33 



8 / IMPROVING THEAUOCATION PROCESS 



Conclusions, Recommendations, 

 and Discussion 



The committee believes that the following 13 recommendations, as a set, will 

 enable continuance of a strong federal research and development system at a time of 

 change and stress. 



The United States Must Develop a More Coherent Budget Process 



for Science and Technology. 



(Recommendations 1-3) 



RECOMMENDATION 1. The President should present an annual 

 comprehensive FS&T budget, including areas of increased and 

 reduced emphasis. The budget should be sufficient to serve 

 national priorities and foster a world-class scientific and techni- 

 cal enterprise. 



Currently, the federal research and development budget is typically defined as 

 the sum of the research and development funds obligated or proposed by federal 

 departments and agencies for programs and facilities classified as R&D. The re- 

 search and development budget is never considered as an integrated whole during 

 the development of the President's budget or given an overall review by Congress. 

 Rather, the research and development budget is developed in the context of indi- 

 vidual agency missions and programs. 



Recent administrations have attempted to introduce more coherence in fed- 

 eral policy for R&D by creating an intergovernmental committee structure to coordi- 

 nate budgeting for high-priorin- programs that involve more than one agency, for 

 example, research on global change and on high-performance computing and com- 

 munications. ^ The President may even single out cenain programs or facilities as 

 presidential initiatives. However it has been difficult to shape those initiatives into 

 integrated effons that are more than an aggregation of agency programs that already 

 exist. When the budget reaches Congress, it is disaggregated into the various appro- 

 priations bills and considered by many authorizing committees and appropriations 

 subcommittees; effons to achieve integrated initiatives can be quickly undone. 



The existing approach works reasonably well during periods of groviT:h, when 

 new opportunities and shifts in emphasis can be accommodated within budget 

 increases — without cutting back or closing down older activities that no longer rank 

 as high priorities. But the disaggregated approach is less suitable when major 

 cutbacks must be made. For example, the Depanment of Defense budget for re- 

 search and development historically has supported the majority' of federal funding 

 for academic research and training in electrical engineering, metallurgy' and materi- 



