Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                       Calendar No. 607
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     106-310
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                   THE NEXT GENERATION INTERNET 2000

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

           COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                                    on

                                S. 2046




                                     

                 June 16, 2000.--Ordered to be printed
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                       one hundred sixth congress

                             second session

                     JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman

TED STEVENS, Alaska                  ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana                DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
SLADE GORTON, Washington             JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West 
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi              Virginia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
OLYMPIA SNOWE, Maine                 JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri              RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
BILL FRIST, Tennessee                BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan            RON WYDEN, Oregon
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                MAX CLELAND, Georgia

                       Mark Buse, Staff Director

                  Martha P. Allbright, General Counsel

               Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director

                  Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel

                Gregg Elias, Democratic General Counsel

                                  (ii)
                                                       Calendar No. 607
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     106-310

======================================================================



 
                      THE NEXT GENERATION INTERNET

                                _______
                                

                 June 16, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

       Mr. McCain, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                Transportation, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 2046]

    The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 
which was referred the bill (S. 2046) ``A bill to reauthorize 
the Next Generation Internet Act, and for other purposes'', 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute and recommends that the 
bill, as amended, do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

  The purpose of the bill, as reported, is to authorize 
appropriations for the Large Scale Networking (LSN) programs, 
including the Next Generation Internet (NGI) programs, and to 
provide for the continuation of the Federal investment in 
civilian research and development (R&D;) in a fiscally 
sustainable way.

                          Background and Needs

  Technical innovation is a driving force behind the Nation's 
long-term economic growth and rising standard of living. 
Federal investments in R&D; have resulted in enormous financial 
and employment growth of the private and public sectors. 
Studies show that 50 percent of all post-World War II economic 
growth is a direct result of technological innovation.
  Since the 1960's, trends in R&D; funding have paralleled those 
of overall discretionary spending. Thus, Federal investment in 
R&D; has expanded by slow, steady growth. However, increasing 
mandatory spending levels have begun to constrain discretionary 
spending and to decrease fiscal flexibility for those programs. 
As the discretionary portion of the budget declines and 
spending caps continue to be imposed, R&D; programs will compete 
increasingly with funding for public infrastructure, housing, 
social services, education, transportation, and military 
operations. While Federal R&D; funding has increased in constant 
dollars from a peak in 1968, outlays have decreased from about 
11 percent of the total budget in 1966, during the buildup for 
the space program, to less than 3 percent today. As a 
proportion of total discretionary spending, outlays for both 
Federal civilian and defense R&D; have decreased from 16 percent 
in 1966 to about 13 percent today. Budget trends continue to 
demonstrate preferences for selective increases in the funding 
of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National 
Science Foundation (NSF), with constant dollar decreases in 
many other areas.
  The United States leads the world in developing and applying 
information and communications technologies. This leadership 
stems from its investments in Federal R&D.; Without these 
investments, crucial technologies are at stake, which could 
determine our nation's ability to sustain its economic well-
being, to compete successfully in the global marketplace, to 
maintain world leadership in basic and applied scientific 
research, and to preserve national security.
  The use of computers and the Internet is rapidly becoming an 
important component of America's economic and social 
infrastructure. Within the next two decades, the Internet will 
have penetrated more deeply into our society than the 
telephone, radio, television, transportation, and electronic 
power distribution networks have today. As we come to rely on 
the Internet everyday, for uses such as conducting billions of 
electronic financial transactions and delivering of goods and 
services, this information infrastructure becomes even more 
critical to our national economy.
  The NGI program was first proposed by President Clinton in 
his fiscal year (FY) 1998 budget request. The program was 
designed to advance the existing state of the Internet, improve 
university research capabilities, and assist Federal agencies 
in achieving their missions. NGI is a multi-agency R&D; program 
designed to develop a coordinated set of technologies to create 
a network infrastructure supporting speed, robustness, and 
flexibility beyond what is available in the current 
implementation of the Internet. Six agencies participated in 
the original initiative including the Department of Defense 
(DOD), the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST), NIH through the National 
Library of Medicine (NLM), and NSF.
  A follow-on component to NGI is the multi-agency LSN program. 
This program invests in research to develop tools and 
techniques to enable the Internet to grow in scale to increase 
the number of systems, devices, and people connected to it and 
to improve the quality and richness of services available to 
people. As a result, the Internet will become more reliable, 
faster, and secure, as well as supporting continuous access to 
information and services regardless of the individual's 
location. Federal LSN R&D; also includes traditional research to 
support agency mission requirements and the NGI initiative.
  NGI and LSN are only a part of the overall Federal investment 
in information technology research. The $2.3 billion 
Administration request for FY 2001 for this overall effort is 
36 percent more than the FY 2000 level. The request also 
formally merges the FY 2000 Information Technology for the 21st 
Century (IT2) initiative and the 10 year old High Performance 
Computing and Communications initiative. Of the total 
investment for information technology, the Administration is 
requesting $342.5 million to fund NGI and LSN in FY 2001.

                             program issues

  Considerable concern has surfaced during the past five years 
regarding the balance of the Federal research portfolio. 
Because of the interdependent nature of the scientific and 
engineering disciplines, Congress should strive to ensure that 
the portfolio is well-balanced among the various fundamental 
disciplines, and geographically dispersed throughout the United 
States. The Committee believes that this integrated approach 
will lead to revolutionary advances in science, medicine, and 
technology.
  In the review of the first two years of NGI, the President's 
Information Technology Advisory Committee recommended that the 
program should continue to focus on the utility of NGI's 
gigabit bandwidth to end-users, its increased security, and its 
expanded quality of service. More importantly, the committee 
stated that no Federal program specifically addresses the 
geographical penalty issue, the imposition of costs on users of 
the Internet in rural or other locations that are 
disproportionately greater than the costs imposed on users in 
locations closer to high populations. S. 2046 was drafted to 
address the geographical penalty dilemma. The reported bill 
would set aside 10 percent of the total amounts authorized to 
be made available to fund research grants for making high-speed 
connectivity more accessible to users in geographically-remote 
areas. In addition, the bill would set aside 5 percent of NGI 
funding for minority-serving institutions and small colleges 
and universities.

                          Legislative History

  In 1998, Senators Frist and Rockefeller introduced 
authorizing legislation to fund NGI for fiscal years 1998, 
1999, and 2000. The NGI program was established in the Next 
Generation Internet Investment Act (Public Law 105-305), which 
was signed into law on October 28, 1998.
  On February 8, 2000, Senators Frist and Rockefeller 
introduced S. 2046, the ``Next Generation Internet 2000'' Act. 
The bill is cosponsored by Senators Roberts, Breaux, Abraham, 
Hollings, Lieberman, and Kerry.
  On March 1, 2000, the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, 
and Space conducted a hearing on the Next Generation Internet. 
Witnesses included Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director, National 
Science Foundation; Dr. Neal Lane, Assistant to the President 
for Science and Technology and Director, Office of Science and 
Technology Policy; Dr. Donald A.B. Lindberg, Director, National 
Library of Medicine; Dr. Thomas Carter Meredith, Chancellor, 
The University of Alabama System; Dr. Bill Stacy, Chancellor, 
University of Tennessee Chattanooga; and Mr. Stephen Tolbert, 
President and CEO, Global Systems & Strategies, Inc.
  On April 13, 2000, the Commerce Committee in open session 
considered S. 2046 as introduced by Senator Frist and, without 
objection, ordered S. 2046, with an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute, to be reported.
  The Federal Research Investment Act, Title II of the reported 
bill, is identical to legislation which was reported favorably 
by the Senate Commerce Committee on March 5, 1999 in open 
executive session. That legislation further passed the Senate 
by unanimous consent on July 26, 1999.

                            Estimated Costs

  In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the 
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office:

S. 2046--A bill to reauthorize the Next Generation Internet Act, and 
        for other purposes

    Summary: S. 2046 would authorize funds to be appropriated 
over a multiyear period for certain research and development 
(R&D;) activities. The bill contains both specific and general 
authorizations. Title I would extend the authorization for 
research on large-scale computing, including the Next 
Generation Internet (NGI) program, through 2003. That 
authorization specifies a total of $1.1 billion that may be 
appropriated to nine agencies for such purposes over the three-
year period. Title II would establish an annual lump-sum 
authorization for nondefense R&D; at 15 agencies, beginning with 
a total of $39.8 billion in 2000 and increasing by 5.5 percent 
a year for the following 10 years. Instead of authorizing 
separate amounts for individual agencies or programs, title II 
would allow these aggregate amounts to be distributed according 
to guidelines in the bill. Finally, the bill includes 
directives regarding the evaluation of R&D; programs and studies 
to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing the bill would cost a total of 
$193.7 billion over the 2000-2005 period and an additional 
$344.8 billion after 2005. The bill would not affect direct 
spending or receipt; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would 
not apply.
    S. 2046 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no 
costs on state, local, or tribal governments. S. 2046 would 
impose a private-sector mandate, as defined by UMRA, on the 
National Academy of Sciences. The direct costs of the mandate 
would be well below the threshold established by UMRA for 
private-sector mandates ($109 million in 2000, adjusted 
annually for inflation).
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of S. 2046 is shown in Table 1. The costs of 
this legislation fall within budget functions 050 (national 
defense), 250 (general science, space, and technology), 300 
(natural resources and the environment), 350 (agriculture), 370 
(commerce and housing credit), 400 (transportation), 500 
(education, training, employment, and social services), 550 
(health), and 700 (veterans benefits and services).

                                 TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY IMPACT OF S. 2046
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              2000     2001     2002     2003     2004     2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

R&D; Spending Under Current Law:
    Budget Authority \1\..................................   39,915        0        0        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.....................................   38,811   22,286    5,750    2,299      738       83
Proposed Changes:
    Estimated Authorization Level.........................    (\2\)   42,326   44,654   47,104   49,290   52,000
    Budget Outlays........................................        0   18,066   36,864   42,652   46,527   49,590
R&D; Spending Under S. 2046:
    Estimated Authorization Level \1\.....................   39,915   42,326   44,654   47,104   49,290   52,000
    Estimated Outlays.....................................   38,811   40,352   42,614   44,951   47,265   49,673
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2000 level is based on the Office of Management and Budget's estimate of the funding for R&D; activities
  at the affected agencies for that year. The 2000 total includes $325 million for R&D; at the Department of
  Transportation that was provided as contract authority (a form of direct spending).
\2\ The $39,790 million authorized in title II for civilian R&D; for fiscal year 2000 would be $75 million less
  than the amount appropriated for R&D; at the designated agencies for that year. For purposes of this estimate,
  CBO assumes that enacting this bill would have no effect on current-year appropriations.

    Basis of estimate: CBO estimates that S. 2046 would 
authorize the appropriation of a total of $235.4 billion over 
the 2001-2005 period, of which $1.1 billion would be authorized 
specifically for NGI activities in title I and $234.3 billion 
for R&D; at the agencies specified in title II. In addition, the 
bill would authorize a total of $306 billion for R&D; for fiscal 
years 2006 through 2010. Based on information from the NAS, we 
estimate that the two studies required by the bill would cost 
about $1 million.
    CBO assumes that the authorized amounts will be 
appropriated for each year and allocated among agencies and 
programs according to the current distribution of funding for 
civilian R&D; programs at the designed agencies. Table 2 shows 
the fiscal year 2000 funding levels for R&D; activities at the 
15 agencies covered by title II. These data suggest that the 
rate of spending for the bill's lump-sum authorization levels 
would largely be determined by the activities of the National 
Institutes of Health, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, the Department of Energy, and the National 
Science Foundation. The authorization provided in title I would 
fund activities at eight of the agencies covered by title II as 
well as the Department of Defense, the National Security 
Agency, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Table 2.--Estimated fiscal year 2000 budget authority for R&D; activities 
authorized by title II of S. 2046

                          [Millions of dollars]

National Institutes of Health.................................    17,141
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.................     9,753
Department of Energy (civilian R&D;)...........................     3,816
National Science Foundation...................................     2,903
Department of Agriculture.....................................     1,773
Veterans Administration.......................................       655
Environmental Protection Agency...............................       648
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration...............       591
Department of Transportation..................................       585
Department of the Interior....................................       584
Centers for Disease Control...................................       477
National Institute of Standards and Technology................       458
Department of Education.......................................       233
Food and Drug Administration..................................       135
Smithsonian Institution.......................................       113
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................    39,865

    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: 
S. 2046 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments. Currently, about $15.5 billion of the research and 
development budgets of the agencies affected by this bill goes 
to academic institutions, including public universities.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: S. 2046 would 
impose a private-sector mandate, as defined by UMRA, on the 
National Academy of Sciences.
    The bill would require the National Academy of Sciences, a 
nonprofit institution, to conduct a study to determine ``the 
extent to which the Internet backbone and network 
infrastructure contribute to the uneven ability to access to 
Internet-related technologies and services by rural and low-
income Americans.'' According to the National Academy of 
Sciences, the cost of undertaking the study would be about 
$400,000. Thus, the direct cost of the mandate would be well 
below the annual threshold established by UMRA for private-
sector mandates ($109 million in 2000, adjusted annually for 
inflation). S. 2046 would also authorize appropriations to 
cover the costs of preparing that study.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Kathleen Gramp; Impact 
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Victoria Heid Hall; 
and Impact on the Private Sector: Jean Wooster.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

  In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the 
legislation, as reported:
  Because S. 2046, as reported, does not create any new 
programs, the legislation will have no additional regulatory 
impact. The legislation will have no further effect on the 
number or types of individuals and businesses regulated, the 
economic impact of such regulation, the personal privacy of 
affected individuals, or the paperwork required from such 
individuals and businesses.

                       Number of Persons Covered

  S. 2046, as reported, authorizes appropriations for the Next 
Generation Internet 2000 Act for FY 2001, 2002, and 2003, and 
authorizes appropriations to continue the Federal investment in 
civilian R&D; for FY 2000 through 2010.

                            economic impact

  This legislation will not have an adverse economic impact on 
the Nation. The Act authorizes funding to ensure sustained 
levels of federally-funded scientific, medical, and pre- 
competitive engineering research over an 11 year period. In 
addition, the bill requires the OMB Director to submit an 
annual report to Congress outlining federally-funded program 
activities which do not meet acceptable Government Performance 
Results Act (GPRA) criteria. This action will provide oversight 
of agency programs and promote more cost- effective use of 
Federal funds.

                                privacy

  This legislation would not have an adverse impact on personal 
privacy of individuals.

                               Paperwork

  This legislation contains five Federal reporting 
requirements: (1) the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is 
authorized to transmit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation and the House Committee on Science 
a study that examines the extent to which the Internet backbone 
and network infrastructure contribute to the uneven ability to 
access Internet-related technologies and services by rural and 
low-income Americans; (2) the President is authorized to 
include in his annual budget request to Congress a report 
detailing the total level of funding for R&D; programs 
throughout all civilian agencies, outlining the 
Administration's strategy for meeting Congressional funding 
targets through 2010; (3) the Director of the Office of Science 
and Technology Policy, in consultation with the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is authorized to 
contract with NAS for a comprehensive study to be submitted to 
OMB and to Congress on methods for evaluating federally-funded 
R&D; programs; (4) the OMB Director is authorized to identify 
the civilian R&D; program activities which do not meet the 
criteria defined in GPRA in an annual report to the President 
and to Congress; and (5) the head of an agency whose program 
activities do not meet the GPRA criteria for two years is 
authorized to submit to Congress a strategic plan for bringing 
the program into compliance or terminating it, including any 
necessary legislative changes.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


                 Title I--The Next Generation Internet

Section 101. Short title

  This section cites the short title of Title I of the reported 
bill as the ``Next Generation Internet 2000''.

Sec. 102. Findings

  This section of the reported bill outlines findings regarding 
Internet and networking technologies. The findings state that 
although the U.S. investment in science and technology has 
yielded unprecedented economic growth and international 
technological dominance, the Internet is at a pivotal point in 
its history. Promising applications in medicine, environmental 
science, and other disciplines are presently constrained by the 
Internet's capacity and capabilities. Thus, there is a critical 
need for increased network performance and management.

Sec. 103. Purposes

  The purpose of Title I of the reported bill is to authorize 
funding for the LSN programs, including the NGI programs, which 
focus on R&D; for advanced networking technologies and promote 
connectivity and interoperability among advanced computer 
networks of Federal agencies.

Sec. 104. Authorization of appropriations

  This section would authorize appropriations for each Federal 
agency participating in the LSN programs, including the NGI 
programs, the following amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Agency                FY 2001       FY 2002       FY 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency for Healthcare Research    $7,400,000    $7,800,000    $8,200,000
 and Quality
DOD                              $70,300,000   $74,200,000   $78,300,000
DOE                              $32,000,000   $33,800,000   $35,700,000
NASA                             $19,500,000   $20,600,000   $21,700,000
NIH                              $96,000,000  $101,300,000  $106,300,000
NIST                              $4,200,000    $4,400,000    $4,600,000
National Oceanic and              $2,700,000    $2,900,000    $3,100,000
 Atmospheric Administration
National Security Agency          $1,900,000    $2,000,000    $2,100,000
NSF                             $111,200,000  $117,300,000  $123,800,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 105. Rural infrastructure
  As reported, this section would apportion no less than 10 
percent of the total amounts authorized in this bill to be made 
available to fund research grants for making high-speed 
connectivity more accessible to users in geographically-remote 
areas. The administering agency would give priority to 
qualified, post-secondary educational institutions that 
participate in the Experimental Program to Stimulate 
Competitive Research.
Sec. 106. Minority and small colleges
  This section would set aside no less than 5 percent of the 
total amounts authorized in the reported bill to be made 
available through merit-based and peer-reviewed research grants 
to institutions of higher education that are Hispanic-serving, 
Native American, Native Hawaiian, Native Alaskan, Historically 
Black, or small colleges and universities.
Sec. 107. Digital divide study
  This section of the reported bill would authorize a study to 
be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences to determine 
the extent to which the Internet backbone and network 
infrastructure contribute to uneven access to Internet-related 
technologies and services by rural and low-income Americans. 
The study would be transmitted to the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the House of 
Representatives Committee on Science within 1 year after the 
date of enactment of this legislation. Such sums as may be 
necessary to complete the study would be authorized to be 
appropriated to the National Academy of Sciences.

             Title II--The Federal Research Investment Act

Sec. 201. Short title
  This section cites the short title of Title II of the 
reported bill as the ``Federal Research Investment Act.''
Sec. 202. General findings regarding federal investment in research
  This section of the reported bill outlines key findings 
regarding the value of R&D; to the United States and the status 
of the Federal R&D; investment. The findings state that current 
projections for Federal research funding show a downward trend. 
This trend reflects the confluence of increased national 
dependency on technology, increased targets of opportunity, and 
decreased flexibility in apportioning dwindling discretionary 
funds. Indicators show that more funding for science, 
engineering, and technology is needed, but, even with increased 
funding, priorities must be established among different 
programs.
Sec. 203. Special findings regarding health-related research
  This section of the reported bill emphasizes specific 
observations regarding the economic benefits of health-related 
research. It recognizes the current Congressional support for 
increased funding in the near-term and stresses potential 
difficulty in fully achieving this investment in health 
research if other fields of science and engineering are not 
properly preserved.
Sec. 204. Additional findings regarding the link between the research 
        process and useful technology
  This section of the reported bill highlights four major 
observations: (1) the current flow of science, engineering, and 
technology from early stages of research through pre-
commercialization should be less discrete and better 
coordinated; (2) the relationship between Federal research and 
education should be expanded to include geographically-diverse 
states, primary and secondary educational institutions, and the 
community college system; (3) the United States should 
encourage research opportunities for interdisciplinary projects 
that foster collaboration among fields of research; and (4) 
partnerships among industry, universities, and Federal 
laboratories should be optimized.
Sec. 205. Maintenance of federal research effort; guiding principles
  This section of the reported bill outlines four guiding 
principles for maintenance of Federal research efforts. First, 
Federal programs must be focused, peer-reviewed, merit-based, 
and not unnecessarily duplicative. They must address both 
knowledge-driven and mission-driven scientific requirements. 
The second principle guiding the maintenance of Federal 
research efforts requires programs to be fiscally accountable. 
Congress must exercise oversight to ensure that programs funded 
with scarce Federal dollars are properly managed. Third, 
government programs must have measurable results, and the 
effectiveness of these programs in achieving their goals must 
be evaluated. Fourth, selection of programs for Federal funding 
must balance the Nation's two traditional priorities: (1) basic 
scientific and technological research that represents an 
investment in the Nation's long-term scientific and 
technological capacity; and (2) mission-related research that 
derives from necessary public functions such as defense, 
health, education, and environmental protection. Because 
government investments should not compete nor displace short-
term, market-driven private-sector funding, they should be 
restricted to pre-competitive activities rather than commercial 
technologies.
Sec. 206. Policy statement
  Subsection (a) of this section of the reported bill states 
the overall goal of Title II is to assure a base level of 
Federal funding for basic, scientific, biomedical, and 
precompetitive engineering research, with this base level 
defined as a doubling of Federal basic research funding over 
the 11-year period following the date of enactment of this Act.
  Subsection (b) identifies the agencies and trust 
instrumentality covered by the authorizations in the bill as: 
NIH, NSF, NIST, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, Centers for Disease Control, DOE, Department of 
Transportation, the Smithsonian Institution, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture, Department of 
Interior, Food and Drug Administration, and Department of 
Veterans Affairs. The Committee intends that the programs of 
these agencies and trust instrumentality be covered only to the 
extent that such programs involve activities that support basic 
scientific, medical, or pre-competitive engineering research.
  Subsection (c) discusses historic investment trends and 
potential damage to the U.S. research infrastructure from 
continued inadequate funding levels.
  Subsection (d) authorizes the following aggregate 
appropriation levels for civilian R&D; for FY 2000 through FY 
2010:
          (1) $39.79 billion for FY 2000;
          (2) $41.98 billion for FY 2001;
          (3) $44.29 billion for FY 2002;
          (4) $46.72 billion for FY 2003;
          (5) $49.29 billion for FY 2004;
          (6) $52.00 billion for FY 2005;
          (7) $54.86 billion for FY 2006;
          (8) $57.88 billion for FY 2007;
          (9) $61.07 billion for FY 2008;
          (10) $64.42 billion for FY 2009; and
          (11) $67.97 billion for FY 2010.
  Subsection (d) also creates an exclusionary clause whereby 
any agency in the reported bill included under subsection (b), 
which increases its R&D; funding by more than 8 percent over the 
amount appropriated for its R&D; in the preceding fiscal year, 
shall be removed from the total fiscal year authorization in 
subsection (d) until that agency's annualized appropriation 
meets or falls below the aggregate 5.5 percent target for 
increased funding under the Act.
  Subsection (e) requires that no funds be made available under 
the bill in a manner that does not conform with the 
discretionary spending caps provided in the most recently 
adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
  Subsection (f) calls for the aggregate funding levels 
authorized by section 5 to be balanced among various scientific 
and engineering disciplines and geographically dispersed 
throughout the states.
Sec. 207. President's annual budget request
  This section of the reported bill requires the President, as 
part of the annual budget request process, to submit a report 
on implementation of the commitment to support Federally-funded 
R&D.; The report must provide: (1) a detailed summary of the 
total level of funding for R&D; programs throughout civilian 
agencies; (2) a focused strategy reflecting annual funding 
projections for R&D; through FY 2010; (3) an analysis of funding 
levels across Federal agencies by methodology of funding, 
including grant agreements, procurement contracts, and 
cooperative agreements; and (4) specific proposals to improve 
R&D; infrastructure and capacity in States with less 
concentrated R&D; resources in order to create a nationwide R&D; 
community.
Sec. 208. Comprehensive accountability study for federally-funded 
        research
  Subsection (a) of this section of the reported bill requires 
the Director of OSTP, in consultation with the Director of OMB, 
to contract with the NAS for a comprehensive study. The goal of 
the study is to develop methods for evaluating Federally-funded 
R&D; programs by: (1) describing the research process in various 
scientific and engineering disciplines; (2) examining the 
measures and criteria employed by each discipline to evaluate 
the success or failure of a program both for exploratory long-
range work and short-term goals; and (3) recommending how these 
measures may be adapted for use by federally-funded R&D; 
programs.
  This subsection also calls for the study to assess the extent 
to which agencies incorporate independent merit-based review 
into the formulation of strategic plans, as well as the 
quantity and quality of this type of input. The NAS would 
evaluate mechanisms for identifying poorly performing programs 
and the extent to which an independent merit-based review would 
contribute to addressing those problems. In addition, the 
Academy is required to report on the validity of using 
quantitative performance goals for administrative aspects of a 
program including: paperwork requirements for contractors, 
grant recipients and external reviewers; cost and schedule 
controls for any associated construction projects; the ratio of 
overhead costs relative to other program costs; and 
responsiveness to requests for funding, participation, or 
equipment use. Finally, the study would examine the extent to 
which Federal funding decisions support the Nation's historical 
R&D; priorities.
  Subsection (b) of this section provides for integration of 
the results of the NAS study into GPRA requirements. Within six 
months of study completion, the Director of OMB is required to 
promulgate one or more alternative forms for performance goals 
under GPRA (31 U.S.C. 1115(b)(10)(B)) based upon the study 
recommendations. In the development of such alternatives the 
OMB Director is required to provide for public notice and 
comment, obtain the approval of the Director of OSTP, and 
consult with the National Science and Technology Council. The 
goal of this subsection is to offer the head of each agency 
that conducts R&D; activities alternative and more appropriate 
mechanisms to successfully comply with GPRA.
  Subsection (c) of this section requires each agency that 
carries out R&D; activities, upon updating or revising their 
strategic plan under subsection 306(b) of title 5, United 
States Code, to describe its current and future use of the 
alternative performance goals consistent with the Academy 
study. Subsection (d) provides definitions for several terms 
used in this section of the reported bill, including 
``Director,'' ``program activity,'' and ``independent merit-
based evaluation.'' Finally, subsection (e) authorizes 
appropriations of 600,000 for carrying out the Academy study.
Sec. 209. Effective performance assessment program for federally-funded 
        research
  Subsection (a) of the reported bill amends GPRA to add a new 
section 1120 dealing with accountability for R&D; programs. 
Subsection (a) of new section 1120 of GPRA would require the 
Director of OMB, based upon annual performance reports 
submitted by the President to Congress under GPRA, to identify 
civilian R&D; program activities or components of such 
activities that do not meet an acceptable level of success as 
defined by alternative performance goals developed under 
section 8 of the reported bill. The OMB Director is required to 
submit a report to the President and Congress that lists 
program activities or components identified under this 
subsection within 30 days after each agency submits its annual 
GPRA report to the President.
  Subsection (b) of new section 1120 of GPRA would establish a 
process for addressing programs that have failed to meet 
performance goals. When a program is identified as being below 
acceptable success levels in two consecutive OMB reports, the 
head of the responsible agency is required to submit a 
statement to the Congressional committees of jurisdiction 
outlining steps that will be taken to (1) bring the program 
into compliance with applicable performance goals; or (2) to 
terminate the program if compliance efforts have failed. A 
submission under this subsection also is required to identify 
any legislative changes needed for its implementation or 
termination. In establishing the process under this subsection, 
the Committee intends to improve accountability for R&D; 
spending and to encourage cost-efficiencies in federally-funded 
R&D; programs. However, this process should not be used to 
impose substantial new paperwork burdens on R&D; programs that 
are not required of other Federal programs. Nor does the 
Committee intend that the process be used to target Federal R&D; 
programs for which the funding reflects Congressional rather 
than Administration priorities.
  Subsection 209(b) of the reported bill makes two technical 
and conforming amendments to GPRA.

                        Changes in Existing Law

  In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, 
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be 
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new material is printed 
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown 
in roman):

                 HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING ACT OF 1991

SEC. 103. NEXT GENERATION INTERNET. [15 U.S.C. 5513]

  (a) Establishment.--The National Science Foundation, the 
Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology may support the Next 
Generation Internet program. The objectives of the Next 
Generation Internet program shall be to--
          (1) support research, development, and demonstration 
        of advanced networking technologies to increase the 
        capabilities and improve the performance of the 
        Internet;
          (2) develop an advanced testbed network connecting a 
        significant number of research sites, including 
        universities, Federal research institutions, and other 
        appropriate research partner institutions, to support 
        networking research and to demonstrate new networking 
        technologies; and
          (3) develop and demonstrate advanced Internet 
        applications that meet important national goals or 
        agency mission needs, and that are supported by the 
        activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2).
  (b) Duties of Advisory Committee.--The President's 
Information Technology Advisory Committee (established pursuant 
to section 101(b) by Executive Order No. 13035 of February 11, 
1997 (62 F.R. 7131), as amended by Executive Order No. 13092 of 
July 24, 1998), in addition to its functions under section 
101(b), shall--
          (1) assess the extent to which the Next Generation 
        Internet program--
                  (A) carries out the purposes of this Act; and
                  (B) addresses concerns relating to, among 
                other matters--
                          (i) geographic penalties (as defined 
                        in section 7(1) of the Next Generation 
                        Internet Research Act of 1998);
                          (ii) the adequacy of access to the 
                        Internet by historically black colleges 
                        and universities, hispanic serving 
                        institutions, and small colleges and 
                        universities (whose enrollment is less 
                        than 5,000) and the degree of 
                        participation of those institutions in 
                        activities described in subsection (a); 
                        and
                          (iii) technology transfer to and from 
                        the private sector;
          (2) review the extent to which the role of each 
        Federal agency and department involved in implementing 
        the Next Generation Internet program is clear and 
        complementary to, and non-duplicative of, the roles of 
        other participating agencies and departments;
          (3) assess the extent to which Federal support of 
        fundamental research in computing is sufficient to 
        maintain the Nation's critical leadership in this 
        field; and
          (4) make recommendations relating to its findings 
        under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
  (c) Reports.--The Advisory Committee shall review 
implementation of the Next Generation Internet program and 
shall report, not less frequently than annually, to the 
President, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, the Committee on Appropriations, and the 
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, and the Committee on 
Science, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Committee on 
Armed Services of the House of Representatives on its findings 
and recommendations for the preceding fiscal year. The first 
such report shall be submitted 6 months after the date of the 
enactment of the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998 
and the last report shall be submitted by September 30, 2000.
  [(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated for the purposes of this section--
          [(1) for the Department of Energy, $22,000,000 for 
        fiscal year 1999 and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
          [(2) for the National Science Foundation, $25,000,000 
        for fiscal year 1999 and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 
        2000, as authorized in the National Science Foundation 
        Authorization Act of 1998;
          [(3) for the National Institutes of Health, 
        $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and $7,500,000 for 
        fiscal year 2000;
          [(4) for the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration, $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and 
        $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
          [(5) for the National Institute of Standards and 
        Technology, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and 
        $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2000. Such funds may not be 
        used for routine upgrades to existing federally funded 
        communication networks.]
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
          (1) In general.--There are authorized to be 
        appropriated for the purpose of carrying out the Large 
        Scale Networking Programs, including the Next 
        Generation Internet Programs, the following amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Agency                FY 2001       FY 2002       FY 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Defense             70,300,000    74,200,000    78,300,000
Department of Energy              32,000,000    33,800,000    35,700,000
National Aeronautics and Space    19,500,000    20,600,000    21,700,000
 Administration
National Institutes of Health     96,000,000   101,300,000   106,300,000
National Institute of              4,200,000     4,400,000     4,600,000
 Standards and Technology
National Science Foundation      111,200,000   117,300,000   123,800,000
National Security Agency           1,900,000     2,000,000     2,100,000
Agency for Healthcare Research     7,400,000     7,800,000     8,200,000
 and Quality
National Oceanic and               2,700,000     2,900,000     3,100,000
 Atmosphere Administration
------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (2) Limitations.--Funds authorized by paragraph (1) 
        shall be used in a manner that contributes to achieving 
        the goals of the Large Scale Networking Program, 
        including the Next Generation Internet Programs. 
        Research conducted under this program shall be merit-
        based and peer-reviewed.
  (e) Rural Infrastructure.--Out of appropriated amounts 
authorized by subsection (d), not less than 10 percent of the 
total amounts shall be made available to fund research grants 
for making high-speed connectivity more accessible to users in 
geographically-remote areas. The research shall include 
investigations of wireless, hybrid, and satellite technologies. 
In awarding grants under this subsection, the administering 
agency shall give priority to qualified, post-secondary 
educational institutions that participate in the Experimental 
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research.
  (f) Minority and Small College Internet Access.--Not less 
than 5 percent of the amounts made available for research under 
subsection (d) shall be used for grants to institutions of 
higher education that are Hispanic-serving, Native American, 
Native Hawaiian, Native Alaskan, Historically Black, or small 
colleges and universities.

                      TITLE 31. MONEY AND FINANCE

                    SUBTITLE II. THE BUDGET PROCESS

   CHAPTER 11. THE BUDGET AND FISCAL, BUDGET, AND PROGRAM INFORMATION

Sec.  1115. PERFORMANCE PLANS.

  (a) In carrying out the provisions of section 1105(a)(29), 
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
require each agency to prepare an annual performance plan 
covering each program activity set forth in the budget of such 
agency. Such plan shall--
          (1) establish performance goals to define the level 
        of performance to be achieved by a program activity;
          (2) express such goals in an objective, quantifiable, 
        and measurable form unless authorized to be in an 
        alternative form under subsection (b);
          (3) briefly describe the operational processes, 
        skills and technology, and the human, capital, 
        information, or other resources required to meet the 
        performance goals;
          (4) establish performance indicators to be used in 
        measuring or assessing the relevant outputs, service 
        levels, and outcomes of each program activity;
          (5) provide a basis for comparing actual program 
        results with the established performance goals; and
          (6) describe the means to be used to verify and 
        validate measured values.
  (b) If an agency, in consultation with the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget, determines that it is not 
feasible to express the performance goals for a particular 
program activity in an objective, quantifiable, and measurable 
form, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget may 
authorize an alternative form. Such alternative form shall--
          (1) include separate descriptive statements of--
                  (A)(i) a minimally effective program, and
                  (ii) a successful program, or
                  (B) such alternative as authorized by the 
                Director of the Office of Management and 
                Budget, with sufficient precision and in such 
                terms that would allow for an accurate, 
                independent determination of whether the 
                program activity's performance meets the 
                criteria of the description; or
          (2) state why it is infeasible or impractical to 
        express a performance goal in any form for the program 
        activity.
  (c) For the purpose of complying with this section, an agency 
may aggregate, disaggregate, or consolidate program activities, 
except that any aggregation or consolidation may not omit or 
minimize the significance of any program activity constituting 
a major function or operation for the agency.
  (d) An agency may submit with its annual performance plan an 
appendix covering any portion of the plan that--
          (1) is specifically authorized under criteria 
        established by an Executive order to be kept secret in 
        the interest of national defense or foreign policy; and
          (2) is properly classified pursuant to such Executive 
        order.
  (e) The functions and activities of this section shall be 
considered to be inherently Governmental functions. The 
drafting of performance plans under this section shall be 
performed only by Federal employees.
  (f) For purposes of this [section and sections 1116 through 
1119,] section, sections 1116 through 1120, and sections 9703 
and 9704 the term--
          (1) ``agency'' has the same meaning as such term is 
        defined under section 306(f) of title 5;
          (2) ``outcome measure'' means an assessment of the 
        results of a program activity compared to its intended 
        purpose;
          (3) ``output measure'' means the tabulation, 
        calculation, or recording of activity or effort and can 
        be expressed in a quantitative or qualitative manner;
          (4) ``performance goal'' means a target level of 
        performance expressed as a tangible, measurable 
        objective, against which actual achievement can be 
        compared, including a goal expressed as a quantitative 
        standard, value, or rate;
          (5) ``performance indicator'' means a particular 
        value or characteristic used to measure output or 
        outcome;
          (6) ``program activity'' means a specific activity or 
        project as listed in the program and financing 
        schedules of the annual budget of the United States 
        Government; and
          (7) ``program evaluation'' means an assessment, 
        through objective measurement and systematic analysis, 
        of the manner and extent to which Federal programs 
        achieve intended objectives.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec.  1120. Accountability for research and development programs

  (a) Identification of Unsuccessful Programs.--Based upon 
program performance reports for each fiscal year submitted to 
the President under section 1116, the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget shall identify the civilian research and 
development program activities, or components thereof, which do 
not meet an acceptable level of success as defined in section 
1115(b)(1)(B). Not later than 30 days after the submission of 
the reports under section 1116, the Director shall furnish a 
copy of a report listing the program activities or component 
identified under this subsection to the President and the 
Congress.
  (b) Accountability If No Improvement Shown.--For each program 
activity or component that is identified by the Director under 
subsection (a) as being below the acceptable level of success 
for 2 fiscal years in a row, the head of the agency shall no 
later than 30 days after the Director submits the second report 
so identifying the program, submit to the appropriate 
congressional committees of jurisdiction--
          (1) a concise statement of the steps necessary to--
                  (A) bring such program into compliance with 
                performance goals; or
                  (B) terminate such program should compliance 
                efforts fail; and
          (2) any legislative changes needed to put the steps 
        contained in such statement into effect.