly the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget in the Executive Office of the President, in defining S&T objectives in light of overall national goals (see pages 34-36). Congress and the executive branch should work together to develop a broad policy framework linking science and technology to national goals, thereby delineating the boundaries within which more specific proposals can be debated. Congress and the executive branch should institute a periodic Congressional-Executive Science and Technology Policy Conference to identify common areas of interest, develop strategies to address high- priority issues, and devise long-term legislative goals. Civilian and Military S&T - Congress should forge stronger links between civilian and military science and technology policies and programs (see pages 36-38). Roughly half of all federal spending for research and development is currently allocated to defense activities. Congressional organization reflects a divide between committees that address military and international issues and those that deal with domestic policies and civilian departments and agencies. As civilian technology replaces military technology as the vanguard of innovation in the United States, the practice of considering defense S&T policies and programs separately from civilian S&T priorities is not productive. 1.2 Committee Reform, Leadership Initiatives, And Oversight Improved Committee Structures and Relationships - Congress should adopt a committee structure that promotes more consistent formulation, funding, implementation, and oversight of science and technology policies and programs (see pages 41-45). The structure of Congress militates against consideration and development of coherent science and technology policies. The existing authorizing and appropriations jurisdictions for science and technology are not only cumbersome but, for authorizing committees, also vary substantially between the House and the Senate. For example, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has no Senate counterpart and must deal chiefly with four Senate committees. Moreover, responsibility for funding science and technology activities is divided among nine appropriations subcommittees (eight of which fund civilian S&T activities, and one of which focuses on defense). Encroachments of committee jurisdiction originally justified as responses to extraordinary circumstances have become routine. Consequently, authorizing committees, which focus on programmatic legislation and oversight, have lost power to appropriations committees, which center on fiscal issues. Incomplete information and inadequate awareness of broader concerns sometimes result in the multiple committees and subcommittees of Congress working at cross-purposes. S&T Subcommittee Consolidation - Congress should modify appropriations committee jurisdictions to reduce the multiplicity of appropriations subcommittees responsible for funding science and technology activities (see page 45). To facilitate coherent policymaking for science and technology issues, Congress should consolidate responsibility for related S&T programs into fewer appropriations subcommittees. Currently, eight of the thirteen appropriations subcommittees consider civilian S&T activities. (One subcommittee focuses on defense.) Reducing the number of subcommittees considering civilian S&T would give a few appropriations subcommittees sufficient jurisdiction to address cross-cutting issues, facilitating priority setting and allowing Members to consider such S&T funding in a broader policy context. The Role of the Leadership of Congress - Congress should enforce existing rules regarding the division of responsibility among all committees, and the Leadership should exert authority to that end (see pages 45-47). With respect to the delineation of authority between authorizing and appropriations committees, the gap between principle and practice has become considerable. Both House and Senate rules require that an authorization bill be passed first, then funds appropriated according to the guidance given in the authorizing legislation. House rules prohibit consideration of an appropriations bill that has not been authorized; Senate rules are not so strict. To work, rules must be enforced; however, these rules are frequently waived or ignored. Tensions between authorizing committees and appropriations committees often result. (These tensions can be seen at work in the debate over earmarking, discussed in Chapter 5.) The Leadership has a key role to play in enforcing existing rules. - The Leadership of Congress should schedule periodic floor debate on S&T policy (see page 47). Several commissions and experts on Congress have recommended that the congressional Leadership schedule periodic floor debates on major national issues, such as health policy, education policy, environmental policy -- or S&T policy. If a debate on science and technology policy is to receive the serious attention of Members, it must be linked to specific major issues on the legislative agenda. - The legislative agenda is devised in an informal, private manner by the Leadership of Congress. The Leadership should create intercommittee task forces to address cross-cutting science and technology issues. The Leadership should also make better use of existing authority to coordinate activities by arranging time-limited, joint or sequential referrals of bills involving cross-cutting S&T issues, and by creating ad hoc task forces of committee chairs or their designees to facilitate integrated consideration of such issues (see pages 47-48). The members of the Leadership meet with committee chairs and Members in private to discuss priorities. These discussions involve a mixture of substantive and political concerns, reflecting ties to constituencies and the views of the executive branch, committee chairs, and Members. The Leadership has considerable authority to promote coordination, for example by creating ad hoc task forces to deal with such complex cross-cutting issues as energy policy, environmental policy, health policy, and defense- civilian industrial conversion. The Leadership has also arranged time- limited, joint or sequential referral of bills affecting the jurisdiction of multiple committees. Oversight - Congressional Leadership and committees should enhance their efforts to develop comprehensive, long-term oversight plans to complement the short-term oversight agendas of individual committees. Congressional support agencies should also be involved in the development of such long- range oversight plans (see pages 49-50). Long-term concerns and issues that cut across departments, agencies, programs, and congressional committees have in general received little attention from Congress. Partly because most S&T oversight takes place in reauthorization hearings and is thus linked to specific pieces of legislation, Congress typically focuses its S&T oversight activities on narrowly defined, often short-term, issues rather than engaging in broad, long-term review of S&T programs. Congress must frequently respond to unanticipated issues and oversee the resolution of emerging problems; however, near-term demands should not distract attention from long-term concerns. Measuring Programs and Progress - Congress should require federal departments and agencies to develop consistent operational definitions, accounting procedures, data, and progress indicators for S&T programs so that both Congress and the executive branch can measure progress and perform oversight more effectively (see page 50). Congress and the executive branch should convene working groups of key staff of S&T-relevant congressional committees and executive branch departments and agencies to develop consistent operational definitions and accounting procedures and to oversee the application of policies and processes. These groups should develop criteria for, among other things, "basic" and "applied" research, development, facilities and instrumentation, evaluation, and multiyear grants and contracts. 1.3 The Budget Process, Multiyear Funding, And Funding Categories Multiyear Funding - Congress should extend program and project funding cycles for S&T programs by adopting a variety of multiyear funding mechanisms, such as multiyear appropriations, advanced or forward funding, and up-front funding for major construction projects. All such programs should adopt standardized granting and accounting procedures (see pages 54-56). Although Congress does not have a consistent system for making funds available to the executive branch on a multiyear basis, some congressional committees, departments, and agencies have developed mechanisms to make funds available on a multiyear basis for programs, grants, and contracts. Multiyear funding is intended to provide increased program stability while maintaining annual oversight. Multiyear funding can also improve the cost- effectiveness of programs. A Pilot Program for Biennial Budgeting - Congress should create a pilot program to determine the effectiveness of a two-year congressional budget cycle. Such a pilot program could be conducted for a few federal departments and agencies, for a subset of authorizing committees and appropriations subcommittees, or for a selection of programs from each department or agency. In order for its efficacy to be assessed accurately, the pilot program should run for at least two two-year budget cycles (see page 56). Time pressures associated with the current annual budget cycle have generated support among Members for shifting to biennial congressional budgets. Vice President Gore's National Performance Review report recommended that Congress establish biennial budget resolutions, biennial appropriations, and multiyear authorizations. We agree with the goal of biennial budgets but feel that a pilot program would serve as the appropriate first step to reach that goal. There are several ways to organize a biennial budget cycle. In a "split- session" model, budget activities -- that is, budget resolution, reconciliation, and appropriations -- would be compressed into one year, leaving an entire year free for authorizations and oversight. In a "stretched-session" model, the present annual budget process would be spread over two years, allowing more time for authorizations and oversight. Another possible approach involves devoting half of each two-year Congress to passing two-year budget resolutions, authorizations, and appropriations and the other half to conducting policy oversight. Funding Categories - Congress and the executive branch should develop an accurate and consistent set of funding categories that would carry through all stages of the budget process and would reflect the decisions Congress must make about science and technology and other critical policy areas. These consistent categories must begin with the "supercategories" used to set the parameters for budget planning and continue through the budget resolution to the committee and subcommittee allocations that are critical for detailed decision making (see pages 57-62). Several structural problems in congressional decision making can be addressed by establishing an appropriate and consistent set of budget categories. The "supercategories" used to set the broad parameters for budgetary decisions submerge S&T within a catchall category of "domestic discretionary" spending. This category does not reflect the importance of national goals, nor does it allow knowledgeable people responsible for S&T policy to have a seat at the bargaining table. The categories designed to facilitate the debate on budget priorities and those used to enforce actual spending limits are so inconsistent as to render the debate meaningless. The inability to carry through broad policy decisions on overall S&T investments is frustrating to Members of Congress as well as to the scientific and engineering communities. The inconsistency of the budget categories is compounded by the fact that until the process has been completed, S&T spending is not tracked to see whether the broad decisions about national priorities made in the early stages of the budget process are reflected in specific agency appropriations at the end of the process. 1.4 A Case Study: Academic Earmarking The controversial issue of congressional earmarking for research facilities and programs offers an informative case study of S&T policymaking in particular and of congressional procedures in general. The practice illustrates tensions that have arisen between the scientific community and the federal government, between the executive branch and Congress, and within Congress between the authorization and appropriation committees over how to fund S&T facilities and research programs. Academic earmarking raises basic questions regarding national science policy: Who should decide about the distribution of federal funds for science and technology? What should be the criteria for awarding these funds? How should funds be distributed? We feel that these questions have a wider relevance, and that the lessons of this case study may thus be applicable to other areas of federal expenditure. Chapter 5 offers a detailed examination of this issue and offers some specific recommendations. 2.0 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND CONGRESS: WHAT IS AT STAKE? There must be science in government, because science dominates society. -- Justice Felix Frankfurter Many of the great issues that Congress now faces -- enhancing international economic competitiveness, protecting the environment, safeguarding human health, improving education, and ensuring national security -- share a common dimension: Their solution will depend in large part on advances in and effective use of science and technology. In these and other policy areas, science and technology support the missions of government departments and agencies rather than compete with these missions for limited resources. Indeed, this report is an investigation of how that support can be organized and used more effectively rather than a plea for more science and technology funding from Congress. Congress is a key player in many matters affecting science and technology in the United States. Members of Congress must select among major S&T investments; they must determine how to undertake large-scale, expensive projects without sacrificing the creative base of small, investigator- initiated research projects or frontier-area science; and they must sort out the competing and complementary roles of different agencies in such areas as biotechnology and dual-use (civilian and military) technologies. Members must also determine the balance of funding among investment in basic science (fundamental, theoretical research); infrastructure (laboratories and equipment as well as teaching and training); and applied science (which includes not only the development of commercial products and processes but also educational, medical, environmental, and military missions). Congress also influences science and technology in deciding between national and international approaches and between competition and cooperation on expensive cutting-edge projects. [2] When Congress considers funding for scientific activities, Members hear from a wide variety of interests: scientists at large research universities in small states as well as researchers at small colleges in large states, molecular biologists and ecologists, Nobel prize winners and postdoctoral researchers, advocates of "Big Science" (such as the space station or the Superconducting Super Collider) and proponents of "little science" (small research grants), and many others. Congress also receives appeals for funds for the science and technology programs that support missions of federal departments and agencies, such as education, health care, or space exploration. Moreover, Members must consider not only calls for investment in science and technology but requests for increased funding for pressing social concerns as well. Unfortunately, the ways in which the Senate and House of Representatives are organized and do business sometimes prevent Congress from forming effective partnerships with the executive branch and with the scientific and engineering communities to develop and implement coherent policies for science and technology. In our conversations with Members of Congress and their staffs, we found that the division of authority within each chamber, including authority with respect to the S&T policy process, is a major source of frustration. Responsibility for authorizing, funding, and overseeing science and technology activities is divided among at least eighteen House and Senate committees (see Box 1) and dozens of subcommittees. Most other major policy areas, like education or health, are ordinarily dealt with by fewer committees. Thus, Members cannot easily compare S&T as a whole with these other areas. For example, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee has only limited legislative jurisdiction over research and development (R&D) activities but has broad jurisdiction over R&D oversight. This committee does not handle biomedical R&D (which is the province of the House Energy and Commerce Committee), agricultural R&D (House Agriculture Committee), fisheries and oceanic R&D (House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee), or basic research of either the Defense Department or the Department of Energy's weapons laboratories (both in the House Armed Services Committee). BOX 1: House and Senate Authorizing Committees with Significant Jurisdiction over S&T-Related Issues HOUSE SENATE Agriculture Committee Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee Armed Services Committee Armed Services Committee Education and Labor Committee Commerce, Science, and Energy and Commerce Committee Transportation Committee Judiciary Committee Judiciary Committee Merchant Marine and Fisheries Energy and Natural Resources Committee Committee Natural Resources Committee Environment and Public Works Committee Public Works and Transportation Committee Labor and Human Resources Committee Science, Space, and Technology Small Business Committee Committee Small Business Committee * * * * * 2.1 Is It Time For Change? Recent events both within and outside Congress suggest that reform is needed: - In July 1992, Members of Congress clearly demonstrated their interest in increasing the effectiveness of Congress by establishing the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress to recommend comprehensive reforms for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Over the next year, the Joint Committee, co-chaired by Sen. David L. Boren (D-Okla.) and Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), with Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) serving as vice-chairs, held hearings and developed a series of comprehensive recommendations for reform. - In the summer of 1993 the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress released its survey of House and Senate Members on various aspects of reform. Eighty-eight percent of all respondents strongly agreed that the budget process was a priority for reorganization, and 85 percent strongly agreed that committee structure and membership assignments were priorities for reorganization. [3] - In its first report, the Strengthening of America Commission, chaired by Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and Sen. Domenici, called for more integrated allocation of federal resources for research and development. [4] - A recent survey of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) found that "the vast majority of those surveyed (87 percent) believe there is a need for change within the federally funded research system; only fewer than one in ten (8 percent) think the system is fine as it is, without change." [5] We, too, think the time is right for change. 2.2 Context For Change: Separation Of Powers, Divided Government, Political Parties, And Power Of The Purse Basic to an appreciation of the American form of government and its potential for change are certain fundamental factors. First, we have a Constitution founded on the principle of separation of powers. Second, our political parties are decentralized. Third, over the past two decades, there have been significant changes in the operation of Congress that, in an already fragmented system, have further dispersed power. Any suggestions for change in congressional structures and processes for formulating S&T policy must take these factors into account, as well as the impact of enormous annual budget deficits and a national debt of some $4.5 trillion. The Constitution requires that political power in the United States be divided among three branches of government. Any changes in congressional procedures must ensure that Congress maintains its independence from the other branches, particularly the executive branch. Congress does not exist to do whatever a President wants. Presidents, Senators, and Representatives are elected by different constituencies, for differing terms, and with different constitutional responsibilities. The American way of governing was not designed for peaceful coexistence between the executive and legislative branches, even when both are controlled by the same party. Eliminating all friction and disagreement is not only an impossible goal but an imprudent one. What is necessary is an attitude of respect and trust between the President and Congress. In such an atmosphere, constructive change is possible. 2.3 The Budget Process This year marks the twentieth anniversary of the passage of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which created budget committees in both the House and Senate and established a Congressional Budget Office. The congressional budget process was designed, among other purposes, to provide a mechanism by which Congress could assess the nation's needs and consider the various parts of the budget, such as science and technology, in the context of the entire budget of the government of the United States. Because the budget process figures so prominently in any discussion of congressional reform, a brief overview of the process and the committees involved is offered here; more detail is provided in Chapter 4. (The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 amended both the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, better known as Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, but a comprehensive discussion of this legislation is beyond the scope of this report.) The framers of the Constitution gave Congress control of the purse strings. Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states, "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time." In an attempt to arrive at a "regular statement and account" of public money, and in response to the President's budget submitted at the beginning of the year, Congress employs a multitiered process involving the following kinds of committee. - Budget committees are charged with setting broad guidelines for revenue and spending each year, while considering both national economic conditions and spending priorities. - Authorizing committees are responsible, by authorizing spending, for setting broad policy parameters as well as for conducting oversight of executive branch departments, agencies, and programs. Authorizing legislation determines the scope and purpose of federal spending and recommends funding levels. Authorizations are then subject to action by the appropriations committees. - Appropriations committees make detailed determinations of the amount of funding available for each federal department, agency, and program. These committees, however, do not set the levels of "entitlement" spending (mandatory spending, such as Social Security and Medicare), which are determined by authorizing and revenue committees. Although appropriations bills are technically prohibited from including authorizing provisions, legislative "riders" on appropriations bills or language in appropriations committee reports instructing the agencies on how funds are to be spent have considerable impact on actual policies. In other cases, some authorizing legislation "entitles" classes of beneficiaries (such as individuals, firms, state or local governments, or universities) to funding in accordance with a legislative formula, and appropriations action becomes solely administrative. - Revenue committees (the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee) are responsible for any legislation that raises taxes or other broad-based forms of revenue. Major entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and child and family welfare are also under the jurisdiction of the revenue committees, as they are funded chiefly through permanent trust funds financed by broad-based taxes. Therefore, for certain major programs the revenue committees act as authorizing committees. - Process committees determine how legislation will be considered in each chamber, thereby influencing the substantive content of legislation. The House Rules Committee has a direct effect on policy by specifying what provisions may be included in a bill, whether or not a bill reaches the House floor, and what amendments will be allowed. In the Senate, on the other hand, the Rules and Administration Committee deals with general procedures and committee responsibilities and not with the consideration of specific bills. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and the House Government Operations Committee have broad mandates for oversight of executive branch activities and share jurisdiction on budget and accounting measures with the Senate and House budget committees. 2.4 Challenges And Opportunities In Science And Technology Policy Authorization of S&T programs, appropriation of funds, and oversight of executive branch activities can be complicated in a bicameral legislature with undisciplined political parties, a decentralized committee system, and Members who represent diverse constituencies. Many difficulties confront Congress as it helps shape the nation's science and technology policies. Several of these challenges underlie the problems and recommendations discussed in later chapters and should be highlighted. First, the difficulties associated with congressional S&T policymaking are not simply those of process. The lack of necessary data and analytical techniques also imposes obstacles to setting priorities. [6] Furthermore, no mechanism exists to convert complete, consistent, and accurate data about S&T expenditures, needs, and effects into a strategic plan for consideration by congressional policymakers. Also, decision makers lack methods for comparing and coordinating the requirements of the nation's scientific enterprise with other critical national needs. Second, although Congress establishes priorities every day through formal decisions and informal communications, carrying out this task usually requires two activities that are particularly difficult to harmonize for S&T policy: First, legislators must respond to demands to redress current problems, such as threats to the health of citizens or to national security; and second, legislators must prepare the nation for possible challenges by investing in future opportunities, the benefits of which may not be easy to reconcile with immediate needs. Customarily, incentives drive Members of Congress to focus more on the present than the future. In the words of James Madison, however, the purpose of government is to "refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations." Third, it is inevitable that some policy areas will overlap. The Carnegie Commission's report E^3: Organizing for Environment, Energy, and the Economy in the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government underscores this point. [7] Policies for science and technology are a fundamental component of many other policies. Advances in fields of science and technology often affect multiple policy areas; for example, developments in biotechnology may have implications for health, agricultural, and environmental policies. Problems with the congressional S&T policy process should not, however, be so overstated as to eclipse the accomplishments of Congress. The United States Senate and House of Representatives have been crucial to the many successes the United States has enjoyed in science and technology since World War II. For example, Congress played a central role in supporting the continuation of the National Energy Laboratories and the use of defense funding for basic research after the war. Congress later took the initiative in establishing the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President. The advances that have derived from a technically educated workforce, a diverse system of public and private research institutions, and a science and technology enterprise that combines public support with substantial autonomy for creative researchers have greatly enhanced the well-being of the nation. In offering our recommendations, we seek to ensure that such advances continue. 3.0 A VISION FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND CONGRESS: SETTING GOALS AND PRIORITIES In order to direct and use its research capabilities most effectively, the United States needs a long-range vision that clearly articulates goals for science and technology. [8] In an era of severe resource constraints and increased international economic competition, enhancing the contributions of science and technology to our national security, economic strength, and quality of life will require careful consideration of S&T priorities in relation to overall goals for the nation. Members of Congress, like other policymakers and policy analysts, often underestimate the degree to which the S&T enterprise serves the nation. The lack of methods for assessing past accomplishments, charting progress, and determining future directions of the enterprise contributes to this lack of understanding. 3.1 Goals, Investment, And The S&T Base - Congress should help articulate long-term goals for S&T programs, foster a robust and resilient science and technology base [9] as a resource for future generations, determine appropriate public investment in S&T, and promote private investment in S&T. [10] Congress plays a critical role in articulating national goals and in directing resources toward achieving them. The federal government spends tens of billions of dollars annually on research and development activities, many of which are driven by or will directly affect national policy objectives. Improving the congressional capacity to establish a long-term vision for science and technology could help provide direction for many of the specific decisions Congress must make. Yet the task of choosing among individual programs would remain, and fulfilling this responsibility is not simple. The essential uncertainties in science and technology about long- term possibilities, the lack of consensus on short-term goals on the part of the scientific community, and the absence of clearly articulated national long-term goals for the many missions that science and technology support make the task of selecting among programs even more difficult. There are three levels of congressional priority setting for science and technology: - S&T competes with other policy areas. (For example, because funds for both the National Science Foundation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development are appropriated by the same subcommittee, scientific research competes with, for example, housing for the homeless.) - Priorities must be set among competing S&T initiatives. (For example, the debates over the Supersonic Transport, the breeder reactor, the Superconducting Super Collider, and synthetic fuels were based, in part, on whether such programs were the wisest use of S&T funds.) - Public policies can influence priorities within S&T disciplines. (For example, the space program dramatically boosted space- related research, and President Nixon's War on Cancer channeled large sums of money to specific research programs at the National Institutes of Health.) The first two categories of priority setting clearly involve political decisions; the third often sparks conflicts between and among scientists and political leaders. Each of these decision areas involves different sets of actors, processes, and goals. Scientists and engineers generally prefer to set priorities according to the promise of scientific progress. But increasingly scientists have been asking the broad questions, such as which fields of science have important societal benefits. In contrast, policymakers, at least in recent years, typically prefer budget-conscious priority setting -- that is, allocating funding levels for missions and requiring programs to fit within those funding levels. Congress and the scientific community have different ways of establishing goals and priorities, projecting outcomes, and assessing results. There is no agreement in Congress or within the scientific community on how to combine these characteristics in the priority-setting process. It is difficult to separate the process of setting S&T priorities from the outcomes that might benefit one research institution, discipline, or constituency over another. Even when S&T policy decisions are based on objective goals, they have political consequences. 3.2 Needed: A National Forum On Science And Technology Goals - Congress should enact legislation to establish an ongoing National Forum on Science and Technology Goals in order to facilitate the identification, articulation, and adoption of science and technology goals in the context of national and international objectives. Such a forum should also monitor the development and implementation of policies to achieve the agreed- upon goals. Congressional involvement in the Forum is vital to its success. In its report Enabling the Future: Linking Science and Technology to Societal Goals, the Carnegie Commission recommended a new mechanism to help policymakers relate the goals of science and technology to national goals. The Commission found that an institution is needed that can communicate effectively with the federal government while retaining the independence required for objective analysis of the actions, as they relate to S&T goals, of the legislative and executive branches. [11] The Commission recommended the establishment of a nongovernmental National Forum on Science and Technology Goals to develop consensus on S&T goals in relation to national objectives. The National Forum would bring together individuals from academia, nongovernmental organizations, industry, and the public to examine how science and technology could be used to promote societal goals in such policy areas as agriculture, economic performance, education, energy, environmental protection, health, telecommunications, and transportation. The Forum should be established as a private, government-chartered entity in order to ensure its legitimacy as well as its independence from partisan influence. An act of Congress can confer such legitimacy. The legislative process, which includes public hearings, should ensure that all views are heard. 3.3 Congress And The S&T Community - Congress should encourage the S&T community to develop better mechanisms to consider long-range national goals, to suggest means for better use of S&T in helping to achieve national goals, and to help set priorities within and among disciplines. Scientists themselves need to take more responsibility for helping to set research priorities within and among disciplines. Although several scientific disciplines (for example, astronomy, ecology, and psychology) have addressed long-range priorities for research, these efforts, in both their criteria and time horizons, have been sporadic, inconsistent, and limited to single disciplines. Most scientific disciplines have developed internal peer-guided processes for considering priorities. There is, however, no established participatory or representative method for aggregating the needs and priorities of each research field or for communicating these needs and priorities to Congress. Consequently, certain phases of the S&T process and particular fields of research tend to attract congressional attention. [12] 3.4 Within Congress - The congressional Leadership and their staff designees should facilitate the commissioning, by several relevant congressional committees acting jointly, of studies by the congressional support agencies of cross-cutting S&T issues, S&T funding priorities, and long-term S&T policy considerations. The findings of these studies should be reported and discussed at combined hearings of the participating committees. Congress needs appropriate data and policy options if it is to consider long-term issues and look beyond the borders of individual executive branch departments and agencies. The four main congressional support agencies (the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, the General Accounting Office, and the Office of Technology Assessment) should be commissioned to work together to provide such analyses. The decentralized structure of congressional committees affects the flow of information and analysis as well as the pattern of decision making. Congressional support agencies tend to respond to particular committees as primary clients: the Congressional Budget Office to the Budget and Appropriations Committees; the General Accounting Office to the Senate Governmental Affairs and House Government Operations Committees; and the Office of Technology Assessment to certain authorizing committees. Therefore, in preparing analyses, the support agencies tend to follow closely the questions raised by their client committees rather than addressing long-term policies, funding priorities, and cross-cutting issues. (For more information on this issue, please refer to our Committee's second report, Science, Technology and Congress: Analysis and Advice from Congressional Support Agencies, October 1991.) If the advice given to Congress is narrowly focused, Members will lack the basis for broad policy initiatives. It is of particular relevance to science and technology policy that the Office of Technology Assessment has a reputation for openness and objectivity. To preserve it as a source of neutral analyses of options rather than as a proponent of recommendations, OTA should not be charged with the task of determining S&T priorities; this role clearly belongs to the committees. [13] Legislative service organizations (LSOs) are quasi-congressional entities designed to augment the information-gathering and analytic capabilities of committees and the personal offices of Members. LSOs also offer Members a mechanism for building consensus, across committee jurisdictions and party lines, for action on particular issues. In our first two reports, we recommended the establishment of a bipartisan Science and Technology Study Conference and an independent institute on science, technology, and Congress to serve as a focal point for analysis and dissemination of information on S&T-related legislative issues. [14] 3.5 Congress And The Executive Branch Efforts have been made and mechanisms devised to improve linkages within the executive branch and between the legislative and executive branches for shaping science and technology policy and relating it to broader national goals. [15] But these efforts typically have been sporadic and slow to respond to emerging problems and opportunities. [16] Policymakers in the legislative and executive branches lack a unified list of S&T programs, an agreed-upon set of progress indicators, and common analytical techniques for oversight and evaluation. - Congress and the executive branch should cooperate to create new mechanisms that would increase communication and cooperation between the branches in identifying S&T goals and monitoring progress in achieving them. Congress should work closely with established offices in the executive branch, particularly the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget in the Executive Office of the President, in the process of defining S&T objectives in light of overall national goals. Congress and the executive branch should work together to develop a broad policy framework linking science and technology to national goals, thereby delineating the boundaries within which specific proposals can be debated. Scientific progress is often unpredictable. S&T policy planning should allow a role for merit review in research program assessment and, to respond to unforeseen scientific advances, should provide flexibility in program implementation. Congress and the executive branch should institute a periodic Congressional- Executive Science and Technology Policy Conference to identify common areas of interest, develop strategies to address high-priority issues, and devise long-term legislative goals. Coordination in S&T priority-setting between Congress and the executive branch would also be enhanced if Members of Congress had a clear indication of how the President's national policy goals relate to presidential budget requests for science and technology activities. Congressional leaders should urge the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (better known as the President's science advisor), who serves simultaneously as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), to develop long-term goals for science and technology. A report accompanying the President's budget requests for S&T activities should indicate how the S&T goals relate to specific societal goals. The process of establishing long-term goals could include discussions with the National Forum on Science and Technology Goals recommended earlier in this report, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the heads of federal departments and agencies with significant S&T activities. This process should be separated from development of the annual budget. Because S&T goals should shape the S&T budget, OSTP and OMB should work together to formulate long-term S&T goals and, before the budget cycle begins, should communicate them to departments and agencies. Then OSTP and OMB should monitor progress within the departments and agencies in achieving these goals. [17] To promote debate on and evaluation of long-term societal goals, the President could submit a national goals statement to Congress every four years, including details of ways in which S&T could contribute to attaining these goals. Congress could also require executive branch departments and agencies to submit statements of long-range goals with their annual budget requests for S&T programs. The S&T-relevant committees in Congress then could hold regular hearings on long-range S&T goals and incorporate into legislation explicit statements on S&T goals and their relation to national goals. (See Box 2 for examples of major societal goals to which science and technology contribute.) BOX 2: Some Major Societal Goals to Which Science and Technology Contribute Quality of Life, Health, Human Development, and Knowledge - Education and diffusion of knowledge - Personal and public health and safety - Personal development and self-realization - Exploration and expansion of knowledge - High standard of living - Creation and maintenance of civic culture - Cultural pluralism and community harmony - Population stabilization A Resilient, Sustainable, and Competitive Economy - Economic growth - Full employment and workforce training - International competitiveness - Modernized communications and transportation - International cooperation and action Environmental Quality and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources - Worldwide sustainable development - Resource exploration, extraction, conservation, and recycling - Energy production and efficiency in use - Environmental quality and protection - Provisions for public recreation - Maintenance and enhancement of productivity of the biosphere - Maintenance of urban infrastructure - Energy security and strategic materials Personal, National, and International Security - Personal security and social justice - National and international security - Individual freedom - Worldwide human rights Source: Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, Enabling the Future: Linking Science and Technology to Societal Goals (1992), p. 24. * * * * * Cooperative efforts by Congress and the executive branch to consider long- range S&T policy goals could take several forms. Congressional leaders should invite executive branch S&T policymakers to a series of informal meetings. This mechanism for coordination has received widespread endorsement during the Commission's discussions with S&T policymakers in both branches of government. In addition, an institution outside the legislative and executive branches (but endorsed by congressional and White House leadership) -- an "honest broker" such as a nongovernmental organization -- should invite leaders from both branches to a series of informal meetings to discuss long-range S&T policy goals. These meetings could be similar to the annual Administration of Justice seminars hosted by the Brookings Institution that are designed to improve, through informal, off-the-record discussions, communication among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Participants would learn more about the responsibilities and capabilities of their counterparts in the other branch. These meetings would not be intended to produce a common policy statement, but rather to allow sharing of perspectives and concerns about current and emerging S&T issues. The Commission also encourages congressional leaders to arrange staff exchanges between Congress and the executive branch for six-month and one- year periods. Such exchanges would help each branch understand the responsibilities and limitations of the other and would allow staff members to develop contacts in the other branch. These exchanges should enable congressional staff to spend time in departments and agencies as well as executive branch staff to spend time in congressional offices. Congress should specifically allocate funds to committees for such exchanges. Similarly, staff-to-staff working groups should be established at both the senior and junior (working expert) levels in key S&T areas. In a recent report, the National Academy of Public Administration endorsed the creation of such groups to facilitate interbranch communications. [18] Key interest areas could be identified at the proposed annual Congressional-Executive Science and Technology Policy Conference. These topics would form the basis for discussions about new ways to apply science and technology to the policy missions of particular agencies and departments. 3.6 Civilian And Military S&T - Congress should forge stronger links between civilian and military science and technology policies and programs. Roughly half of all federal spending for research and development is currently allocated to defense activities. Congressional organization reflects a divide between committees that address military and international issues and those that deal with domestic policies and civilian departments and agencies. In recent years, the division of responsibilities among committees has been reinforced by separate spending caps for domestic, military, and international appropriations. As civilian technology succeeds military technology in the vanguard of innovation in the United States, this practice of considering defense S&T policies and programs separately from civilian S&T priorities is not productive. Important issues must be explored: for example, it is not clear how reducing defense program contributions to educational institutions will affect the nation's science and technology base and the quality of scientific and technical personnel in the long term. Limited steps, such as the formation in the Senate of an ad hoc task force, have been taken to forge closer links between civilian and military S&T policy. The Leadership of Congress should encourage more extensive collaboration among civilian and defense S&T authorizing committees and appropriations subcommittees. Key issues ripe for joint consideration include dual-use technologies, the roles of the national laboratories and the Advanced Research Projects Agency, nuclear materials production and hazardous waste disposal, and conversion of the economic-technological infrastructure in light of the changed international environment (see, for example, the Carnegie Commission report New Thinking and American Defense Technology [19]). As part of the process of consolidating congressional consideration of civilian and military S&T priorities, Congress should work with the Department of Defense, the Office of Management and Budget, and other relevant agencies to develop consistent operational definitions, accounting procedures, data, and progress indicators for the Department of Defense and the civilian departments and agencies with related S&T jurisdictions. 4.0 COMMITTEE REFORM, LEADERSHIP INITIATIVES, AND OVERSIGHT The Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, co-chaired by Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) and Sen. David L. Boren (D-Okla.), has been a forum for considering changes in the structure and operations of Congress. The activities of the Joint Committee have also included consideration of the way congressional committee organization, the congressional Leadership, and oversight can affect science and technology policy. We are aware that informal practices and relationships among Members may be as important in Congress as any formal organization or procedure. The recommendations we make, therefore, also require changes in behavior on the part of the Leadership and other Members of Congress. 4.1 Less Is More For Members A cursory glance at the daily schedule of any Member of the House or Senate reveals a simple yet serious problem -- too many tasks, too little time. No one can be in six places at once. In testimony before the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, co- directors of the Renewing Congress Project, outlined four major elements that should guide any attempt at committee reform. We focus on the first two. As Mann and Ornstein advised the Joint Committee in their testimony: First, you should reduce the sizes of committees, the number of slots for committees and subcommittees, and the assignments held by each member. Second, you should reduce the number of committees, and consolidate and partially realign committee jurisdictions, to highlight important emerging policy areas and create a better balance in the workload and attractiveness among standing committees. [20] As Mann and Ornstein pointed out, in 1992 the average number of committee and subcommittee assignments for each Member in the House was 7.2; each Senator had an average of 11 such assignments. [21] With so many assignments, it is difficult, if not impossible, for Members to give each task the time and attention it deserves. 4.2 Committee Coherence The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and many evaluations of Congress are based on a model that assumes a fixed sequence of action, namely from budget resolution to authorizing legislation to appropriations bill. But this model is overly simplistic. All congressional committees are continually engaged in both formal and informal reviews of policies and developments within their general jurisdictions. Each committee also exerts influence on the legislation of other committees. Although this structure may not be especially neat and orderly, it reflects both the American constitutional system and political reality. Not surprisingly, the resulting overlap and interaction often lead to conflict and delays. Rather than trying to enforce an overly simplistic sequencing of events, congressional structures and procedures should encourage both a clear division of responsibility and better communication among committees sharing jurisdiction over various S&T issues. The structure of Congress militates against consideration and development of coherent science and technology policies. Not only are the existing authorizing committee and appropriations subcommittee jurisdictions for science and technology cumbersome, but, for authorizing committees, they also vary substantially between the House and the Senate. For example, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has no Senate counterpart and must deal primarily with four Senate committees. Moreover, on the House and Senate appropriations committees, responsibility for funding science and technology activities is divided among nine subcommittees. - Congress should adopt a committee structure that promotes more consistent formulation, funding, implementation, and oversight of science and technology policies and programs. Encroachments of committee jurisdiction originally justified as a response to extraordinary circumstances have become routine. The result has been to deprive Congress as a whole of the proper balance of power between the authorizing committees, which focus on programmatic legislation and oversight, and the appropriations committees, which concentrate on financial issues. Incomplete information and inadequate awareness of broader concerns sometimes result in the multiple committees and subcommittees of Congress working at cross-purposes. The Example of the Executive Branch There is no congressional organizational structure parallel to that of the executive branch, where the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) seek to coordinate policy across the different departments and agencies. Although Congress mandated coordination for S&T in the executive branch, it has not coordinated its own consideration of S&T policy. The relationships between the Executive Office of the President (OSTP and OMB) and the departments and agencies were carefully designed to balance the need for coordination with the desire to avoid overcentralization. The various committees and subcommittees of Congress parallel the department and agency structure, but there is no "single ear" to receive the unified S&T policy messages enunciated by OSTP and OMB. Nor is there a method of processing such messages and converting them into coherent legislative policy. The budget committees play this role in examining broad ranges of spending policy for all federal activities and relating them to national economic concerns. The nearest counterpart for S&T policy is the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, with its special responsibilities, granted under House rules, for oversight of all research and development activities. Vice President Gore's National Performance Review report recommended reconstituting the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET) as the National Science and Technology Council, and giving it a "broader role in setting science and technology policy." The report noted, "A new National Science and Technology Council would direct science and technology policy more forcefully, and would streamline the White House's advisory apparatus by combining the functions of FCCSET, the National Space Council, and the National Critical Materials Council." [22] That President Clinton has accepted this recommendation and will himself chair the new council indicates the great importance the present Administration assigns to science and technology policy. We believe that Congress should make similar improvements in its organizational structure. Overlap and Delay The current structure of budget committees, authorizing committees, and appropriations committees has led to overlap of responsibility and authority, thereby delaying congressional action. Moreover, when several committees consider similar issues several times each session, the result is often conflicting policy signals to the executive branch. For S&T policy, the conflicts between authorizing committees and appropriations committees in setting policy are compounded by the multiplicity of executive branch departments and agencies and congressional committees involved in major S&T issues. Among the recommendations considered by the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress was that the House and Senate have parallel committee jurisdictions (in the Joint Committee poll of House and Senate Members, 77 percent of all respondents strongly favored such a proposal [23]). Establishing such a parallel structure for science and technology issues in the two chambers would greatly enhance the ability of Congress to consider S&T policy rationally; it would also remove some of the obstacles that overlapping jurisdictions currently place in the path of legislation and oversight. Differences between House and Senate jurisdictions over S&T activities have often diluted responsibility for science and technology policy. For example, some initiatives within the jurisdiction of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee have been referred to multiple committees in the Senate, impeding consideration of S&T policies in a coordinated manner. By the same token, a bill emerging from a single Senate committee may become difficult to manage when it is referred to four or five committees in the House. In the case of nuclear waste legislation in the 102nd Congress, for instance, a bill drawn up by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources was referred to four House Committees -- the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the Armed Services Committee, and the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee We recognize that this recommendation would require one or both houses to realign jurisdictions for the authorization of S&T programs. At present, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee has limited legislative jurisdiction over R&D activities. The committee does not handle biomedical R&D (which is in the House Energy and Commerce Committee), agricultural R&D (House Agriculture Committee), fisheries and oceans R&D (House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee), or basic research of the Defense Department and of weapons laboratories of the Department of Energy (House Armed Services Committee). Despite these limitations on its legislative jurisdiction, the committee has, as mentioned above, responsibility for oversight of all R&D activities. The House Science, Space and Technology Committee has long sought to improve the planning and coordination of science and technology in the United States. In 1976, under the chairmanship of Olin E. Teague (D-Tex.), the Committee developed legislation that created the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President. The Director of OSTP was authorized to advise the President on S&T issues, including related budget matters; to evaluate the scale, quality, and effectiveness of the federal S&T effort; to assist OMB with its annual review of S&T in the budget; and to provide leadership and coordination for federal research and development programs. The act also created the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology to coordinate the activities of federal R&D agencies in meeting national objectives. In 1993, through the special R&D oversight responsibilities of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, the Subcommittee on Science, under the chairmanship of Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), initiated a comprehensive review of research in the United States. The series of hearings, entitled "Setting Priorities in Science," had three objectives: to assess the current process for setting priorities in the federal funding of research, including the roles and responsibilities of the research community, the executive branch, and Congress; to identify areas where the process needs improvement; and to make practical recommendations for improving the priority-setting process. Senate Committee Jurisdictions Committee jurisdictions in the Senate reflect a 1981 reorganization that reduced the number of committees and combined space and technology with commerce, fisheries, and oceans (creating the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee); energy R&D with energy and natural resources (the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee); environmental, water, and transportation R&D with public works (the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee); and biomedical R&D with education and labor (the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee). Parallel Jurisdiction and Other Reforms Although overall jurisdictional realignment of committees is beyond the purview of this report, concrete examples of functional areas where congressional committees have parallel jurisdictions include the Committees on Agriculture, Appropriations, Armed Services, and Veterans Affairs. The existence of parallel committees in the House and Senate has permitted those committees to take a broad view of policy issues, knowing that their counterparts will base their decisions on access to the same set of facts or arguments. If the jurisdictions for authorizing science and technology programs were parallel, or at least more clearly defined, the legislative agenda would be less likely to be delayed or diverted by competing committee interests. Modifying House rules to provide for cross-membership among different committees dealing with related aspects of S&T should be considered. In the Senate, such cross-membership between authorizing committees and appropriations committees serves two useful functions. First, it ensures that, when a committee considers a cross-cutting issue, at least one member will be familiar with the other committee's perspective; cross-membership can also provide specialized knowledge of the subject matter. Second, this arrangement provides an early-warning system to alert committees of potential legislative conflicts. For example, cross-membership between the Ways and Means Committee and authorizing committees could facilitate the consideration of tax, regulatory, and expenditure methods of implementing policy. We do not have a preference for either the present House arrangement, where a significant portion (but not all) of S&T jurisdiction resides in a single committee, or the Senate approach, which gives S&T jurisdiction to committees with responsibilities for programs in such diverse areas as human resources or public works. Compelling arguments can be made in favor of either jurisdictional alignment -- or of a new arrangement. No matter what approach is eventually chosen, we emphasize the importance of parallel jurisdictions in the House and Senate. 4.3 S&T Subcommittee Consolidation - Congress should modify appropriations committee jurisdictions to reduce the multiplicity of appropriations subcommittees responsible for funding science and technology activities. To facilitate coherent policymaking for science and technology issues, Congress should consolidate responsibility for related S&T programs into fewer appropriations subcommittees. Currently, nine of the thirteen appropriations subcommittees consider S&T-related spending, with one subcommittee responsible for funding defense-related activities and eight subcommittees covering civilian S&T efforts. Reducing the number of subcommittees considering civilian S&T would facilitate priority setting and allow Members to consider such S&T funding in a broader context. [24] Box 3 shows the current distribution of S&T programs among appropriations subcommittees. Some examples of duplication are clear. The Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Subcommittee considers nutrition research by the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration in the Department of Health and Human Services. Similar and related research at the National Institutes of Health falls under the jurisdiction of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (Labor/HHS) Subcommittee. BOX 3: House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees with Significant Jurisdiction over S&T-Related Issues S&T-related jurisdiction: departments and independent agencies (major S&T agencies, Appropriations subcommittees programs, or research areas) Commerce, Justice, State, Department of Commerce (Economic the Judiciary and Related Development Administration, Agencies (House); Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Justice, State and Judiciary Technology, National Oceanic and (Senate) Atmospheric Administration, National Technical Information Service, National Telecommunications and Information Administration) Defense (both) Department of Defense (defense R&D) Energy and Water Development (both) Department of Energy (energy R&D, except fossil energy R&D, clean coal technology, energy conservation, and alternative fuels production) Interior (House); Interior and Department of Interior (U.S. Related Agencies (Senate) Geological Survey, Bureau of Mines, Fish and Wildlife Service); Department of Energy (fossil energy R&D, clean coal technology, energy conservation, and alternative fuels production) Labor, Health and Human Services Department of Health and Human and Education (both) Services (Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, Health Care Financing Administration); Department of Education (Office of Educational Research and Improvement); Department of Labor (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Bureau of Labor Statistics) Rural Development, Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies (House); (Agricultural Research Service, Agriculture, Rural Development Cooperative State Research Service, and Related Agencies (Senate) nutrition research); Food and Drug Administration (in Department of Health and Human Services) Transportation (both) Department of Transportation (Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) Treasury -- Postal Service and Executive Office of the President General Government (House); (Office of Management and Budget, Treasury, Postal Service and Office of Federal Procurement General Government (Senate) Policy) Veterans Affairs, Housing and Environmental Protection Agency, Urban Development and Independent National Aeronautics and Space Agencies (both) Administration, National Science Foundation, Office of Science and Technology Policy * * * * * Jurisdiction over funding environmental research is divided among several appropriations subcommittees, depending on which executive branch department or agency conducts the research. The Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee considers activities of the Environmental Protection Agency; the Labor/HHS Subcommittee considers research conducted by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; and the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Subcommittee considers the environmental research activities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. 4.4 The Role Of The Leadership - Congress should strengthen existing rules to enforce the division of responsibility among committees, and the Leadership should exert authority to that end. With respect to the delineation of authority between authorizing and appropriations committees, the gap between principle and practice has become considerable. In theory, Congress first approves an authorization and then appropriates funds. House rules (clause 2 of House Rule XXI) prohibit consideration of an appropriations bill that has not been authorized. Senate rules are not so strict. Both House and Senate rules restrict legislating on appropriations bills. However, to work, rules must be enforced. All these rules can be, and frequently are, waived or ignored, and tensions between authorizing committees and appropriations committees are often the result. (We discuss this matter in more detail in the case study of earmarking in Chapter 5.) The Leadership has a key role to play in enforcing existing rules, thereby lessening the gap between principle and practice with respect to the functions of authorizing committees and appropriations committees. (The Leadership of Congress is generally understood to comprise, in the Senate, the Majority Leader, the Assistant Majority Leader, the Democratic Conference Secretary, the Minority Leader, the Minority Whip, and the Republican Conference Chairman. In the House, the Speaker, the Majority Leader, the Majority Whip, the Democratic Caucus Chairman, the Minority Leader, the Minority Whip, and the Republican Conference Chairman constitute the Leadership.) - The Leadership of Congress should schedule periodic floor debate on S&T policy. Several commissions and experts on Congress have recommended that the congressional Leadership schedule periodic floor debates on major national issues, such as health policy, education policy, environmental policy -- and S&T policy. Such floor debates were recommended most recently by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein in the first of their Renewing Congress reports. [25] A model for this proposal may be found in the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, which requires that a portion of the debate on the annual budget resolution be devoted to a discussion of the conditions of employment and related national policies. If a debate on science and technology policy is to receive the serious attention of Members, it too must be linked to specific major issues on the legislative agenda. - The legislative agenda is devised in an informal, private manner by the Leadership of Congress. As part of those discussions, the Leadership should create intercommittee task forces to address cross-cutting science and technology issues. The Leadership should also make better use of existing authority to coordinate activities by arranging time-limited, joint or sequential referrals of bills involving cross-cutting S&T issues, and by creating ad hoc task forces of committee chairs or their designees to facilitate integrated consideration of such issues. The members of the Leadership meet with committee chairs and Members in private to discuss priorities. These discussions involve a mixture of substantive and political concerns, reflecting ties to constituencies and the views of the executive branch, committee chairs, and Members. The Leadership has considerable authority to facilitate coordinated action and has sometimes used that authority constructively. For example, it has created ad hoc task forces to deal with such complex, cross-cutting issues as energy policy, environmental policy, health policy, and defense-civilian industrial conversion. The Leadership has also arranged time-limited joint or sequential referral of bills affecting the jurisdiction of multiple committees. Joint referral means that a legislative proposal is assigned to more than one committee for consideration at the same time; in sequential referral, a bill is also referred to more than one committee, but sequentially rather than simultaneously. Ordinarily, each bill is considered by only one committee. We believe that the Majority and Minority Leadership in the House and Senate should more frequently coordinate the activities of different committees to help develop coherent science and technology policy and to respond to cross-cutting, multiagency proposals from the executive branch. A particular effort should be made to link civilian and military aspects of science and technology policy. As a pilot effort, civilian and military authorizing committees and appropriations subcommittees could be assigned joint jurisdiction over a clearly defined set of activities, such as, for example, the Department of Energy's national laboratories. Such a process would permit science and technology issues to be considered within a unified framework, with comparable concepts, standards, and procedures. During the past several years, the Subcommittee on Science of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee and several subcommittees of the House Agriculture Committee have held joint hearings on the adequacy of nutrition monitoring by the federal government. One result of these hearings is the Nutrition Monitoring Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-445), and after years of disagreement the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services are now cooperating in implementing this act. In another area, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee have been working together to reduce the human suffering and property damage from earthquakes. The two committees share jurisdiction over the agencies that fund earthquake research: the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological survey. The resulting research programs have helped improve techniques to predict and prepare for earthquakes. 4.5 Oversight Of S&T Policies And Programs Congressional oversight -- the congressional review of the actions of federal departments and agencies and of the policies and programs they administer -- has increased significantly since the 1960s, [26] when oversight was described as "Congress's neglected function." [27] Public policy experts credit this increase in oversight to several factors. After a relative abundance of federal funds for programs during the 1960s, resources became more constrained, and, in the 1970s, public resentment of "big government" rose. As a result, there were more incentives to perform oversight as Members sought new ways, without expending significant resources, to shape policy, make existing programs more effective, and satisfy public concerns about fiscal responsibility, safety, and government efficiency. [28] Like congressional oversight in other policy areas, oversight of federal S&T-related departments, agencies, programs, and policies has increased over the past two decades. Because of the relatively short authorization cycle typical of most S&T programs, committees make frequent use of reauthorization hearings to conduct oversight. One student of the process found that science and technology committees devoted almost twice as much time to oversight activities in the early 1980s as in the 1960s. [29] Oversight has become more prevalent during the past decade. [30] Although S&T oversight as a whole has expanded in recent years, congressional attention has not focused evenly across the range of science and technology agencies, programs, and issues. Certain high-profile departments and agencies, such as the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, tend to remain highly visible on the oversight agenda from year to year. Meanwhile, many important issues, such as research infrastructure needs and the quality of scientific training, have received less attention. [31] Long-term concerns and issues that cut across departments, agencies, programs, and congressional committees have typically commanded little scrutiny from Congress. Partly because most S&T oversight takes place in reauthorization hearings and is thus linked to specific pieces of legislation, Congress typically focuses its S&T oversight activities on narrowly defined, often short-term, issues rather than engaging in broad, long-term review of S&T programs. Other S&T oversight is crisis-driven, such as the investigation of the space shuttle Challenger explosion; although such scrutiny is a central part of effective oversight, it should not replace consideration of broader or longer-term issues, such as progress in achieving goals in U.S. space research. Congressional oversight of federal S&T programs tends to be inconsistent across departments, agencies, and programs. In addition, Congress typically focuses its oversight activities on specific, short-term issues linked to authorization concerns rather than devoting significant attention to broad policy issues and assessing long-term progress in achieving statutory goals. - Congressional Leadership should encourage committees to develop comprehensive, long-term oversight plans that would complement their short-term oversight agendas. Congressional support agencies should also be involved in the development of such long- range oversight plans. A considerable proportion of the oversight agendas of congressional committees is determined by relatively short-term concerns. This approach is appropriate because Congress must frequently respond to unanticipated issues and oversee the resolution of emerging problems. However, more specific near-term oversight activities should not supplant broad, long- term concerns such as assessing progress in achieving major statutory objectives, correcting fundamental program weaknesses, and identifying emerging issues that may need congressional attention. - Congress should require federal departments and agencies to develop consistent operational definitions, accounting procedures, data, and progress indicators for S&T programs so that both Congress and the executive branch can measure progress and perform oversight more effectively. Congress and the executive branch should convene working groups of key staff of S&T-relevant congressional committees and executive branch departments and agencies to develop consistent operational definitions and accounting procedures and to oversee the application of policies and processes. These groups should develop criteria for, among other things, "basic" and "applied" research, development, facilities and instrumentation, evaluation, and multiyear grants and contracts. The groups should also work to improve methods for categorizing expenditures that overlap policy areas, departments, or agencies. [32] 5.0 THE BUDGET PROCESS: S&T PRIORITIES AND MULTIYEAR FUNDING The current congressional budget process was created with the passage of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act in 1974. The process was designed to provide a vehicle for an annual debate in Congress on national spending priorities and to enable Congress to participate in establishing national macroeconomic policy by voting on the aggregate levels of spending, revenues, deficit, and debt each year. The budget process has undergone several revisions since 1974, through codification of the budget reconciliation process and adoption of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (better known as Gramm-Rudman- Hollings [33]) and the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. (See Box 4 for definitions of terms used in this chapter.) BOX 4: Federal Budget Terminology Allocation: The process under Section 602 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (and under Section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) by which the total spending authority approved in the budget resolution is divided among appropriations committees and subcommittees in the House and Senate: 602(a) allocations, formerly 302(a), grant spending authority to the appropriations committees; 602(b) allocations, formerly 302(b), divide funds among the 13 subcommittees of the appropriations committees in the House and Senate. Budget authority: The authority granted by Congress in legislation that allows federal agencies to incur financial obligations. Budget resolution: A concurrent resolution passed by the House and Senate (but not requiring the signature of the President) that establishes the levels of spending, revenues (taxes), and allowable deficit for a given fiscal year. The resolution may include a reconciliation section instructing authorizing committees to propose changes in existing laws to achieve prescribed spending and revenue levels. Caps: Legal limits on the budget authority and outlays for discretionary appropriations categories for each fiscal year. A sequester is required if appropriations exceed the caps. Discretionary appropriations: Expenditures controlled by the annual appropriations process rather than by direct, or mandatory, spending (also known as "entitlements"). Through fiscal year 1993, discretionary appropriations were divided among the following categories: defense, international, or domestic. Separate spending limits (caps) were set for each category. For fiscal years 1994 and 1995, all discretionary appropriations constitute a single category, with a single cap. Reconciliation: The process, initiated in the budget resolution, of instructing authorizing committees to recommend changes in existing revenue or spending laws to conform to spending, revenue, and deficit limits established in the budget resolution. The resulting legislation is typically packaged into a single reconciliation bill that must be passed by both houses of Congress and, unlike the budget resolution, be signed into law by the President. Sequester: An across-the-board cut ordered by the President for discretionary spending, direct spending, or both, if the Office of Management and Budget determines that spending or revenue legislation would exceed spending caps, deficit targets, or pay-as-you-go requirements established under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. Sources: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1994 (U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1993); Budget Systems and Concepts of the United States Government (U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1993); and Stanley Bach, An Introduction to the Spending and Budget Process in Congress (Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, August 29, 1984). * * * * * In addition to creating the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 linked, for the first time, revenue-generating measures with spending levels and explicit levels of deficit and debt. The successive modifications of the legislation enhanced the ability of Congress to control spending and enact comprehensive deficit reduction packages. However, the frequent addition of new measures to control spending without the elimination of previous methods has made the budget process increasingly complex and time-consuming. Under the current budget system, Congress begins action on the budget early in the year with consideration of the budget resolution, but budget work continues until the end of the year, as appropriations bills (or continuing resolutions) must be passed before Congress adjourns. The Gramm-Rudman- Hollings "sequestration" procedure requires across-the-board spending reductions at the end of the congressional session if the projected deficit or discretionary spending totals exceed specified levels. Although formal Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deadlines call for early legislative action to set spending levels, the sequester has become a perverse mechanism because final spending and deficit projections are not available until autumn, thus creating a strong incentive to delay making difficult funding decisions until late in the legislative session. 5.1 Effects Of Current System On S&T Programs Gramm-Rudman-Hollings divides spending into direct, or mandatory, spending (also referred to as "entitlements") and discretionary appropriations. Almost all S&T spending falls within the discretionary category (decided annually in appropriations bills), which under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings is subject to annual spending caps and sequesters (sequesters can apply to mandatory spending as well, but they are less common than sequesters of discretionary spending). Although Gramm-Rudman-Hollings has adverse impacts in other policy areas, science and technology spending is disproportionately affected because the bulk of such spending, in contrast to expenditures in many other policy areas, is discretionary rather than mandatory. For example, most health services are funded through mandatory spending, but funding for most health research is discretionary. The current annual budget process -- which compresses budget resolution, authorization, and appropriations into a single year -- is not an efficient or effective way to fund federal S&T programs, or, indeed, other programs. The complexity of the process, the blurring of roles among various participating committees, and the need to focus on the annual deficit have reduced congressional attention to long-term S&T policy considerations. Because of the annual budget limits placed on federal departments and agencies, commitments are extremely difficult to secure for long-term projects or programs. Budgetary uncertainty leads to planning inefficiency. Use of multiyear appropriations would help to overcome the arbitrary annual review cycle, which distorts planning timelines for any long-term effort like research. It is difficult for government to send clear messages to those receiving funding in universities or private research establishments when funding levels and policy directives are in a state of nearly continual revision. We draw attention to the impact of the current budget process on science and technology as illustrative; obviously, the current budget process results in similar difficulties in other program areas as well. Many of the recommendations we propose for improving the budget process for science and technology activities also apply to congressional organization and funding practices in other policy areas. 5.2 Multiyear Funding - Congress should extend program and project funding cycles for S&T programs by adopting a variety of multiyear funding mechanisms, such as multiyear appropriations, advanced or forward funding, and up-front funding for major construction projects. All such programs should adopt standardized granting and accounting procedures. Although Congress does not have a consistent system for making funds available to the executive branch on a multiyear basis, some congressional committees, departments, and agencies have developed ad hoc mechanisms to make funds available on such a basis for programs, grants, and contracts. Multiyear funding mechanisms are designed to provide increased program stability while maintaining annual oversight. Multiyear funding can also improve cost-effectiveness of programs by increasing managerial flexibility with regard to the timing of expenditures rather than fixing program expenses to an annual budget cycle. For R&D programs currently receiving multiyear funding, a joint effort involving congressional staff from the responsible committees, department and agency project officers, and representatives of the Office of Management and Budget should be convened to develop standardized granting and accounting procedures. Conducting such an effort on a multiagency basis and including knowledgeable staff from both Congress and the executive branch would make the effort more likely to result in the adoption of a generally applicable set of procedures, since the various stakeholders would have participated in developing the accounting procedures. Several mechanisms can be used to make funds available to programs on a multiyear basis. With a rolling multiyear appropriation, funds are appropriated annually but for several years ahead. For example, to maintain fiscal control and annual oversight while providing funding stability, Congress uses a rolling three-year appropriation to fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Congress should consider adopting a consistent method of making multiyear appropriations to agencies and should require agencies to utilize similar multiyear methods when issuing grants and contracts. A congressional-executive working group should develop the appropriate standards. Advanced, or forward, funding provides funds annually, but one year in advance of actual expenditures. For example, most federal elementary and secondary education funds are allocated in this manner, allowing states and school districts to plan their expenditures before the start of the school year. With up-front funding, funds for an entire project are appropriated in a single year. Major construction projects, particularly those that use technology that is well-developed (in contrast to experimental technologies), are an area where this type of multiyear funding can be effectively utilized. This mechanism was used to pay for the replacement Space Shuttle orbiter and is often employed in procurement of other large items, such as aircraft carriers. Where up-front funding has been used, the flexibility in planning and purchasing afforded by having the full amount of funds available at the start of a project has typically enabled program managers to improve performance and save money. For projects in areas in which technology is less certain or is changing rapidly, another approach, known as "milestone funding," whereby Congress can approve up to five years of program funding in advance, should be considered. Certain steps are spelled out in the authorization process, and money is provided for each of those major steps. For example, in 1988 and 1989 the Secretary of Defense requested milestone funding for three programs: the Trident II D-5 missile system, the Army's mobile subscriber equipment system, and the medium launch vehicle system. [34] Like up-front funding, milestone funding can also increase program stability and efficiency. Making a large-scale shift to multiyear funding would require the one-time use of a special funding mechanism known as a "fenced allocation" [35] to assure that the one-time increase in budget authority necessary for the shift to multiyear funding is, in fact, used for multiyear funding rather than to pay for something else. The budget resolution would make the increased funding available to the appropriations committees only when they report bills containing multiyear funding. Use of this approach requires concurrence among the budget committees, appropriations committees, and the Office of Management and Budget in the Executive Office of the President. 5.3 The Two-Year Budget - Congress should create a pilot program to determine the effectiveness of a two-year congressional budget cycle. Such a pilot program could be conducted for a few federal departments and agencies, for a subset of authorizing committees and appropriations subcommittees, or for a selection of programs from each department and agency. For its efficacy to be assessed accurately, the pilot program should run for at least two two- year budget cycles. Time pressures associated with the current annual budget cycle have generated support among Members for shifting to biennial congressional budgets. Vice President Gore's National Performance Review report recommended that Congress establish biennial budget resolutions, biennial appropriations, and multiyear authorizations. [36] We agree with the goal of biennial budgets, but we feel the appropriate first step toward that goal would be a pilot program. There are several ways to organize a biennial budget cycle. In a "split- sessions" model, budget activities -- that is, budget resolution, reconciliation, and appropriations -- would be compressed into one year, leaving an entire year free for authorizations and oversight. In a "stretched session" model, the present annual budget process would be spread over two years, allowing more time for authorizations and oversight. [37] Another possible approach involves devoting half of each two-year Congress to passing two-year budget resolutions, authorizations, and appropriations and the other half to conducting policy oversight. Many observers have noted that two-year budgeting does not automatically produce better oversight, that supplemental appropriations may be used to respond annually to changing national needs or emergencies, and that some states have abandoned biennial budgeting as too rigid. [38] Nevertheless, we believe that it would be useful to develop a pilot program for biennial budgeting, without expecting it to be a panacea for all the ills of the budget process. Alternatively, as previously noted, without changing the entire budget cycle to a two-year basis, some of the desired results can be achieved by various multiyear appropriation mechanisms. [39] Some technical adjustments would obviously be necessary for a shift to biennial budgeting. [40] A working group of committee members and staff within Congress should be convened by the congressional Leadership to develop appropriate procedures, to work with the executive branch departments and agencies, and to monitor the pilot program. An independent organization should be commissioned to provide an evaluation of the pilot program; the organization should conduct interviews with participants from both the legislative and executive branches and with recipients of federal funds who are intended to benefit from the changes. 5.4 Budget Categories For More Effective Policymaking - Congress and the executive branch should develop an accurate and consistent set of funding categories that would carry through all stages of the budget process and would reflect the decisions Congress must make about science and technology and other critical policy areas. These consistent categories must begin with the "supercategories" used to set the parameters for budget planning and continue through the budget resolution to the committee and subcommittee allocations that are critical for detailed decision making. Three structural problems in congressional decision making can be addressed by establishing an appropriate and consistent set of budget categories: - The "supercategories" used to set the broad parameters for budgetary decisions submerge S&T within a catchall category of "domestic discretionary" spending. This category does not reflect the importance of national S&T goals, nor does it allow knowledgeable people responsible for S&T policy to have a place at the bargaining table. - The categories used to debate national priorities and those used to enforce actual spending limits are so inconsistent as to render such debate meaningless. The inability to carry through broad policy decisions on overall S&T investments is frustrating to Members of Congress and to the S&T community. - The inconsistency of the categories is compounded by the fact that until the process has been completed, S&T spending is not tracked to see whether broad decisions about national priorities made in the early stages of the budget process are reflected in specific agency appropriations at the end of the process. In the early 1980s, when federal budget decisions moved to the center of the legislative process, the following set of categories was adopted for considering the dimensions of budget plans: - Revenues - Entitlement spending - Discretionary appropriations, consisting of national defense, foreign affairs, and nondefense (domestic) These budget categories reflect two considerations: budget enforcement mechanisms (including distinctions between discretionary spending and mandatory spending, or "entitlements") and the major policy debates of the 1980s, in which issues of military policy and foreign economic and military assistance often overshadowed domestic affairs. There is no category at any stage of the budget process that shows Congress, the executive branch, and the public the total investment in science and technology and the S&T components contributed by the different mission agencies. Nor is there any way of correlating tax incentives with investments in S&T. The current budget categories are no longer relevant for the policy debates of the twenty-first century, but they have become enshrined through long usage and are reflected in the basic information on the budget provided by the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget. In addition to affecting how policymakers think about the budget, the present categories determine who is included in the discussion. Congressional and executive officials responsible for the military, for foreign affairs, for taxes, and for entitlement programs are included in budget summits and in informal leadership discussions preceding development of the congressional budget resolution. Because all domestic appropriations -- including education, science and technology, health, transportation, environmental protection, energy, public works, housing, and law enforcement -- are lumped together, only those officials with overall responsibility for discretionary appropriations come to the table. In the executive branch, this arrangement means that the Director of OMB attends budget summits but that the Director of OSTP does not. In Congress, the chairs of the full House and Senate Appropriations Committees and the chairs of the defense and foreign affairs appropriations subcommittees are involved, but not, for example, the chairs of the authorizing committees and appropriations subcommittees responsible for education or for science and technology. Congress should adopt a new set of budget "supercategories" that both reflect a more even distribution of funds among the several categories and highlight the issues of national policy that will determine the nation's economic and social well-being in the coming decades. "Education, Science, and Technology" should be one of those categories. These components are combined for two reasons. First, they are inextricably linked in determining the nation's knowledge base. Second, together they add up to a sufficiently large category for macrobudgeting purposes. 5.5 Linking Policy Debate To Actual Policy Decisions The budget resolution is intended to serve as the vehicle for an annual public debate on national priorities, allowing Congress to decide whether overall spending for such major missions as education, environment, energy, health, science and technology, and transportation should be increased or decreased. After the broad outline of a budget plan is developed by examining the relationship among the various "budget supercategories" and determining the acceptable level of deficit, the spending totals are translated into the functional categories of the budget resolution. This resolution is then considered by the budget committees, which report allocations of budget authority to the full House and Senate. The full Congress expresses its will by considering amendments to change the functional allocations of the budget resolution. This process makes it virtually impossible to have a policy debate about overall S&T funding or the specific funding priorities within S&T for two reasons: first, S&T contributes to several budget functions in addition to the "General Science, Space, and Technology" category (budget function 250); and, second, even if such programs as health research (in budget function 550), agricultural research (in budget function 350), energy research (in budget function 270), and environmental researc