87 



si PFLLMEM W ().■) 



agement of the Congress. The Clinton administration s National Science and Tech- 

 nology Council is the most recent such effort, and it is too early to determine how 

 effective it may be. However, previous bodies have had limited effect, owing to 

 resistance by the affected agencies, the Office of Management and Budget, congres- 

 sional authorizers and appropriators, and the press of political currents that are 

 stronger than the impulse to coordinate. 



There is no equivalent congressional coordinating authority for R&D (see Box 

 II."). The House Committee on Science, which has oversight authority' over all 

 federal nondefense R&D, comes closest, although it does not have legislative author- 

 in over the National Institutes of Health or the Depanments of Agriculture, Defense, 

 and the Interior. As it considers the President's budget. Congress and its committees 

 frequently augment or cut proposed budgets and may replace requested R&D funds 

 with other r\'pes of spending, with little regard for a broader interagency strategA*. 

 Even such coordinated presidential initiatives as the Global Climate Change program 



Box 11.7 

 Congressional Consideration of the R&D Bltdget for Fiscal Year 1996 



Student.s of R&D budgeting have long been frustrated by the absence of a mechanism in 

 the Congress to consider the federal R&D budget on a comprehensive basis, to address propos- 

 als from the administration for coordinated interagencN' R&D programs, to assess the adequacy 

 of such funding on an aggregate basis, or to ensure against the emergence of imbalance in the 

 federal ponfolio ' 



The l()-4th Congress has used some procedures that offer promise for more comprehen- 

 sive congressional consideration of R&D funding in future years. In late Januan' 1995, the 

 House Committee on Science held a hearing on federal R&D featuring the heads of all major 

 R&D depanments and programs under its legislative jurisdiction. The House Budget Commit- 

 tee has established several working groups, including one on natural resources and science. 

 One working group function, pursued with special vigor this year, was coordination with mem- 

 bers of relevant authorization committees and appropriations subcommittees. The working 

 group that covered science included the chair of the Science Committee (who is also vice-chair 

 of the Budget Committee) The House Science Committee reported authorization bills within 

 limits set b> the Budget Committee in preparing its Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization 

 bill, which also bundled together the major R&D functions under the committee's jurisdiction. 

 Tlie appropnations subcommittee allocations, in turn, took greater account of Science Com- 

 mittee and Budget Committee recommendations than in previous years. A number of impor- 

 tant R&D budgets such as those for the National Institutes of Health and Department of De- 

 fense programs, howexer. do not come under the Science Conunittee's jurisdiction, and their 

 R&D budgets were not handled b>- the same Budget Committee working group. No similar 

 process exi.sts m the Senate to review the R&D budget and to link different steps in the budget 

 process across committee lines. The Senate has more committee assignments per member 

 than the House, however, and so it is more usual for Senators to sit on multiple committees that 

 arc involved in the sequential steps of the R&D budget process. 



'Carnegie (;ommissi<)n on Science. Technology, and Government, 5cience. Technology, and Congress: 

 Expert Ailtice (inci lite Decisioumakiug Prticess ("Washington, D.C: Carnegie Commission on Science. 

 Technology, and (.ovcrnnieni. 1991) 



