Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
285790843
label
Science & Technology [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285790843
contentType
document
title
Science & Technology [1]
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
07429-007
collections
Records of the White House Office of Policy Development (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Todd Buchholz' Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285790843
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
619d6026db3d9c9e
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2005-0336-F
2005-0336-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin: Policy Development, White House Office of
Series:
Buchholz, Todd, Files
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
07429
Folder ID Number:
07429-007
Folder Title:
Science & Technology [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
17
20
1
1
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 3, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID Q. BATES
FROM:
KENNETH P. YALE Ky
SUBJECT:
Federal Coordinating Council on Science,
Engineering and Technology (FCCSET)
BOTTOM LINE: The Office of Science and Technology Policy is
revitalizing their FCCSET organization. Unless we have full
coordination with OSTP staff, FCCSET could duplicate existing
processes in the Cabinet Councils and create confusion.
BACKGROUND: A FCCSET meeting was held on January 24, 1990 to
discuss: 1) the structure and function of FCCSET, 2) the
structure of FCCSET Committees, and 3) financing and support
personnel for FCCSET (see attached briefing book).
An elaborate FCCSET structure was envisioned, basically a
scientific Cabinet Council, chaired by Dr. Bromley. It would
have interagency committees with representatives at the assistant
secretary level or above. Although there was some mention of
taking issues to the appropriate Cabinet Councils for review, it
was also stated that the FCCSET would resolve science and
technology policy issues.
Unless there is very close coordination with DPC and EPC,
FCCSET could encourage forum shopping and circumvent the DPC and
EPC processes. Instead of career level scientists preparing
background reports on science issues and acting as a
clearinghouse for information (eg., the CES), it appears the
proposed FCCSET formulation could consist of political level
people (ie. Assistant Secretary) developing policy -- a very
different function. You will recall that the original DPC and
EPC charters stated they would formulate, coordinate and
implement policy and "serve as the primary channels for advising
the President on policy."
RECOMMENDATION: We should be actively involved in the
development and operations of FCCEST, to avoid forum shopping and
confusing signals to the agencies. The value of FCCSET
committees composed of knowledgeable, career level scientists --
developing reports and acting as information clearinghouses for
agencies and DPC/EPC working groups -- should be emphasized.
Regular meetings between OSTP Associate Directors and Cabinet
Council Executive Secretaries would be appropriate.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 5, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR D. ALLAN BROMLEY
FROM:
DAVID Q. BATES
SUBJECT:
Federal Coordinating Council on Science,
Engineering and Technology
Thank you for including us in the development of your
Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering and
Technology (FCCSET). I am responding to the request for comments
on the FCCSET structure. You may contact Ken Yale for more
specific comments and recommendations.
We would like to work closely with you as your FCCSET
committees get up and running. The scientific expertise which
your Committee on Earth Sciences brings to the DPC Global Change
Working Group has been very beneficial. There is much value in
assembling scientific staff from the agencies to investigate the
underpinnings of the issues faced by the Administration.
My staff and I look forward to working with you as your
FCCSET Committees develop. Our Cabinet Counsels and associated
working groups are at your service. You may find them a valuable
resource as the FCCSET Committees develop reports and background
papers.
As the "primary channels to advise the President on policy"
-- and without agency, statutory or advisory status -- both the
DPC and EPC are fully protected by executive privilege. As a
result, they are not subject to many of the statutory
restrictions that make it difficult for political appointees to
have a full and frank discussion. Thus, you may want to consider
close coordination with the DPC and EPC in order to develop a
process for full and adequate vetting of issues that are
Presidential in nature or require Presidential or Cabinet
attention or decisions.
Again, I thank you for allowing us to participate. Should
you have any questions, do feel free to contact myself, or the
Executive Secretaries of the Councils: Lehmann Li and Ken Yale.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
February 12, 1990
Dear David:
As you know, on January 24 I chaired the first meeting of the Federal Coordinating
Council for Science, Engineering and Technology. I was pleased to have Ken Yale
from your staff there to represent the Office of Cabinet Affairs. I believe that we are
off to a good start on putting together a clearly much-needed structure to address
and coordinate cross-cutting science and technology issues within the Administration.
I would like to take this opportunity to fill you in on the outcome of our meeting and
to extend a personal invitation to you to participate in succeeding meetings. I would
greatly appreciate your support and input in these initial months as we develop the
charter, committee structure, and staffing arrangements.
Several issues were raised during the course of our discussion on the 24th, some of
which are fairly easy to resolve while others will require the careful consideration of
all FCCSET members. First, I think there was a general consensus that we need to
define in more detail the functions and activities of the FCCSET. There were
concerns expressed, for example, about the FCCSET's role vis-a-vis the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), the types of issues the
FCCSET would address, FCCSET's role in the budget process, possible duplication of
the functions of other policy coordinating bodies such as the Domestic Policy Council
and the Economic Policy Council, frequency of meetings, etc.
In general terms, we have agreed that the future success of FCCSET and of its
committees depends crucially upon the participation of very senior policy level
representatives of the member agencies both in the FCCSET and in its committees.
We have also agreed that inasmuch as I chair both FCCSET and PCAST, I shall
accept the responsibility for insuring communication between the private sector
PCAST panels and the FCCSET committees and working groups that may be
established to consider parallel issues.
You will find attached a draft charter for the FCCSET which I believe addresses
these and other issues concerning the role, structure and functions of the FCCSET. I
request that you give this draft careful consideration and let me know your thoughts
on how it might be modified or improved.
Mr. Bates
Page 2
Second, at our meeting on the 24th, we discussed possible changes in the list of
FCCSET committees. There was general consensus that we should keep the number
of committees down but no agreement on how to accomplish that objective. There
are, I think you would agree, two types of committees. First, there are those that are
designed to oversee functional areas of R&D, such as health and life sciences or
mathematical and physical sciences. These committees would be responsible for
coordinating cross-cutting activities within their field of responsibility and reporting
on emerging issues and policy concerns. (I have attached a draft sample charter for
this type of committee.)
There are also those committees that are designed to address cross-cutting concerns
that affect the scientific well-being of this country but go beyond the confines of any
one functional area. They have a policy focus or enabling character that cuts across
all of the functional areas. Examples are: education, industrial technology, and
international science and technology.
Each of these two types of committees has validity within the FCCSET structure and
I would suggest that we find a way to keep both when needed. I have attached a
revised committee structure which incorporates many of the suggestions from our
meeting. In addition, I have suggested some cross-cutting issues that may be included
in the mandate of these committees. I encourage you to review this suggested
structure in detail and let me know whether or not it meets the needs of your agency.
I am also interested in your ideas on critical cross-cutting issues which require
FCCSET attention and your suggestions as to which committee they might be
assigned. I encourage you to be as creative as possible and not necessarily restrained
by the committee structure suggested, because, it is by the development of a variety of
cross-cutting issues, that we will be able to test the validity of the suggested
framework.
A third issue coming out of our meeting on the 24th was the need for a FCCSET
executive secretariat. I am in the process of developing a list of candidates to serve
in this capacity. I am inclined to identify one senior, and one mid-level professional
staff person, together with support staff, to serve in the executive secretariat to the
FCCSET. The executive secretariat would be responsible for coordinating our
activities as well as overseeing the FCCSET committee structure. I would be
interested in any thoughts you have on this structure as well as any candidates you
believe merit consideration. One of the first tasks I will assign the executive
Mr. Bates
Page 3
secretariat is to work with the Department of Education to develop the necessary
language to amend PL 94-282 to incorporate the Department of Education as a
permanent member of the FCCSET.
I am anxious to move rapidly on all of these issues. As you know, there are a
number of urgent concerns that require FCCSET attention, and I would like us to get
to work on these posthaste. Therefore, I have asked my staff to try to arrange the
next meeting of the FCCSET as soon as possible. They will be contacting your office
to find a mutually convenient time. I hope that during the course of the meeting we
can reach agreement on the charter and the committee structure. I want to try and
have the executive secretariat established by that time. Therefore, if you have
candidates in mind for these positions, please let me know by February 14 so that I
can give them fair consideration.
Again, let me thank you for your continued support, and I look forward to seeing you
at our next meeting.
Sincerely yours,
Alan
D. Allan Bromley
Director
Attachments:
Tab A
Draft FCCSET Charter
Tab B
Suggested Committee Structure
Tab C
Sample FCCSET Committee Charter
Tab D
FCCSET Membership List
Tab E
Attendees at January 24 FCCSET Meeting
The Honorable David Q. Bates, Jr.
Assistant to the President
and Secretary to the Cabinet
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
cc: Kenneth P. Yale
February 6, 1990
DRAFT CHARTER
Federal Coordinating Council
For Science, Engineering and Technology
LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
The Federal Coordinating Council for Science Engineering and
Technology (FCCSET) was established in 1976 pursuant to Public
Law 94-282, Title V of the "National Science and Technology
Policy Organization and Priorities Act of 1976" to consider
cross-cutting science, engineering and technology issues. the
law states that:
"The Council shall consider problems and developments in the
fields of science, engineering, and technology and related
activities affecting more than one Federal agency, and shall
recommend policies and other measures designed to:
(1) provide more effective planning and administration
of Federal scientific, engineering, and technological
programs,
(2) identify research needs including areas requiring
additional emphasis,
(3) achieve more effective utilization of the
scientific, engineering, and technological resources
and facilities of Federal agencies, including the
elimination of unwarranted duplication, and
(4) further international cooperation in science,
engineering, and technology."
OBJECTIVES
In fulfilling this mandate, the FCCSET's two major objectives
are:
O
to provide authoritative scientific and technological
expertise and advice to policy discussions and
decisions to other cabinet-level councils including the
National Security Council, the Economic Policy Council,
the Domestic Policy Council, the Space Council and the
Competitiveness Council.
to coordinate science and technology efforts affecting
more than one Federal agency and surface and resolve
S&T policy issues.
FUNCTIONS
To accomplish these two objectives the FCCSET will:
serve as a central coordinating forum for addressing
problems and issues affecting more than one Federal
agency, sharing information, reviewing national and
international policy objectives and developing
consensus;
identify priority research and development needs;
facilitate continuing cooperation in planning
coordination and communication among Federal agencies
on science and technology issues;
issue reports, studies and assessments of current S&T
capabilities in fields of research and development of
concern to the Administration;
information
provide reviews, analyses, advice and recommendations
on science and technology matters to other policy
coordinating bodies within the White House including
the National Security Council, the Economic Policy
Council, the Domestic Policy Council, the Space
Council, and the Competitiveness Council;
seek to inform other policy making bodies of reviews,
studies and analyses underway, and coordinate
activities so as not to duplicate functions with these
bodies;
identify science and technology issues and concerns of
importance to the nation and bring policy
recommendations to the attention of the President
through appropriate policy bodies;
with the close cooperation of the Office of Management
and Budget, develop, and review annual and long-range
Federal budget plans in selected cross-cutting areas of
science and technology;
improve planning, coordination and communication among
Federal agencies engaged in science and technology.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
To accomplish these functions the FCCSET is authorized to:
detail employees to the Council to perform such
functions, consistent with the purposes of the FCCSET,
as the Chairman may assign to them;
establish committees for the purposes of conducting
studies, making reports, coordinating Federal science
and technology activities that involve more than one
Federal agency, and making recommendations to the
FCCSET;
develop, and review on an annual basis, charters for
committees, and assign high priority agenda items as
necessary;
Council meetings shall be called by the Chairman as
deemed appropriate and each agency member shall attend
at a senior policy level;
Council proceedings, studies, and reports, either
preliminary or final, shall be printed and distributed
only with the Chairman's authorization.
MEMBERSHIP
The Council shall be chaired by of the Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy and shall be composed of one policy
level representative of each of the following Federal Agencies:
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of State
Department of Transportation
Department of Veteran's Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Environmental Protection Agency
Other Agencies may be requested to participate in meetings of the
Council concerned with matters of substantial interest to such
agency.
Treasury, Education
DETERMINATION
I hereby approve and adopt this Charter which is determined to be
consistent with PL 94-282 which establishes the FCCSET.
Approved:
D. Allan Bromley
Date
Chairman, Federal Coordinating
Council for Science, Engineering
and Technology
FEDERAL COORDINATING COUNCIL
FOR SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
SUGGESTED COMMITTEE STRUCTURE
WITH CROSS-CUTTING/SUBSIDIARY ISSUES
Committees:
Health and Life Sciences
Physical, Mathematical and Engineering Sciences
Earth and Environmental Sciences
Food Agriculture and Forestry Research*
Education and Human Resources
Technology and Industry
International Science, Engineering and Technology
Sample Cross-cutting/Subsidiary Issues:
Bioethics
Biotechnology
Global Change
High Performance Computing
Human Genome Research
Intellectual Property Rights
Manufacturing
Materials
Math and Science Education
S&T Initatives in Eastern Europe
S&T Information Collection, Utilization and Dissemination
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Technology Transfer
*Established by PL 94-282; legislative relief required if
abolished or merged
February 6, 1990
DRAFT
SAMPLE FCCSET COMMITTEE CHARTER
The Committee on
is hereby established by action of
the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and
Technology (FCCSET). FCCSET derives its authority from PL 94-
282.
Purpose
The purpose of the Committee on
is to increase
the overall effectiveness and productivity of Federal R&D efforts
in [fields related to the committee's jurisdiction]. The
Committee will address significant national policy matters which
cut across agency boundaries and shall provide a formal mechanism
for interagency science policy coordination and exchanges of
information regarding the scientific aspects of [field of
jurisdiction].
Functions
The Committee on
will:
review national and international Federal R&D programs,
including budgets, in [the field of committee
jurisdiction];
facilitate planning, coordination, and communication
among Federal agencies engaged in [the field of
committee jurisdiction];
identify and define Federal R&D needs in [the field of
committee jurisdiction] ;
develop and update long-range plans, including funding
levels, for overall Federal R&D efforts in [the field
of committee jurisdiction]
address specific programmatic and operational issues
and problems which affect two or more Federal agencies;
provide reviews, analyses, advice, and recommendations
to the FCCSET on Federal policies and programs
concerned with [the field of committee jurisdiction].
Structure
The Chairman of the Committee on
is appointed by the
Chairman of the FCCSET.
Responsibilities of the Chairman:
hold regular meetings of the Committee (no fewer than
six per year) and approve agendas;
submit an annual report to the Chairman of the FCCSET
for review by the full Council;
approve the establishment, continuation or termination
of subcommittees, task forces and working groups as
necessary to achieve the Committee's purpose;
meet regularly (bimonthly) with the Chairman of the
FCCSET and other Committee chairmen to evaluate
progress, discuss policy coordination, receive new
instructions from the FCCSET and report on ongoing
activities.
The following departments and agencies are represented on this
Committee at the Assistant Secretary level or above:
[All FCCSET members and any other agency or department not on the
FCCSET but with S&T activities in the committee's field of
jurisdiction].
Membership on subcommittees, task forces, and working groups is
not restricted to Committee members and is established as the
Committee Chairman may determine appropriate.
Committee activities will be coordinated by an Executive
Secretary, designated by the Committee Chairman. Additional
staff and funding assistance, consistent with the functions of
this charter, will be provided by member agencies as required by
the Committee chairman.
Private Sector Interface
The Committee will recommend to the Chairman of the FCCSET the
nature of private sector advice needed to accomplish its mission.
The Chairman of the FCCSET will take necessary steps to ensure
appropriate interaction between the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and the Committee.
The Committee may also seek ad hoc advice from various private
sector groups as consistent with the Federal Advisory Act.
Compensation
All members are full-time Federal employees who are allowed
reimbursement for travel expenses by their agencies plus per diem
or subsistence while away from their duty stations and in
accordance with standard government travel regulations.
Documentation
Agendas and records of actions of Committee meetings are prepared
and disseminated to members by the Executive Secretary. Records
of actions are submitted to members for approval. Complete
records of all Committee activities, including those of task
forces and working groups, are maintained in the office of the
Chairman. The Committee prepares a report for the Chairman of
the FCCSET not later than 60 days after the end of each fiscal
year. The report contains, as a minimum, the Committee's
functions; a list of members; a list of subcommittees, task
forces and working groups and their charters; the dates, places
and agendas for all meetings; and a summary of the Committee's
activities and recommendations during the year.
Termination Date
Unless renewed by the Chairman of FCCSET prior to its expiration,
the Committee on
shall terminate not later than
March 31, 1991.
Determination
I hereby determine that the formation of the Committee on
is in the public interest in connection with
the performance of duties imposed on the Executive Branch by law
and that such duties can best be performed through the advice and
counsel of such a group.
Approved:
Chairman, FCCSET
Date
MEMBERSHIP LIST
FEDERAL COORDINATING COUNCIL
FOR SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Chairman
The Honorable D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology
and Director
Office of Science and Technology Policy
358 Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20506
Members
The Honorable Manuel Lujan, Jr.
Secretary of the Interior
18th and C Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
The Honorable Clayton Yeutter
Secretary of Agriculture
12th Street and Jefferson Drive, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
The Honorable Louis W. Sullivan
Secretary of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585
The Honorable Jack Kemp
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20410
The Honorable James D. Watkins
Secretary of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585
The Honorable Donald J. Atwood, Jr.
Deputy Secretary of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301
The Honorable William K. Reilly
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
The Honorable Richard H. Truly
Administrator
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20546
The Honorable Erich Bloch
Director
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20550
The Honorable Thomas J. Murrin
Deputy Secretary
Department of Commerce
14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230
The Honorable Elaine Chao
Deputy Secretary
Department of Transportation
400 7th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
The Honorable Anthony J. Principi
Deputy Secretary
Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20420
The Honorable Richard T. McCormack
Under Secretary for Economic Affairs
Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20520
Non-statutory Members
The Honorable Elizabeth Dole
Secretary of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
The Honorable Lauro F. Cavazos
Secretary of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202
Attendees
FCCSET Meeting
Wednesday, January 24, 1990
Agency
Principal
Staff
HHS
Louis W. Sullivan
Dr. William E. Bennett
Special Assistant to
Secretary Sullivan
Dr. William F. Raub
Acting Director, NIH
DOE
James D. Watkins
Dr. James F. Decker
Acting Director
Office of Energy Research
DOEd
Lauro F. Cavazos
John T. (Ted) Sanders
Under Secretary
EPA
William K. Reilly
Erich Bretthauer
(Acting) Assistant
Administrator for R&D
DOC
Thomas J. Murrin
Deborah Wince-Smith
Assistant Secretary for
Technology Policy
VA
Anthony J. Principi
Richard J. Greene, M.D.
Assistant Chief Medical
Director for R&D
NASA
Richard H. Truly
Kenneth S. Pedersen
Associate Administrator
for External Relations
NSF
Erich Bloch
Dr. Luther Williams
Senior Science Adviser
DOS
Richard T. McCormack
Frederick M. Bernthal
Assistant Secretary
OES
DOD
George P. Millburn
Craig I. Fields
Director, DARPA
DOA
Charles E. Hess
HUD
DOI
Dallas L. Peck
Dr. Harlan L. Watson
Science Adviser to the
Secretary of the Interior
DOL
Jennifer Dorn
Mr. Gary Reed
Assistant Secretary
Office Director, Office
for Policy
of Program Economics
DOT
Travis P. Dungan
Joseph Canny
Administrator
Deputy Assistant
Research and Special
Secretary for Policy
Programs Administration
OMB
Robert Grady
NSC
Eric D.K. Melby
Director for International Economic Affairs
DPC
Ken Yale
Executive Secretary, DPC
OSTP
Dr. J. Thomas Ratchford, Associate Director for Policy
and International Affairs
Dr. Karl A. Erb, Assistant Director for Physical
Sciences and Engineering
Ms. Sara Bowden
Dr. Mary Harley Kruter
Ms. Rachel Levinson
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL MONDAY, MAY 13, 1991
A16
White House, Reversing Policy Under Pressure,
Begins to Pick High-Tech Winners and Losers
By BoB DAVIS
almost certain to restore funding for the
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Picking Winners?
Pentagon programs.)
WASHINGTON-While stoutly denying
Federal spending on selected high-
"I go along with 'pre-competitive' and
that it is in the business of picking techno-
'generic' because I've been told a program
technology projects
logical winners and losers, the Bush ad-
FISCAL YEAR
is dead-on-arrival if it mentions 'industrial
ministration is beginning to do just that.
FISCAL YEAR
1992
policy," says Mr. Miller, whose group has
1991.
PROPOSAL
The White House now is pushing tech-
won grants from the Commerce and De-
PROGRAM
(in millions)
(in millions)
nology programs in Congress that would
fense departments.
subsidize makers of supercomputers, soft-
WINNERS
Endless Subsidies
ware and electric cars. It is also planning
expensive new initiatives for the biotech-
Supercomputer
$25
$92
So far the amounts the administration
nology and materials-processing indus-
network
has committed to new industrial-policy ini-
tiatives are small, and it has held fast on
tries, and selecting other commercial tech-
Advanced
36
36
some prohibitions. It won't approve plans
nologies for special attention.
Technology
that call for low-interest loans for particu-
"There's an industrial policy; it's just
Program
lar industries, say technology officials in
disguised," says Edward Miller, president
High-speed
12
24
and out of government, and it won't back
of the National Center for Manufacturing
trains
plans to revive the consumer-electronics
Sciences, a manufacturing group in Ann
industry, fearing endless subsidies. But the
Arbor, Mich.
Electric vehicles
30
42
rest is up for grabs.
Just 18 months ago, efforts to single out
Recently, the White House's science of-
technologies for special favor were cause
LOSERS
fice put together a report naming 22 tech-
for dismissal in the Bush administration.
The Pentagon last year fired technologist
High-definition
$75
$ 0
nologies as crucial for economic prosper-
TV
ity-a clear example of trying to pick tech-
Craig Fields, while Deputy Commerce Sec-
nological winners. Michael Boskin, chair-
retary Thomas Murrin was squeezed out
X-ray
60
0
man of the Council of Economic Advisers,
for pushing industrial-policy programs too
lithography
and Budget Chief Richard Darman tried to
forcefully. The administration also tried to
ManTech (DOD
311
96
distance the White House from the study,
kill research programs in next-generation
manufacturing
administration officials say, by adding a
television and semiconductors.
technology)
sentence disclaiming White House respon-
The change in the White House since
sibility for the report.
then reflects pressure from business
groups and Congress to increase funding
creases in commercial technology, phrases
Early in the administration, that single
for commercial technologies, and concern
it more delicately: "We're finding what
sentence would have been a kiss of death.
that the U.S. is losing trade battles with
the administration's philosophical position
But with the easing of ideological pres-
is, and what we can do within that ap-
sures, Mr. Bromley and Commerce's Mr..
Japan and Europe. But it also reflects an
proach."
White say they still plan to use the report
attempt by White House officials to find a
For starters, the administration wants
to decide how best to allocate federal re-
way to make investments in commercial
research and development politically cor-
$92 million in the fiscal year beginning Oct.
search funds.
rect.
1 to launch work on a supercomputer net-
In addition, Mr. Bromley says-and
Technologies that require years of work
work originally championed by Demo-
White House economic officials confirm-
cratic Sen. Albert Gore of Tenn. Adminis-
that he has won Mr. Darman's approval to
before they can produce commercial prod-
ucts are all right for federal investment
tration officials compare the network. to a
map out costly new programs to aid the
because they're too risky for industry, says
highway-no industrial policy there. But
Allan Bromley, the president's science ad-
they privately acknowledge that the net-
viser. But technologies that are ready for
work will subsidize such supercomputer
commercialization are taboo, he says, be-
makers as Cray Research Inc. and Think-
cause the government would have to enter
ing Machines Corp., whose machines will
be at the heart of the network. "We're not
the market and "second-guess who's going
to succeed or not."
against research that at the end of the day
helps a broad range of companies," says a
Faint Line
White House economic official.
In practice, though, the line between
The White House also is asking for $36
what's acceptable ideologically and what
million for a Commerce Department pro-
isn't is faint, if not invisible. That vague-
gram in advanced technology that was
ness allows the administration to stick to
launched under the 1988 Omnibus Trade
its free-market rhetoric, critics say, while
Act. The Commerce Department says the
starting to endorse some of the industrial-
program funds only "pre-competitive, ge-
policy programs of its opponents. "The ad-
neric technologies"- administration's
ministration is schizophrenic on the whole
favorite buzz words to describe politically
issue," says Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a New
correct R&D. But the program features
Mexico Democrat who heads the Defense
projects in high-definition TV, semiconduc-
Industry and Technology subcommittee.
tors and manufacturing that are nearly
Robert White the Commerce Depart-
identical to Pentagon projects the adminis-
ment's undersecretary of technology, who
tration says cross the line into industrial
along with Mr. Bromley favors big in-
policy and should be killed. (Congress is
24cont
W.H.
biotechnology and the materials-processing
industries. If finally adopted, the adminis-
tration will highlight these projects in the
budget for the year beginning Oct. 1, 1992,
says Mr. Bromley.
Big Role
Mr. Bromley, a former Yale nuclear
physicist who is a friend of the president,
has played a big role in shifting the admin-
istration's attitude toward commercial
technology. He formulated the policy of fa-
voring "pre-competitive, generic technol-
ogy" that guides the administration's tech-
nology investments, and has put together
interagency groups to find areas that need
funding.
He also has often been able to recruit
Mr. Darman, a long-time technology buff,
as an ally. The budget chief is a big
booster of plans in the fiscal 1992 budget,
for instance, for improving batteries used
in electric cars and for researching the
practicality of magnetically levitated
trains. "Bromley has legitimized the de-
bate" over commercial R&D, says Erich
Bloch, who headed the National Science
Foundation under Presidents Reagan and
Bush.
Research groups already want to cash
in on the new White House attitude. Sema-
tech, a semiconductor-manufacturing con-
sortium in Austin, Texas, that once prom-
ised it wouldn't seek federal funds after
fiscal 1992, now says it will seek $100 mil-
lion a year indefinitely. The National Advi-
sory Committee on Semiconductors, a fed-
eral semiconductor panel once ignored by
the administration, convinced Mr. Brom-
ley's office to co-sponsor a conference to
draw up plans for another costly semicon-
ductor project.
Robert Costello, the Pentagon's acquisi-
tion chief under President Reagan, says
Commerce and Defense department offi-
cials are even helping him devise a plan to
transform the Commerce Department into
the Department of Science, Industry and
Trade. He sees the new department as a
hotbed of industrial policy-it would plot
technology strategy, fund commercial re-
search projects and force the government
to buy high-tech products the department
backs-but his allies want him to tone
down the rhetoric. "They want me to go to
the White House and see if I get my head
chopped off," Mr. Costello says.
25
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Washington, D.C. 20230
May 22, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR: Olin Wethington
Executive Secretary
Economic Policy Council
FROM:
Deborah L. Wince-Smith
Assistant Secretary for
Technology Policy
ofes
SUBJECT:
R&D Issues in the GATT Procurement and Subsidies
Code Negotiations: Concerns Expressed by R&D
Community at April 2 Meeting of Interagency
Committee on Federal Laboratory Technology
Transfer
At its April 2, 1991 meeting, the Interagency Committee on
Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer, which I chair, received
briefings on several aspects of the GATT Procurement and
Subsidies Code negotiations which involve government R&D
programs. You then asked our Committee to prepare written
comments summarizing the concerns expressed by agency
representatives with these issues.
The attached document was prepared by the Committee pursuant
to your request. The document consists of a summary of the
Committee's concerns, followed by a more detailed statement of
the issues posed by the negotiations, their projected impact on
agency programs and some specific concerns expressed by the
Committee members. Because of the seriousness of these concerns,
many agencies are also preparing individual statements. We are
forwarding to you copies of communications already received from
the Departments of Agriculture and of Health and Human Services
and of the Interior, the Small Business Administration and the
Department of the Air Force. (For your information, I have also
attached a list of the Committee's members.) I am also
forwarding to you a copy of comments received from the
International Trade Administration of the Department of Commerce
on the Committee's discussion of GATT Subsidies Code issues.
Our Committee stands ready to help in this assessment in
whatever way is appropriate.
Summary of Concerns Expressed by the R&D Agencies
U.S. Federal R&D Expenditures Provide an Important Source of U.S.
Competitive Strength
For many years the United States Federal government has
invested large amounts in research in a broad range of
areas. (The President's Budget for FY 92 proposes
allocating $72 billion for R&D.)
While some other countries spend a higher percentage of GNP
on R&D, the U.S. expenditure is larger than any other
country's and larger than the combined expenditures of
Japan, West Germany, France and the United Kingdom.
In the past ten years, the Reagan and Bush Administrations
have successfully strengthened laws and policies encouraging
private sector development of commercial applications for
Federal R&D.
Many states are also focusing their economic development
efforts on research and development with programs of aid and
assistance designed to strengthen local commercial
technology bases.
The Proposed Changes in the GATT Code Are Likely to Impair U.S.
Ability to Harness Federal R&D Expenditures as a Source of
Competitive Strength
Subsidies Code
The Issue
The question facing the U.S. is whether to agree to amend
the Subsidies Code, which presently imposes no restrictions
on the government research and development programs, to
define the types of government research and development
programs that are permissible under the Code.
This definition would require either that:
the results of the research and development "may be
used without fee or restriction and are promptly made
available to the public
at not more than half-
yearly intervals during the course of the research" or
the assistance be limited to not more than 20% of the
costs of "basic industrial research" or 10% of "applied
research and development".
If these requirements were not met, the enterprise
benefitting from the research and development would risk
challenge to its products by foreign governments under the
Code.
-2-
Impact on U.S. Research and Development Programs
A large portion of the research and development programs in
the Administration's $72 billion annual research and
development effort would fail to meet the proposed test.
Most of these programs seek to encourage private sector
commercialization of Federal research results by authorizing
the transfer of exclusive rights to the intellectual
property and related technical data to private parties, who
are then able to develop commercial applications for the
government work.
The scope of the programs affected is indicated by
Attachment A, which summarizes the Federal research and
development activities proposed by the President's budget
for FY 1992.
Specific Examples of Agency Programs Affected:
The Department of Agriculture has approximately 125
active Cooperative Research and Development Agreements
under the Federal Technology Transfer Act with
approximately 100 different companies, many of which
have strong international operations which would open
them to challenges under the Code.
The Department of Energy has programs in a variety of
areas that may be affected:
Four examples relate to research related to the
securing of future energy supplies (total FY 1992
budget of $1.8 billion) :
The Clean Coal Technology program features
demonstration facilities cofunded with
industry on innovative methods of burning
coal. A total FY 1992 appropriation of $315
million is requested.
Nuclear power projects include making
commercially standardized Advanced Light
Water Reactors ($62.5 million for FY 1992),
certification of an Advanced Liquid Metal
Reactor ($49.5 million), and developing power
systems for space applications ($56 million).
Renewable energy projects, such as solar
technologies (including photovoltaics, solar
thermal, biofuels and wind energy systems),
for which $143 million is sought in FY 1992.
-3-
The demonstration program for the Uranium-
Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation (U-
AVLIS) process ($214 million) and other
uranium enrichment programs.
Environmental quality programs, involving applied
research and development and demonstration
projects, for which a total of $4,689 million is
being requested for FY 1992.
While the Department of Defense has not yet completed a
full assessment of the impact of this proposal, its
representatives have noted some serious concerns with
the proposal, especially as they relate to programs
such as those operated by the Army Corps of Engineers
and the Strategic Defense Initiatives Office. While an
effort is apparently being made to exclude defense-
related research and development from scrutiny under
the Code, an increasing amount of the more than $35
billion in DoD research is not classified and relates
to so-called "dual use" technologies, capable of both
military and commercial applications. The fact that
such work is paid for by DoD may not protect it from
challenge under the Code.
The Public Health Service of the Department of Health
and Human Services estimates that it will have entered
into 380 patent licensing agreements by the end of FY
1991, many of which are with pharmaceutical
manufacturers who do business worldwide and are thus
exposed to potential actions by foreign governments
under a revised Subsidies Code. In addition, the
Public Health Service has 150 active Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements (and 40 more under
negotiation) and the exclusive transfer of intellectual
property rights to the private participants in these
agreements could be subject to challenge under the
Code.
Finally, the proposal is likely to have an adverse
impact on U.S. states. Many states have economic
development programs designed to encourage growth of
local technology bases through support for research and
development which may be affected. In addition, many
of the 1,275 patents held by state universities and
licensed to others are the results of Federal or state
funded research and would also be subject to challenge
under the Code.
-4-
Procurement Code
The Issue
The United States is considering whether to include
government research and development contracts as service
contracts subject to the procedures of the Government
Procurement Code.
If such contracts are included, the United States and other
signatories would be obligated to give equal treatment to
domestic firms (U.S. owned firms and foreign owned firms
operating in U.S.) and foreign owned firms operating
entirely outside the U.S. for these contracts and to follow
procurement procedures prescribed by the Code in procuring
government research and development from third parties.
Some foreign owned entities operating entirely outside the
U.S. are owned or supported by foreign governments. U.S.
R&D contracts could then support foreign governments'
industrial policy projects.
Any domestic laws or policies inconsistent with this
standard of equal treatment would have to be eliminated.
Impact on U.S. Research and Development Programs
The Committee estimates that the Federal government spent
approximately $17 billion for extramural research in FY 1990
(excluding work done by the Department of Defense and the
defense-related work of the Department of Energy).
These contracts are, for the most part, awarded to domestic
companies, who also receive the right to develop the
commercial uses of the intellectual property and technical
data generated by their work.
Including R&D contracts in the GATT Procurement Code is
likely to reduce or eliminate this important instrument for
encouraging U.S. industrial competitiveness.
Comments of Interagency Committee on Federal Laboratory
Technology Transfer on GATT Proposals Involving
Government Research and Development
GATT Issues and Their Impact on Government Research and
Development Programs
Issues involving government research and development
programs have been raised in both the Government Procurement Code
and Subsidies Code negotiations in this round of GATT talks.
Subsidies Code
The Issue
The United States is considering whether to agree to a
proposal to define, for the first time, the types government
research and development programs acceptable under the Subsidies
Code. While the signatories have previously stated that
"domestic subsidies", including government research and
development programs, should not be used to "distort"
international trade flows, the Code has explicitly imposed no
restrictions on the use of such subsidies and only the United
States, in the enforcement of its own countervailing duty laws
(which it contends are consistent with the Subsidies Code), has
challenged government research and development programs as
impermissible subsidies.
The proposal now under consideration would define the types
of government research and development programs that would be
permissible under the Code. Although this proposal would not
explicitly define what programs are not permissible, its
definition of what conduct was permissible would appear to make
all other programs subject to challenge.
The proposed definition of permissible government research
and development programs requires either:
that the results of the research and development
"may be used without fee or restriction and are
promptly made available to public
at not
more than half-yearly intervals during the course
of the research" or
that the assistance be limited to not more than
20% of the costs of "basic industrial research or
10% of "applied research and development".
-2-
Impact on U.S. Research and Development Programs
A large portion of the research and development programs in
the Administration's $72 billion annual research and development
effort would fail to meet the proposed test. Pursuant to the
technology transfer and commercialization policies adopted by the
Bush and Reagan administrations in the past ten years, most of
these programs seek to encourage private sector commercialization
of Federal research results by authorizing the transfer of
exclusive rights to the intellectual property and related
technical data to private parties, who are then able to develop
commercial applications for the government work. The scope of
the programs affected is indicated by Attachment A, which
summarizes the Federal research and development activities
proposed by the President's budget for FY 1992.
The potential impact of the proposed definition is indicated
by preliminary information received from several agencies. For
example, the Department of Agriculture has approximately 125
active Cooperative Research and Development Agreements under the
Federal Technology Transfer Act with approximately 100 different
companies, many of which have strong international operations
which would open them to challenges under the Code.
The Department of Energy operates a variety of research and
development programs that would also be impacted by the proposed
definition. Its Clean Coal Technology program, which is intended
to introduce new methods of burning coal, involves demonstration
projects cofunded with the private sector. A FY 1992
appropriation of $315 million is sought for that program.
Similarly, Energy is involved in cooperative research with the
Department of Agriculture on the development of energy crops for
ethanol and methanol to reduce oil consumption. In the nuclear
power area, Energy is seeking $431 million for FY 1992 for
projects such as the production of a commercially standardized
Advanced Light Water Reactor, certification of an Advanced Liquid
Metal Reactor and developing power systems for space
applications. Other research projects involve renewable energy
(e.g., solar technologies, with a budget request of $143
million), uranium enrichment (e.g., the Uranium-Atomic Vapor
Laser Isotope Separation (U-AVLIS) process program, with a budget
request of $214 million) and environmental quality research and
demonstration projects (with a total budget request of $4,689
million).
The Department of Defense has not yet completed a full
assessment of the impact of this proposal on its programs.
However, representatives of that Department have noted some
serious concerns with the proposal. While an effort is
apparently being made to exclude defense-related research and
development from scrutiny under the Code, an increasing amount of
the more than $35 billion in DoD research is not classified and
-3-
relates to so-called "dual use" technologies, that are capable of
both military and commercial applications. In these
circumstances, the fact that the work is paid for by DoD may not
be enough to establish that it is defense-related and protected
from challenge under the Code. Particular concerns were
expressed for Defense programs run by the Army Corps of Engineers
and the Strategic Defense Initiatives Office.
The Public Health Service of the Department of Health and
Human Services estimates that it will have entered into 380
patent licensing agreements by the end of FY 1991, many of which
are with pharmaceutical manufacturers who do business worldwide
and are thus exposed to potential actions by foreign governments
under a revised Subsidies Code. In addition, the Public Health
Service has 150 active Cooperative Research and Development
Agreements (and 40 more under negotiation) with private sector
entities under the Federal Technology Transfer Act and the
exclusive transfer of intellectual property rights to the private
participants in these agreements could be subject to challenge
under the Code.
Finally, the proposal is likely to have an adverse impact at
the state level. Many states have economic development programs
designed to encourage growth of local technology bases through
support for research and development. These programs would be
subject to challenge under the proposed test. Because many of
the patents held by state universities are the results of Federal
or state funded research, the more than 1,275 patents held by
universities and licensed to others (as reported by the
Association of University Technology Managers) would also be
subject to challenge under the Code.
Agency Concerns with Proposal
U.S. Federal research and development expenditures provide
an important source of U.S. competitive strength and the proposed
changes in the GATT Code are likely to impair U.S. ability to
harness those expenditures. The President's Budget for FY 92
proposes allocating $72 billion for research and development,
including significant increases for many important research
programs. (See Attachment A) While some other countries spend a
higher percentage of GNP on R&D, the U.S. expenditure is larger
than any other countries and larger than the combined expenditure
of Japan, West Germany, France and the United Kingdom. These
expenditures cover both basic and applied research and relate to
virtually every significant area of economic activity in the U.S.
In the past ten years, the Reagan and Bush Administrations
have successfully strengthened laws and policies encouraging
private sector development of commercial applications for Federal
R&D. Many states are also focusing their economic development
efforts on science and technology with programs of aid and
-4-
assistance designed to strengthen local commercial technology
bases.
The proposal to clarify exactly what types of government R&D
are permissible and, by inference, what types are not, would
expose the Administration's technology transfer and
commercialization programs to challenge under the GATT Subsidies
Code. For example, where a private party is licensed under a
Government patent resulting from Federal research work, many
months may be required before the confidential patent application
results in the issuance of a patent. While the issuance of the
patent would arguably make the results available publicly, it is
unlikely this could be done quickly enough to satisfy the
proposed standard.
Equally important, by encouraging the placing of research
results in the public domain, the proposed GATT test diminishes,
if not destroys, the economic value of the results of the Federal
research and development programs. In bringing new products to
market, the largest investment is not the basic research coming
from the Federal program but the investment in prototype
development, production facilities, distribution and marketing.
No responsible private sector investor will want to make the
investment necessary to commercialize research results if they
cannot protect that investment from free riders.
The fact that U.S. R&D commercialization projects will be
subject to challenge under the proposed test of the GATT code
will raise the risks associated with commercialization. As a
result, U.S. private sector investors will require a higher rate
of return and fewer R&D results will be commercialized, harming
U.S. competitiveness.
Federal law and policy recognize that the quickest, most
efficient means for disseminating the results of Federally
supported research is to invest it with property rights. This is
the fundamental basis on which our market economy quickly makes
available new products, processes and services. GATT rules that
discourage the creation of property rights in results of
Federally supported research will frustrate the President's
policy of supporting R&D as a means of enhancing U.S.
competitiveness.
Finally, the concepts of product subsidization used in the
Subsidies Code are wholly inadequate tools to analyze the
appropriateness of government R&D programs and policies.
Government R&D programs may produce fundamental changes in basic
areas of science or technology with broad social and economic
impacts, unlike government subsidization of particular products.
However, the Subsidy Code's product-oriented approach does not
provide a useful vehicle for analysis of the many complex issues
which would inevitably be raised, e.g.,:
-5-
Where a large multi-year Federal investment in basic
research (e.g., genetic research) was followed by a
series of smaller private sector commercial investments
that resulted in several successful new products, how
would the value of the Federal investment be allocated
to each of the commercial products?
Where a private contractor operated a Government
laboratory, what, if any, restrictions would be imposed
on the contractor's ability to commercialize inventions
resulting from its work?
Would the full value of government research
expenditures be regarded as a subsidy? Would any
allowance be made for the value of the results obtained
in furthering the agency's mission (e.g., improving
human understanding of disease mechanisms, increasing
domestic agricultural productivity or protecting the
security of the nation) ? Where R&D contracts are
competitively awarded, would any allowance be made for
the fact that the price paid by the government reflects
the potential commercial value (adjusted for risk) at
the time of the contract?
How would "harm" be determined in the case of
government R&D programs under the Code? Would any
effort be made to weigh the social benefits of a new
technology against the financial impact on a particular
company or industry? If the research produced improved
energy efficiency, or environmental benefits to
society, could it still be held to have "harmed" the
technologies or products it displaced in the
marketplace?
Procurement Code
The Issue
The United States is considering whether to include
government research and development contracts as service
contracts subject to the procedures of the Government Procurement
Code. If such contracts are included, the United States and
other signatories would be obligated to give equal treatment to
foreign and domestic competitors for these contracts and to
follow procurement procedures prescribed by the Code in procuring
government research and development from third parties. Any
domestic laws or policies inconsistent with this standard of
equal treatment would have to be eliminated.
-6-
Impact on U.S. Research and Development Programs
Because the proposal to include government research and
development contracts is in a preliminary stage, it is difficult
to determine a specific impact on government research and
development contracts. For example, although grants are
generally not included in the Code, a competitive awarding of
grants is used by several agencies as a means of awarding
research and development funding to third parties and it is not
clear precisely what status these programs would have under the
Code. Similarly, while exclusions may exist for defense-related
work, it is possible that some work by the Departments of Defense
and Energy involving dual-use technologies (i.e., capable of both
military and commercial applications) may not qualify for
exception on that basis.
In any event, a conservative estimate of the amount the
Federal government spends on non-defense research and development
performed by third parties is approximately $17 billion. The
amount of such work varies from department to department. The
Department of Energy spent more than $3.6 billion in FY 1990 on
non-defense extramural research, in a wide variety of energy-
related areas. The Public Health Service of the Department of
Health and Human Services estimates that its biomedical research
programs at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the
Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA), the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) spent more than $6.8 billion dollars supporting biomedical
research and development in FY 1990. The Department of
Agriculture spends almost $500 million per year on extramural
research, most of which goes to land-grant universities, while
NASA spent more than $4.5 billion on extramural research in FY
1990.
At present, these contracts are, for the most part, awarded
to domestic companies and those companies are able to secure the
right to develop commercial uses for the intellectual property
and technical data generated in connection with their work for
the government. Including R&D contracts in the GATT Procurement
Code is likely to reduce or eliminate this important source of
support for U.S. industrial competitiveness.
Agency Concerns with Proposal
The United States has a unique and highly effective Federal
research and development program which advances the complex
missions of the Federal agencies while also providing an
extensive base of scientific and technical knowledge which can be
developed into commercial products by the private sector.
Opening competition for research and development contracts to
-7-
foreign competitors would require the abandonment of the
Administration's efforts to promote U.S. private sector
commercialization of Federal research results and might well lead
to the commercialization of this Federal knowledge base by other
countries.
-8-
Attachment A
FY 1992 PROPOSED BUDGET AUTHORITY
FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
1992 Proposed
(Millions)
Governmentwide totals:
Conduct of R&D:
Basic Research
13,320
Civilian
12,278
Defense¹
1,041
Applied R&D
58,758
Civilian
16,552
Defense¹
42,206
Total
72,078
Conduct of R&D by Five Largest Agencies:
Defense-military
40,479
Health and Human Services
9,836
Energy
6,410
National Aeronautics and
8,602
Space Administration
National Science Foundation
1,828
Agriculture
1,224
1 Includes military-related programs of the Departments of
Defense and Energy
STATE DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20250
APR
SUBJECT: Proposed Procurement and Subsidies Codes in GATT
Negotiations
TO: Deborah L. Wince-Smith
Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy
U.S. Department of Commerce
I am writing to express serious concern on behalf of the Science and
Education agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding
proposed codes in GATT.
Extramural and intramural research programs in the USDA are administered
by two different agencies. The extramural research agency is the
Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS). This agency distributes nearly
$500 million annually in research funding to U.S. universities through
several types of instruments. These include competitive grants, special
grants, specific cooperative agreements, formula funds distributed to all
land-grant universities in accordance with provisions of the Hatch
Agricultural Experiment Station Act of 1887, and funds distributed to
Schools of Forestry under the McIntyre-Stennis Act.
Depending upon the precise interpretation of the language in the proposed
GATT procurement code, foreign universities might demand the right to
access to some or all of these extramural funds. If allowed to happen,
this could totally undermine the food and agricultural research system in
the United States. A more immediate effect would be a tremendous
political backlash, especially by the land-grant universities, many of
which are heavily dependent on funds from CSRS for survival of their
schools of agriculture.
The intramural agricultural research agency in USDA is the Agricultural
Research Service (ARS). This agency has developed an aggressive and
effective technology transfer program based on the Federal Technology
Transfer Act (FTTA) of 1986. It has taken a great deal of effort to
generate cooperation between industry and ARS laboratories. The real
progress we have made in overcoming industry concerns over such issues as
confidentiality, publication and ivory tower images of our laboratories
has resulted in nearly 200 Cooperative Research and Development Agreements
(CRADA's). If agribusiness companies become faced with fear that they
I
will be penalized in international trade because of this cooperation with
Federal laboratories, I confidently predict our rate of generation of new
CRADA's will rapidly fall to zero.
Received
APR 30 1991
Winds-Smith
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Deborah L. Wince-Smith
2
For these reasons we believe that the research and development aspects of
the procurement and subsidy codes in the GATT negotiations are of utmost
concern with regard to the vitality of the food and agricultural sector of
the U.S. economy, and we have little doubt that the same is true for other
sectors. We urge that the U.S. position on these codes be reviewed more
thoroughly in an appropriate interagency forum such as the Economic Policy
Council.
harles E less
CHARLES E. HESS
Assistant Secretary
Science and Education
SERVICES
HUMAN
USA
HEALTH
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
of
DEPARTMENT
Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Health
Washington DC 20201
APR 24 1991
Mr. Joseph P. Allen
Director, Office of Technology
Commercialization
U.S. Department of Commerce
Room 4416
Washington, D.C. 20230
Dear Mr. Allen:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the impacts on Public
Health Service (PHS) agencies of the current GATT negotiations
regarding procurement and subsidies. This proposal would make a
number of significant changes as listed below:
o
The current U.S. proposal on procurement would allow foreign
entities to receive extramural research and development
funds on exactly the same basis as domestic entities.
O
The current U.S. proposal on subsidies would characterize
most PHS intramural research as a subsidy actionable under
the GATT (i.e. subject to tariffs and countervailing duties)
if the research results, in the form of patents or other
intellectual property, were licensed to private firms for
commercialization and product development.
The PHS is very concerned about the negative impacts these
proposals would have on research programs at the PHS,
particularly the impacts on biomedical research programs at the
National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and
Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA), the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
The NIH/ADAMHA/CDC are the largest sponsors of biomedical
research in the world, supporting over $6.8 billion dollars of
biomedical research and development in Fiscal Year 1990. More
than three quarters of this money is awarded through 27,000
grants and contracts as part of NIH's extramural research
program. In addition, the NIH has one of the best and most
aggressive technology transfer programs in the Federal
Government. Both of these programs would be severely compromised
if current U.S. proposals regarding procurement and subsidies
were to become part of the GATT.
Page 2 - Mr. Joseph P. Allen
GATT Procurement Initiative
Extramural Research Programs
The NIH/ADAMHA spent a total of $5.96 billion on extramural
research and development (R&D) projects in FY 1990. A majority
of these "external" research funds, $5.2 billion (87%) was
awarded as grants to either U.S. based non-profit research
institutions or U.S. based private sector companies. Another
$700 million was spent on research contracts with U.S. based
organizations. The majority of these grants and contracts are
awarded on a competitive basis. U.S. based non-profit
organizations (including private universities) received $5.48
billion of this total while U.S. based for-profit concerns
received $436 million. Foreign-based organizations received $36
million (0.6%) of the total extramural research funds in FY 1990.
Foreign entities are not per se barred from all PHS extramural
research programs, but they are excluded from some programs, such
as the SBIR program and Biomedical Research Support grants. In
addition, foreign entities can not recover their indirect costs
under PHS grants. The current U.S. GATT proposal on procurement
would open up the competition for all NIH funding programs to
both foreign firms and foreign research institutions.
The impact of opening up this source of basic research funding to
foreign companies would be extremely negative. It could provide
our foreign competitors with U.S. taxpayer-supported funding for
the basic research necessary to produce novel technologies (such
as biotechnology or gene therapy) or the next generation of
existing technologies, thereby injuring U.S. competitiveness.
The U.S. biotechnology industry, acknowledged as one of the few
advanced technologies in which the U.S. is still the world
leader, grew primarily out of Federal (NIH) grants to U.S.
research universities. In addition, opening up of these grants
and contracts would lead to intense competition between U.S.-
based researchers and foreign-based researchers for limited PHS
research funds. Such competition for NIH research funds is
already fierce and increasing the competition on already under-
funded projects would be counterproductive. Many worthy projects
which could have a beneficial impact on the U.S. public health
and U.S. economic health might have to be shelved or severely cut
back.
DHHS' Small Business Innovative Research Program
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which
includes the PHS and several other health-related agencies, has
an active Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program. The
SBIR program would also likely be affected by the procurement
provisions that would open up R & D grants or contracts to
foreign entities would most likely allow foreign small businesses
to apply for SBIR grants. The SBIR program is currently limited
Page 3 - Mr. Joseph P. Allen
to S.-based small businesses. Under the current U.S. proposal,
however, and in the absence of specific exceptions, all Federal R
& D programs would be open to foreign entities including the SBIR
program.
In FY 1990 the DHHS awarded small firms over $84 million for
research and development projects under the SBIR program. In FY
1989 $79.3 million was awarded. It should be noted that most
agencies' policy under the SBIR Act allows small firms to retain
title not only to patentable inventions (under the Bayh-Dole
Act), but also to technical data associated with the research
conducted under the SBIR award. Although foreign firms cannot
obtain patent rights under the Bayh-Dole Act, they might be able
to use this technical data from SBIR research projects to enhance
their competitive position in many fields of technology. This
result would clearly be contrary to the spirit of the SBIR Act
and would unnecessarily punish the most innovative sector of the
U.S economy--small high technology businesses.
GATT Subsidies Initiative
The current U.S. proposal on subsidies would severely impact the
PHS's efforts to transfer technology under the Federal Technology
Transfer Act of 1986 (FTTA). The definition of a non-actionable
R & D subsidy in the U.S. proposal is limited to R & D whose
results may be used without fee or restriction and which is made
available to the public at least every six months during the
research project. This conflicts directly with the intent of the
FTTA and Executive Order 12591 which direct Federal agencies to
seek patent protection for their valuable technologies and then
to attempt to license these patents to private sector firms
for commercial development. In addition, since the proposed
subsidy provisions would apply to state or local government R & D
spending programs as well as the Federal R & D programs, many
publicly supported universities with R & D technology transfer
programs could be adversely affected.
DHHS Technology Transfer Programs
All agencies within the DHHS that conduct intramural (or in-
house) research have a technology transfer program. The goal of
these programs is to enhance U.S. industrial competitiveness
through the licensing of technologies developed in DHHS
laboratories to the private sector. Since 1977 over 340 license
agreements have been executed on behalf of DHHS agencies. A
majority of these inventions have come from the National
Institutes of Health technology transfer program. In FY 1990, 48
licenses were granted. In FY 1991 an estimated 50 licenses will
be granted. This would bring the total number of license
agreements to over 380. The current subsidies proposal could
subject every one of DHHS's licensees to tariffs and
Page 4 - Mr. Joseph P. Allen
countervailing duties under the GATT, because these patents are
the result of government funded research which is not freely
available and is not published every six months. Many of DHHS'
licensees are multinational pharmaceutical manufacturers who do
business worldwide and are thus greatly exposed to potential
tariffs on products produced under DHHS patents.
The subsidies proposal could put firms who had licensed DHHS
technologies in good faith and under licensing terms similar to
terms available from commercial entities into a situation where
they would be attacked under the GATT merely because they
purchased their technology from a government entity rather than
from a private sector entity. This problem is significant not
only for the 380 licensees of DHHS patents, but for the more than
1,275 licensed university-owned patents recently reported by the
Association of University Technology Managers. Most of these
licensees would potentially be subject to retaliatory tariffs and
duties under the GATT since a majority of the licensed patents
were the results of research sponsored state governments or
performed by state-funded universities.
An important component of DHHS' technology transfer program is
the Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) with
private sector firms. All of these agreements would be
considered actionable subsidies if the current proposal on
subsidies were made part of the GATT. The NIH, ADAMHA, and CDC
have 150 active CRADAs and approximately 40 more under
negotiation. No private firm would enter into a CRADA if they
knew that they would be subject to retaliatory tariffs or duties
under the GATT. This would further frustrate the intent of the
FTTA and E.O. 12591 as well as hurt U.S. competitiveness by
making it very difficult to transfer government technology.
Conclusion
PHS strongly objects to the current U.S. proposals on procurement
and subsidies as they relate to R & D. We believe this proposal
is contrary to the Technology Transfer Act and administration's
policy. These proposals would severely harm U.S. competitiveness
by eroding our support of the private and non-profit research
base, putting U.S. taxpayer dollars into the research and
development projects of our economic competitors reducing the
already limited funding of United States universities, and
destroying both Federal and State technology transfer programs.
The subsidies provisions alone could negatively impact over 1,600
Page 5 - Mr. Joseph P. Allen
license agreements between private firms and government or
university technology transfer programs. Therefore, the PHS
urges the U.S. Trade Representative to withdraw these proposals
from consideration at the next round of GATT negotiations.
Sincerely,
Frank E. Young, M.D. Ph.D.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health/
Science and Environment
CC: James O. Mason, M.D., Dr.P.H. (Assistant Secretary
for Health)
Bernadine P. Healy, M.D. (Director, NIH)
Fred Goodwin, M.D. (Director, ADAMHA)
Reid Adler, J.D. (Director, OTT/NIH)
OF THE ERIOR
TAKE
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
March
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
APR 26 1991
Memorandum
To:
Joseph P. Allen, Director of Technology Commercialization,
Department of Commerce
From:
John Department M. Sayre, of Assistant the Interior Secretary - Water Gayre and Science,
Subject:
Draft Committee Comments on GATT Issues
In response to the April 24, 1991, memorandum from Ms. Deborah L. Wince-Smith,
Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy, our comments follow.
The position expressed in the draft can be described as the position of the
United States research establishment against the U.S. position on subsidies
since the Tokyo Round negotiations.
As the draft points out, the Subsidies Code has imposed no restrictions on the
use of such subsidies (for research and development) and only the United
States has challenged government research and development programs as
impermissible subsidies.
The two provisions proposed by the chairman of the subsidies negotiation can
be seen as language that goes in the direction of supporting the U.S.
position. It would seem, therefore, that it would be quite embarrassing to
the United States to have a admit that the position it has taken since the
1970's was mistaken and that it is quite satisfied with the current treatment
of R&D subsidies in the Code.
Thus, while the letter to the Economic Policy Council raises valid concerns
(the U.S. should not trade away a major comparative advantage), it offers no
suggestion how to get out of this embarrassing situation.
Therefore, I would suggest that the ad hoc group that drafted the comments
(with which I concur) should propose a revised U.S position to be included in
the letter, or inform the Council that a revised position would be provided
shortly.
CC: Deborah L. Wince-Smith, Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy,
Department of Commerce
U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20416
ATTOM
April 26, 1991
Ms. Deborah L. Wince-Smith
Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy
Technology Administration
U. S. Department of Commerce
Room 4818 Hoover Building
Washington, DC 20230
Dear Ms. Wince-Smith:
In your letter of April 23, 1991 you requested that we provide
our comments and concerns on the GATT Procurement and Subsidies
Code Negotiations discussed at the Meeting of the Interagency
Committee on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer.
It is obvious, we believe, that the proposed Gatt proposals would
have an extremely deleterious effect on the Federal effort to
encourage the American entrepreneur to undertake a more active
role in the commercialization of Federal research and development
activities. The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
program is a clear example of this effort. In the enabling
legislation (P. L. 97-213) the Congress found that technological
innovation creates jobs, increases productivity, competition, and
economic growth and is a valuable counterforce to inflation and
the balance of payments deficit. Congress further found that
small businesses are the principal source of significant
innovations in the Nation, are among the most cost effective
performers of research and development, and are particularly
capable of developing research and development results into new
products. These findings have led to a number of important
efforts, including the SBIR program, to enhance the role of small
business in the effort to improve the competitive posture of the
Nation by assuring small business presence in the efforts to
commercialize Federally sponsored innovations.
Both proposals discussed would undermine this effort, as well as
the American high technology small business community, and do a
disservice to the historic role of the American entrepreneur in
developing new technologies. If the Subsidies Code is amended as
proposed, the Small Business Innovation Research firms will
suffer severely in any attempt to commercialize their innovations
internationally. These firms, presently working on about 3,000
projects a year, with current funding in excess of $470 million,
all of which are undertaken in conjunction with Federal agencies,
and all of which have the potential to be commercialized, would
be severely penalized. This effort of the last nine years would
be essentially destroyed with resulting loss to the small
business community and to the economy.
Unlike most of our trading partners, the strength of American
technological innovation efforts has historically been driven by
the small entrepreneur. To enrich the potential of these small
firms in the R & D effort, where half of the research and
development funding is provided by the Federal government, it has
been necessary to establish mechanisms to assure that
entrepreneurs can participate in these Federal efforts. By
bringing their unique ability to commercialize innovations into
the major R & D efforts of the Nation the entrepreneur plays an
essential role in the American innovation process. Clearly the
GATT proposal to amend the Subsidies Code would devastate this
effort by crippling this unique and efficient mechanism
It must also be understood that the implementation of this
proposal would lead to situations the administration of which
would be impossible. The issues involved would be extremely
contentious to the orderly conduct of international trade in high
technology products and services by American small businesses.
The proposal to include government research and development
contracts as service contracts subject to the procedures of the
Government Procurement Code would oblige us to give equal
treatment to foreign competitors for R & D contracts that are now
set aside for American small businesses. Here again our ability
to develop innovations from Federal R & D and bring those
innovations to the marketplace is heavily dependent on our
ability to assure that the American entrepreneur can participate
on a fair and reasonable basis. The proposal, as we now
understand it, would devastate this process.
The role of the American entrepreneur in developing and bringing
to market now products and services has historically been largely
responsible for our leadership position in technological
development. This resource, stemming from a cultural uniqueness
valuing independence, individuality, and risk-taking, is
intrinsic not only to our economy but to our society. These
proposals have the potential to bring harm to institutions of
great national importance.
Sincerely,
7 Shane
Richard J. Shane
Assistant Administrator for Innovation.
Research & Technology
DEPART TMENT OF DEPEND
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC 20330-1000
INITED OF AMERICA
MAY 9 1991
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION
(MR. JOSEPH P. ALLEN), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
SUBJECT: R&D Issues in the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade
(GATT) Subsidies and Procurement Code Negotiations -
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
The Air Force is very concerned about the possible inclusion
of R&D in the GATT Subsidies and Procurement Codes. This action
would clearly not be in the best interest of the Air Force, the
Department of Defense, or the U.S. industrial base and would have
a negative effect on DoD R&D and technology transfer activities.
The Air Force strongly endorses the concerns iterated by Ms.
Wince-Smith in her memorandum (draft dated April 23) to Mr.
Wethington of the Economic Policy Council. In addition, suggest
the following concern be added to the "Agency Concerns" section of
the "Procurement Code" (page 7) :
"The maintenance of a strong industrial base
is crucial to national security. Infusing
technology by direct contracts and domestic
technology transfer are important tools for
maintaining that base available to the
Government. There is evidence of erosion of
that base. Inclusion of R&D in the
procurement code will seriously impede our
ability to use these tools and exacerbate
erosion.'
We urge you to continue to fight against the inclusion of R&D
in the GATT Subsidies and Procurement Codes and will continue to
assist to the maximum extent possible.
WanceR.Rak
DANIEL S. RAK
Deputy Assistant Secretary
(Acquisition)
DEPARTMENT
LAMMERCE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Washington. D.C. 20230
UNITED STATES of AMERICA
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR IMPORT ADMINISTRATION
MAY 1 4 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Deborah L. Wince-Smith
Assistant Secretary for
Technology Policy
FROM:
Eric I. Garfinkel
Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration
SUBJECT:
Coverage of Government-Supported Research and
Development Activity Under GATT Subsidy Rules
This responds to your request for comments on the concerns of the
federal R&D community expressed in your draft memorandum to Olin
Wethington of May 2.
Under existing GATT Subsidies Code rules, R&D subsidies may either
be countervailed or challenged in the GATT if they cause material
injury or other adverse trade effects.
After two years of negotiation, it is clear that it will be
virtually impossible to negotiate a mutually acceptable
permissible category for R&D with either the Europeans or the
Japanese, our chief opponents in the Subsidies Code talks.
Throughout the negotiations, the Europeans and the Japanese have
sought, through their definition of "green" R&D subsidies, to
protect their own subsidies programs while leaving U.S. programs
vunerable to attack. In light of this, our negotiating position
has been to maintain existing Code rules. Thus, we have been
opposed to making any subsidy "permissible", or immune from
countervailing duty or GATT action, if it causes adverse trade
effects.
As we discussed previously, I would be more than willing to meet
with representatives of the technology agencies to brief them on
the status of the subsidies negotiation, as well as our
negotiating strategy on the R&D issue.
Received
MAY 15 1991
D.L.
A/S for Tech
MEMBERSHIP OF THE
INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE FOR FEDERAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Commerce
Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith
Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy
U.S. Department of Commerce
Room 4818, Hoover Building
14th Street and Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230
Telephone: (202) 377-1581
Agriculture
Honorable Charles E. Hess
Assistant Secretary for Science and Education
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Room 217W, Administration Building
Washington, D.C. 20250
Telephone: (202) 447-5923
Interior
Honorable John Sayre
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Mail Stop 6640
Washington, D.C. 20240
Telephone: (202) 208-3186
EPA
Honorable Erich Bretthauer
Assistant Administrator for Research
and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside West Building, Room 913
Washington, D.C. 20460
Telephone: (202) 382-7676
Air Force
Honorable John J. Welch, Jr.
Assistant Secretary for Acquisition
U.S. Department of the Air Force
Pentagon, Room 4E964
Washington, D.C. 20330-1000
Telephone: (703) 697-6361
Army
Honorable Stephen K. Conver
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research,
Development and Acquisition)
SARD-ZA
Pentagon, Room 2E-672
Washington, DC 20310-0103
Telephone: (703) 695-6153
Navy
Honorable Gerald Cann
Assistant Secretary for Research, Development,
Acquisitions
U.S. Department of the Navy
Pentagon, Room 4E732
Washington, D.C. 20350
Telephone: (703) 695-6315
Defense
Honorable Raymond Siebert
Deputy Under Secretary for Research and
Advanced Technology
U.S. Department of Defense
Pentagon, Room 3E114
Washington, D.C. 20301-3000
Telephone: (703) 695-5036
Mr. Nicholas Montanarelli
Director, Technology Applications
SDIO (TNI)
Pentagon, Room 1E-167
Washington, D.C. 20301-7100
Telephone: (202) 653-1442
NASA
Mrs. Margaret G. Finarelli
Associate Administrator for
External Relations
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Federal Office Building 6, Room 7021
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20546
Telephone: (202) 453-8310
Energy
Honorable Peter Saba
Principal Associate Under Secretary for
Policy, Planning and Analysis (PE-1)
U.S. Department of Energy
Room 7B-084
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585
Telephone: (202) 586-4159
Transportation
Mr. Mark Dowis
Associate Administrator for Research and
Special Programs Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
Room 8410
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
Telephone: (202) 366-4433
HHS
Honorable Frank E. Young
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health,
Science, and Environment
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Humphrey Building, Room 701-H
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20201
Telephone: (202) 245-6811
OSTP
Dr. William Phillips
Associate Director for Industrial Technology
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Old Executive Office Building, Room 432 1/2
Washington, D.C. 20506
Telephone: (202) 395-3125
USTR
Honorable S. Bruce Wilson
Assistant U. S. Trade Representative
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Winder Building, Room 401A
600 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20506
Telephone: (202) 395-7320
VA
Dr. Stephen Litwin
Deputy Assistant Chief Medical Director
Veterans Administration Central Office
810 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20420
Telephone: (202) 233-2616
CPSC
Dr. Robert D. Verhalen
Associate Executive Director
Consumer Safety Products Commission
5401 Westbard Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20207
Telephone: (301) 492-6440
OMB
Mr. Joseph Hezir
Deputy Associate Director
Energy and Science Division
Office of Management and Budget
725 17th Street, N.W.
Room 8001, New Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20503
Telephone: (202) 395-3404
NSF
Honorable Frederick M. Bernthal
Deputy Director
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street, N.W.
Room 520
Washington, D.C. 20050
Telephone: (202) 357-7748
EPC
Mr. Olin Wethington
Special Assistant to the President
and Executive Secretary of the
Economic Policy Council
Room 228, Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20500
Telephone: (202) 456-7968
GSA
Honorable Thomas Buckholtz
Commissioner of Information Resources
Management Services
General Services Administration
18th & F Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20405
Telephone: (202) 501-1000
White House
Dr. Dana Marshall
International Economic Affairs Advisor
to the Vice President
Room 298, Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20501
Telephone: (202) 395-6014
SBA
Mr. Richard Shane
Assistant Administrator, Innovation,
Research and Technology
Small Business Administration
409 Third Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20416
Telephone: (202) 205-6450
Treasury
Honorable Sidney L. Jones
Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Main Treasury, Room 3454
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20220
Telephone: (202) 566-2551
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS
FACT SHEET
Achieving Competitiveness in National Critical Technologies
Policies in Support of Technology Development in America
"If America is to maintain and strengthen our competitive
position, we must continue not only to create new
technologies but to learn to more effectively translate
those technologies into commercial products.
President George Bush
November 13, 1990
"For America to be number one in the development of critical
technologies and commercialization of related products, we
must have a healthy entrepreneurial climate for private
sector development of these technologies."
Vice President Quayle
April 24, 1991
INTRODUCTION
1. The release of the Report of the National Critical
Technologies Panel provides an important opportunity to restate
those steps necessary to improve the U.S. entrepreneurial climate
and maintain our competitiveness. While the American private
sector is asked to invest in our future, the government must
continue to remove those unnecessary government restraints that
chill the climate for investment in new technology. The benefits
of technology will bring us closer to the national goals of
improved quality of life for all Americans, continued economic
growth, and national security.
2. This Fact Sheet incorporates points made in previous
Administration initiatives such as the critical technologies
reports of the Department Defense and the Department of Commerce,
U.S. Technology Policy prepared by the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, and the National Energy Strategy. These
policies encourage the development of technologies.
3. Critical technologies are fundamental "building blocks" for
American industry and international competitiveness. Market
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 1
forces must be allowed to support their development, not
selection and promotion by government.
The Free Market
4.
The free market has served to make the United States the
world's largest economy. The United States has a $5.5 trillion
economy that achieves one-quarter of the world's production with
5% of the world's population. We are the world's leading
exporter of goods and services, and the world's leading importer.
5.
Creating and maintaining the proper entrepreneurial climate
for national critical technologies depends on:
O
A quality workforce that is educated, trained, and
flexible in adapting to technological and competitive
change;
A financial environment that is conducive to longer-
term investment in technology;
The translation of innovation into timely, cost
competitive, high quality manufactured products;
An efficient technological infrastructure, especially
in transfer of information;
A legal and regulatory environment that provides
stability for innovation and does not contain
unnecessary barriers to private investments in R&D and
domestic production
The Private Sector Role
6.
In the free market system it is the role of the private
sector to identify and utilize technologies for commercial
products and processes. Responsibilities of the private sector
include:
Conduct R&D to advance industry-related knowledge and
technology;
Identify and aggressively pursue potential commercial
applications for technologies developed by private
laboratories as well as by universities, Federal
laboratories and foreign sources;
Increase quality, output, and productivity by
undertaking necessary investments in physical capital;
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 2
Improve the skills and abilities of the private sector
workforce to meet its own needs;
In addition, the private sector can participate cooperatively in
improving the quality of U.S. education.
The Government Role
7. The government role is to foster a stable economic
environment that is conducive to investment. Steady non-
inflationary growth and adequate national savings are critical
requirements for investment because investors need confidence in
the future. Investment decisions should not be dominated by
fears of erratic government policy, uncertainty in tax laws, or
excessive or uncertain regulation.
8. The government role regarding critical technologies should
be limited to (1) providing needed support to activities that are
clearly undersupported by the market because they generate
economic benefits that greatly exceed their profitability, and
(2) removing unnecessary and artificial barriers to proper market
functioning, including legal and regulatory barriers.
9. In order to assure that economic considerations determine
allocations of resources in the market, the government should
forego policies, tax laws, and practices that benefit specific
industries, products or sectors in relation to others except
where market externalities exist which prevent private sector
investment from realizing full economic benefit of the
investment. Actions that yield encouraging results for a
particular industry create a larger cost to the economy in terms
of reduced efficiency, productivity and standards of living.
ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSFER OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
10. Education, enhancement of technical knowledge in science,
and the conduct of research and development in science and
technology are responsibilities shared by government at all
levels and a broad range of private organizations. Scientific
literacy benefits all Americans.
11. The government helps to support research especially in
situations where the private sector cannot reasonably be expected
to recover sufficient benefits. Generic enabling technologies
that cut across industries and at the precompetitive stage often
cannot be developed by individual firms acting solely on their
own. Support also may be needed for areas where the private
sector could not be expected to earn an adequate rate of return
on its R&D investments because it would be unable to assert
property rights if the research results were commercialized.
This precompetitive research is often crucial to maintaining
public health, safety, and national security.
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 3
Federal Funding
12. President Bush's budget proposal to Congress for FY '92
allocates $76 billion to R&D, an increase of 13 percent over
FY' 91 enacted levels. Activities targeted for increases are
examples of the types of areas where Federal support is
appropriate:
O
Basic research at the National Institutes of Health
o
Basic research at the National Science Foundation
O
Defense R&D
Space activities
Mathematics and science education
Global change research
Biomedical (including AIDS) research
National Agricultural Research Initiative
Superconducting Super Collider
High-performance computing and communications
Energy R&D
Advanced manufacturing and materials R&D
Aeronautics R&D
R&D at the National Institute of Standards and
Techñology
Federal Technology Transfer
13. Technology transfer between Federally-supported researchers
and the commercial market place is an important government
function that offers fruitful opportunities for development of
national critical technologies. Technology transfer conducted
under cost sharing arrangements increases the benefits from
Federal R&D expenditures and boosts government-private sector
partnerships. The climate for technology transfer is enhanced by
laws and arrangements that protect intellectual property rights
and avoid conflicts of interest. Defense-related research can
make major contributions when adequate safeguards for protecting
information important to national security are available.
14. The 1980 Bayh-Dole Patent and Trademark Amendments Act
permitted universities, nonprofit corporations and small
businesses to retain patent rights resulting from Federally
supported R&D. The Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986
allowed Federally owned and operated laboratories to manage
patentable rights. The 1986 Act also encourages directors of
Federal laboratories to form joint R&D projects with businesses,
universities and the states, and allowed Federal inventors to
receive a portion of royalties resulting from commercialization
of patents obtained from the research developed. Executive Order
No. 12591 further mandated implementation of technology transfer
by Federal agencies. In 1989 the provisions of the 1986 Act were
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 4
extended to the National Laboratories operated for the Department
of Energy.
Federal Procurement
15. Because the U.S. government is the country's largest
purchaser, spending nearly $200 billion for products and services
annually, it can influence the development of commercial
technologies. Government procurement practices generally should
not dictate which technologies to use, rather firms should be
able to compete to find the best way of meeting government's
needs. In this way, government procurement practices should
emulate the best commercial practices, allow government to
participate to the greatest possible extent in the commercial
marketplace, and take full advantage of the free market's ability
to generate innovation.
16. Two special issues in Federal procurement are technical data
rights and recoupment. Firms producing for the Federal
government should be able to provide their best technical
expertise without fear of its free release to their competitors.
And firms should have the right to appropriately profit from the
investment they make in commercial applications of technologies
developed under Federal contracts. The government benefits from
these practices through ready access to innovations occurring in
the commercial market place, expansion of the industrial base
supporting government activities, and price discounts recognizing
the value of commercialization rights. The Administration will
soon issue proposed regulations to ensure that government
purchases only those rights and data required to meet the
government's needs and to protect those it does not buy. The
Administration is now reviewing the requirements to recoup R&D
costs from contractors that develop commercial derivatives of
products.
17. The Administration is pursuing a number of other changes in
the Federal government's procurement practices that would
contribute to technological innovation and development. Federal
procurement statutes and regulations need to permit greater
integration of government and commercial production at the
factory level, as well as encourage greater innovation and
efficiency in development and production. Also, the government
should use commercial products, to the extent feasible, for
defense, space, and other government applications. For those
products and processes for which it is the sole or major consumer
and no commercially mailable products can be substituted, the
Federal government S. :ld (1) rely principally on the private
sector to undertake development process; and (2) strengthen
the abilities of comp as involved in developing and
demonstrating these products to use the same research and
technologies for commercial purposes.
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 5
THE LEGAL AND REGULATORY CLIMATE
Antitrust Concerns
18.
Effective antitrust laws and their enforcement are crucial
to the maintenance of a competitive economy, and thus to
international competitiveness. Undue concern with antitrust
enforcement should not, however, provide an unwarranted deterrent
to activities that may in many circumstances enhance efficiency
and competition. In particular, American firms should be assured
that antitrust laws will not be applied in an overly restrictive
way to joint ventures, including joint ventures among
competitors, to engage in research and development of new
technology, and to commercialize that technology. Reducing
unwarranted antitrust uncertainties related to such interfirm
cooperation would facilitate, where parties so desire, the
pooling of limited resource and a rapid diffusion of results
while still protecting against anticompetitive practices.
19. The National Cooperative Research Act of 1984 took an
important step to mitigate antitrust uncertainty with respect to
joint R&D. The Act clarified that R&D joint ventures should be
analyzed under the antitrust "rule of reason, which takes full
account not only of domestic and international competition to
such ventures, but also of their potential procompetitive
efficiencies. The Administration has proposed expansion of the
NCRA to cover joint production ventures as well. Such ventures
could promote the commercialization of new technology and help
assure that United States leadership in basic scientific research
is translated into leadership in commerce as well. At the same
time, NCRA coverage of joint production ventures will permit the
antitrust laws to play their proper role in preserving
competition and thus the competitiveness of the American economy.
Intellectual Property Rights
20. Essential to the free market development of technology is
the right of the private sector to maintain ownership of
intellectual property rights of inventions at home and overseas.
The Administration is aggressively pursuing improved
international protection of intellectual property through the
achievement of international agreements that would increase
protections abroad in the Uruguay Round of the GATT, at the World
Intellectual Property Organization and in trilateral talks with
the European Community and Japan. Bilateral negotiations are
also conducted under the provision of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act. The Administration also supports
strengthened domestic patent protection.
Product liability
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 6
21. The current product liability system generates excessive
litigation and concomitant transactional costs, thereby
increasing the cost of doing business in the United States and
discouraging innovation for products and related services such as
health care. The Administration supports the adoption of a
single, Federal, uniform product liability law based on three
principles of fairness: the right to fair compensation for actual
damages where there is liability, the remedy of liability based
on responsibility for harm and not ability to pay, and the
encouragement of alternatives to costly litigation. These
proposals would maintain the appropriate incentives to produce
safe products while restoring balance to the tort system and
reducing uncertainty surrounding the introduction of new
products.
Prohibitions on Competition
22. Clearly among the potentially most damaging aspects of
government laws are prohibitions or restrictions on competition
in particular markets. Competition drives the free market to
optimal price and output for the benefit of consumers and society
generally, and creates incentives for innovations and the means
for new product introductions. When government erects barriers
to market competition, it reduces the economy's flexibility,
competitiveness and innovative capacity. In the energy area, for
example, the Administration's National Energy Strategy calls for
an end to unnecessary regulatory impediments to the expanded
utilization of natural gas and innovative technologies for
electricity generation. In telecommunications the Administration
is seeking to change the antitrust consent decree that prohibits
telephone companies from conducting R&D and manufacturing
telecommunications equipment.
Export Controls
23. Export controls restrict the export of specific "dual use"
products to certain destinations, for national security and
foreign policy reasons. In an increasingly international
economy, with rapid technological innovation in other countries,
these controls require continuing revisions to ensure that the
burden and delays associated with licensing do not adversely
affect American firms relative to foreign firms in their ability
to compete in international markets, and thereby, discourage R&D
investments in the United States.
Non-Tariff Trade Barriers
24. Non-tariff trade barriers prevent open markets for
international commerce, and thus, injure competition by reducing
opportunities for new products, particularly high volume products
the
such as certain electronic components. The U.S. is working
through h GATT, other multi-national and bilateral negotiations to
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 7
ensure that U.S. firms will be allowed to compete fairly in
foreign markets. Private restraints on imports also can
constitute significant non-tariff barriers to trade by American
firms. Among the Administration's goals in the Structural
Impediment Initiative talks with Japan is more effective
enforcement of that nation's competition laws against private
restraints on imports in Japan, such as group boycotts.
Regulatory Concerns
25. In high technology industries, Federal regulation is a
critical determinant of the time and the cost required to bring a
product to market. Regulation is also a major factor influencing
investment decisions for new technologies. Regulatory
uncertainty or the expectation of burdensome regulation increases
risk for potential investors, and reduces incentives for
investment. Because technological innovation holds the promise
of providing new and better ways to meet the very objectives of
particular health, safety, or environmental regulations, those
regulations that discourage or penalize innovation are self-
perpetuating burdens on American industry.
26. In general terms, Federal regulations impose direct costs on
the economy of estimated to be $185 billion annually. While
appropriate regulation in response to market failures can serve
valuable social and economic functions, it may also impose
significant costs that particularly affect the ability and
incentive of firms to develop new high technology products. Some
regulatory regimes are no longer appropriate to new technologies,
others were developed without adequate consideration of the
burdens placed on international competition, and many regulations
explicitly impose greater burdens on new facilities and products,
such as the New Source Review provisions of the old Clean Air Act
and the rules for "new chemicals" under the Toxic Substances
Control Act.
27. Regulation most inhibits innovation when the regulatory
agency takes on the task of specifying which technologies or
designs industry must employ. Further, once a technology is
enshrined in regulation, firms have little incentive to invest in
better techniques. This has been the experience with numerous
environmental regulations in which the Federal government selects
control technologies. An excellent example is the old Clean Air
Act's mandate that firms employ "best available control
technology" (BACT) to reduce so, emissions. BACT was translated
into smokestack scrubber technology. Mandating scrubbers,
however, discouraged innovation of other means to remove sulfur,
such as removal from the fuel before combustion; and it
discouraged use of low-sulfur coal to begin with. The
Administration's new Clean Air Act cuts SO₂ by 50% -- but lets
industry choose how best to do so.
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 8
28. In general, regulatory reform can substantially improve the
incentives for innovation by using market-based incentive
approaches that set performance goals but let industry devise the
best means to attain those goals. An example is the
Administration's emissions trading program to reduce acid rain in
the 1990 Clean Air Act.
29. The Administration has developed principles that Executive
Branch agencies are to use when developing regulations or
reviewing current standards. These principles offer a useful set
of guidance for minimizing the burden of regulation on
innovation.
Regulations should be issued only on evidence that
their potential benefits exceed their potential costs.
Regulatory objectives, and the methods for achieving
these objectives, should be chosen to maximize the net
benefits to society.
Regulations that seek to reduce health or safety risks
should be based upon scientific risk-assessment
procedures, and should address risks that are real and
significant rather than hypothetical or remote.
Regulation of prices and products in competitive
markets should be avoided. Entry into competitive or
potentially competitive markets should be regulated
only where it is clearly necessary to protect health or
safety.
Voluntary private standards and disclosure should be
relied on where possible instead of inflexible
regulation.
Health, safety and environmental regulations should
address ends rather than means. They should employ
performance-based incentives that harness the
creativity of market actors to design and continually
innovate better ways of reducing excess risks. They
should not specify technologies or designs that firms
must employ.
O
Where regulations create private rights or obligations,
unrestricted exchange of these rights or obligations
should be encouraged.
Federal regulations should not preempt state laws or
regulations, except to guarantee rights of national
citizenship or to avoid significant burdens on
interstate commerce.
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 9
Regulations establishing terms or conditions of Federal
grants, contracts, or financial assistance should be
limited to the minimum necessary to achieving the
purposes for which the funds were authorized and
appropriated.
Licensing and permitting decisions and review of new
products should be made swiftly and should be based on
standards that are clearly defined in advance.
Standards for receiving government licenses and permits
should not exceed the necessary minimum. If the number
of comparably qualified applicants exceeds the number
of available licenses, the licenses should be allocated
by auction or other market-based means rather than by
administrative procedure.
THE FINANCIAL CLIMATE: INCREASING THE POOL OF CAPITAL FOR
INVESTMENT
30. Recent Federal policy has been successful in improving the
environment for private investment in R&D. Important actions
have been taken to increase incentives to invest, including
investment in R&D. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 substantially
reduced marginal income tax rates for businesses and individuals.
The maximum tax rate on corporate income dropped from 46% to 34%.
The top personal income tax rate that had been 70% as recently as
1981 was dropped to 28% in 1986 and increased to 31% in 1990.
"Subchapter S" corporations generally can pass through their
income to shareholders and have it taxed at lower individual tax
rates and avoid the double taxation of corporate income.
31. Discipline must be maintained to curb the Federal budget
deficit. The single greatest contribution that the Federal
government can make to increase the pool of capital available for
investment is to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The budget
deficit has a major impact on the level of gross domestic savings
available for investment. Efforts to reduce the Federal budget
deficit (the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) and to
impose Federal credit programs (Federal Credit Reform Act of
1990) will increase the availability of national savings for
private sector uses, including investment in new technology. The
Omnibus Budget Recondiliation Act of 1990 will reduce Federal
budget deficits, and therefore national dissaving, by almost $500
billion over the next .ive years, and will virtually eliminate
the Federal budget delicit by fiscal year 1995. In addition,
better control of the ficit enhances the opportunity for the
Federal Reserve to pursue a noninflationary growth monetary
policy.
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 10
32. Through the use of guarantees and interest rate subsidies,
the Federal Government redirects credit in the economy to certain
favored activities. In doing so, non-favored activities in the
economy are penalized and the efficiency of the resources
available to the economy is reduced. The Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990 places the cost of credit programs on the same
budgetary basis as direct Federal spending. For 1991 it is
estimated that direct Federal loan guarantees will total $119
billion and direct Federal loans will total $16.8 billion; these
exclude secondary loan guarantees. Discipline will be needed to
constrain the growth of Federal credit programs.
Increased Savings
33. A larger pool of capital also would be assured if proposals
advanced by the Administration are enacted. These include the
capital gains tax cut, family savings accounts and enhanced IRAs.
Failure to act on these proposals will have a negative effect on
national savings and the availability of capital for investment.
34. Pressures to increase Federal expenditures continue for a
wide variety of purposes and programs. This has led to proposals
to raise marginal tax rates for upper income individuals and
corporations. Higher marginal tax rates reduce the return from
investment. If Federal actions discourage investment, inevitably
economic growth will suffer. The Administration will continue to
resist pressures to raise marginal income tax rates.
Research and Experimentation Tax Credit
35. The Administration has proposed to make permanent the
Research and Experimentation (R&E) tax credit. Current law
allows a 20% tax credit for a certain portion of a taxpayer's
qualified research expenses. The credit is computed on the
increase in qualified expenses compared to a base period. The
credit will expire at the end of 1991 unless it is extended or
made permanent. A permanent credit would provide more certainty
for firms regarding the availability of the credit as they make
investment plans for future years. The credit cannot induce
additional R&E expenditures unless its future availability is
known at the time firms are planning future outlays. Thus, to
have its intended incentive effect, the credit should be
permanent.
R&E Expense Allocation
36. The Administration has proposed a change in the rules for
allocating R&E expenses on foreign source income for the purpose
of computing net income from foreign sources. Under the
proposal, there would be a lower allocation of U.S. R&D against
foreign squrce income than required by the original 1977
regulations. For companies with unused foreign tax credits, the
DRAFT 4/24/91
PAGE 11
SML
OFFICE OF THE SERVICE SEAL OF THE UNITED
Office of Management and Budget
Energy and Science Division
395-4817
395-3165
Telecopier Numbers
Date: 3/21/91
Please deliver to
Todd Buckholtz
Name:
Agency:
Fax was sent from
Name:
Joseph HeziR
Phone number (voice):
X 3404
Total number of pages including this page: 9
Message:
T00
OMB/ESD FAX# 3954817 OR 3953165
15:45
13/21/19
Joseph regu
NEOB 8001
CHARTER
FEDERAL COORDINATING COUNCIL
FOR SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY
The Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET)
is established pursuant to Public Law 94-282, Title V of the "National Science and
Technology Policy Organization and Priorities Act of 1976" to consider cross-cutting
science, engineering and technology issues. Specifically,
The Council shall consider problems and developments in the fields of science,
engineering, technology and related activities affecting more than one Federal
agency, and shall recommend policies and other measures designed to:
(1) provide more effective planning and administration or Federal
scientific, engineering, and technological programs,
(2) identify research needs including areas requiring additional
emphasis,
(3) achieve more effective utilization of the scientific, engineering
and technological resources and facilities of Federal agencies,
including the elimination of unwarranted duplication, and
(4) further international cooperation in science, engineering, and
technology.
OBJECTIVES
In fulfilling this mandate, the FCCSET's two major objectives are:
o to coordinate science, engineering and technology activities affecting
more than one Federal agency and surface and resolve science, engineering
and technology policy issues with respect to those activities.
o to develop authoritative scientific, engineering and technological expertise
and advice for the Executive Branch.
200
OMB/ESD FAX# 3954817 OR 3953165
15:45
13/21/91
FUNCTIONS
To accomplish these two objectives the FCCSET will:
serve as a forum for coordinating science, engineering and technology
programs affecting more than one Federal agency, sharing information,
reviewing and implementing national and international policy objectives
and developing consensuses with respect to science, engineering and
technology activities;
identify research and development needs and priorities;
issue reports, studies and assessments of current scientific, engineering
and technological capabilities in fields of research and development of
concern to the Executive Branch;
inform other policy making bodies of review, studies and analyses underway;
identify science, engineering and technology issues and concerns of
importance to the nation and give expertise and advice to policy bodies;
work closely with the Office of Management and Budget in developing and
reviewing annual and long-range Federal budget plans in selected cross-
cutting areas of science, engineering and technology;
improve planning, coordination and communication among Federal agencies
engaged in science, engineering and technology.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
To accomplish these functions the FCCSET is authorized to:
detail employees to the Council to perform such functions, consistent with
the purposes of the FCCSET, as the Chairman may assign to them;
establish committees for the purposes of conducting studies, making reports,
coordinating Federal science, technology and engineering activities that
involve more than one Federal agency, and making recommendations to the
FCCSET;
develop, review on an annual basis, charters for committees, and assign high
priority agenda items as necessary;
Council meetings shall be called by the Chairman as deemed appropriate
and such agency member shall attend at a senior policy level;
Council proceedings, studies and reports, either preliminary or final,
shall be printed and distributed only with the Chairman's authorization.
£00
OMB/ESD FAX# 3954817 OR 3953165
15:46
13/21/19
MEMBERSHIP
The Council shall be chaired by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy and shall be composed of one senior policy level representative of each of the
following Federal agencies:
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of State
Department of Transportation
Department of Veteran's Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Environmental Protection Agency
Ex-Officio Members:
Director, Office of Management and Budget
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Other agencies may be requested to participate in meetings of the Council concerned
with matters of substantial interest to such agency.
DETERMINATION
I hereby approve and adopt this Charter which is determined to be consistent with
PL-94-282 which establishes the FCCSET.
Approved:
DAuan Ramby.
Jane 6, 1990
D. Allan Bromley
Date:
Chairman, Federal Coordinating
Council for Science, Engineering
and Technology
00
OMB/ESD FAX# 3954817 OR 3953165
15:46
12/21/19
FCCSET
COMMITTEES, SUBCOMMITTEES AND
WORKING GROUPS
WITH
FCCSET SECRETARIAT AND OSTP
POINTS OF CONTACT
revised JUNE 26, 1990
500
OMB/ESD FAX# 3954817 OR 3953165
15:47
15/21/19
COMMITTEE ON EARTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
FCCSET POC: Maryanne C. Bach
OSTP POC:
Nancy Maynard/Bill Busch
Subcommittees:
Atmospheric Research (Bill Busch)
Ground Water (Bill Busch)
Federal Oceanographic Fleet Coordinating Committee (Bill Busch)
International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (Bill Busch)
Working Groups:
Global Change (Nancy Maynard/Bill Busch)
Mitigation and Adaptation Technologies for Global Change (Bill Busch)
COMMITTEE ON LIFE SCIENCE AND HEALTH
FCCSET POC:
Maryanne Bach
OSTP POC:
Dr. Wyngaarden
Subsctivities:
Biotechnology Science Coordinating Committee (Rachel Levinson)
Committee on Interagency Radiation Research
and Policy Coordination (Alicia Dustria)
*Decade of the Brain (Alicia Dustria)
Protection of Human Subjects (Alicia Dustria)
Other Suggested:
Neurological and Behavioral Science
Risk Assessment Research
*Proposed by Chair to be part of FCCSET
900
OMB/ESD FAX# 3954817 OR 3953165
15:47
13/21/91
Other Suggested cont.
International Research
Computational Biology
Plant Biology
Social Sciences
Ecology/Environmental Biology
Support for Basic Biological Research
Global Ecological Health
COMMITTEE ON FOOD, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESEARCH
FCCSET POC:
Maryanne Bach
OSTP POC:
James Wyngaarden
Subcommittee:
TBD
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
FCCSET POC: Hugh Stringer
OSTP POC:
Sara Bowden
Subcommittees:
Title V Report (Sara Bowden)
International Science and Technology Cooperation (Sara Bowden)
Science and Technology Cooperation with Developing Countries (Sara Bowden)
International Cooperation in Big Science (Kathy Yuracko)
Technology and Competitiveness (Sara Bowden)
International Environment (Sara Bowden)
200
OMB/ESD FAX# 3954817 OR 3953165
15:47
12/21/19
COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY
FCCSET POC:
Hugh Stringer
OSTP POC:
TBD
Subcommittee:
Materials (Robert Post/Perry Lindstrom)
Working Groups:
High Temperature Superconductivity
Structural Ceramics
Versailles Advanced Materials Study
Interagency Materials
Nondestructive Inspection/Evaluation
Automated Materials Processing
Composites
Electronic Materials
Others TBD (Possibly Regulation, Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property Rights)
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
FCCSET POC:
Charles Dickens
OSTP POC:
Katherine Yuracko
Working Group:
FY 1992 EHR Budget Proposal (Kathy Yuracko)
COMMITTEE ON PHYSICAL, MATHEMATICAL, AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES
FCCSET POC:
Charles Dickens
OSTP POC:
Eugene Wong
Working Groups:
High Performance Computing Initiative (Eugene Wong)
Access and Representation (Karl Erb)
Structure/Support of Science (Kari Erb)
800
OMB/ESD FAX# 3954817 OR 3953165
15:48
12/21/19
FCCSET COMMITTEES*
* The Committee Chairman's Point of Contact is the Committee
Executive Secretary unless specified otherwise.
May 14, 1990
EARTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
CHAIRMAN:
Dr. Dallas L. Peck
U.S. Geological Survey
Department of the Interior
National Center, Mail Stop 101
Reston, VA 22092
Phone: (703) 648-7411
FAX : (703) 648-5470 or 4466
Secretary - Linda Meadows
Point of Contact: Paul Dresler
Phone: (703) 648-4450
FAX: (703) 648-5470
VICE CHAIRMEN: Mr. Erich Bretthauer
Assistant Administrator for Research
and Development
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W., Room 913
Washington, D.C. 20460
Phone: (202) 382-7676
FAX : (202) 475-9761
Secretary - Jane Ramsey
Point of Contact: Peter Preuss
Phone: (202) 382-7669
FAX: (202) 252-0106
Dr. Lennard Fisk
Associate Administrator for
Space Science & Applications
Code S, NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546
Phone: (202) 453-1409
FAX : (202) 426-0754
Secretary - Jean Durst
Point of Contact: Shelby Tilford
Phone: (202) 453-1706
FAX: (202) 755-2552
2
OMB EX-OFFICIO MEMBER: Dr. Jack Fellows
Senior Budget Examiner for
Science and Space Programs
NEOB, Rm. 8001
Phone: (202) 395-3953
FAX : (202) 395-4817
Secretary - Alice Sheck
OSTP EX-OFFICIO MEMBER: James B. Wyngaarden, M.D.
Associate Director for Life Sciences
Phone: (202) 456-6272
FAX : (202) 395-3261
Confidential Assistant - Margaret Quinlan
Point of Contact: Nancy Maynard
Phone: (202) 456-6202
FAX: (202) 395-3719
MEMBERS:
3
EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
CHAIRMAN:
The Honorable James D. Watkins
Secretary
Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 7A-257
Washington, D.C. 20585
Phone: (202) 586-5534
FAX : (202) 586-7573
Scheduler - Katherine Hollis
Point of Contact: Peggy Dufour
Phone: (202) 586-7970
FAX: (202) 586-9988
VICE CHAIRMEN: Dr. Ted Sanders
Under Secretary
Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Room 4015
Washington, D.C. 20202-0500
Phone: (202) 732-4000
FAX : (202) 732-2896
Confidential Assistant - Nettie Clark
Point of Contact:
Phone:
FAX:
Dr. Luther Williams
Senior Science Advisor
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20550
Phone: (202) 357-9443
FAX : (202) 357-9725
Secretary - Betty Wong
Point of Contact: Luther Williams
Phone: same as above
FAX: same as above
4
OMB EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: Mr. Joseph S. Hezir
Deputy Associate Director for Energy
and Science, NEOB, Rm. 8001
Phone: (202) 395-3404
FAX : (202) 395-4817
Secretary: Twanna Wiggins
Mr. Bernard H. Martin
Deputy Associate Director for Labor,
Veterans and Education, NEOB, Rm. 7025
Phone: (202) 395-3971
FAX : (202) 395-3910
Secretary: Diane Somers
OSTP EX-OFFICIO MEMBER: Dr. J. Thomas Ratchford
Associate Director for Policy
and International Affairs
Phone: (202) 456-7396
FAX : (202) 395-3719
Confidential Assistant - Ginny Rosell
Point of Contact: Sara Bowden
Phone: (202) 395-4626
FAX: (202) 395-3719
MEMBERS:
5
FOOD AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESEARCH
CHAIRMAN:
Dr. Charles E. Hess
Assistant Secretary for Science
and Education
Department of Agriculture
12th Street and Jefferson Drive, S.W., Room 217-W
Washington, D.C. 20250
Phone: (202) 447-5923
FAX : (202) 755-7842
Secretary - Dorothy Fones
Point of Contact: Michael Hoback
Phone: (202) 447-5035
FAX: (202) 755-7842
VICE CHAIRMEN: Mr. David C. O'Neal
Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals
Department of the Interior
18th and C Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
Phone: (202) 208-5676
FAX : (202) 208-3950 or 5048
Secretary - Carol Purcell
Point of Contact: Piet deWitt
Phone: (202) 208-6224
FAX: (202) 208-3950 or 5048
Mr. James Benson
Acting Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner
Food and Drug Administration
Department of Health and Human Services
5600 Fishers Lane, Room 14-71
Rockville, Maryland 20857
Phone: (301) 443-2410
FAX : (301) 443-5930
Secretary - Kay Hamric
Point of Contact:
Phone:
-
FAX:
6
OMB EX-OFFICIO MEMBER: Dr. Susan Offutt, Chief
Agriculture Branch
NEOB, Room 8025
Phone: (202) 395-3446
FAX : (202) 395-4941
Secretary: Charlotte Brown
OSTP EX-OFFICIO MEMBER: James B. Wyngaarden, M.D.
Associate Director for Life Sciences
Phone: (202) 456-6272
FAX : (202) 395-3261
Confidential Assistant - Margaret Quinlan
Point of Contact:
Phone:
FAX:
MEMBERS:
7
LIFE SCIENCES AND HEALTH
CHAIRMAN:
James O. Mason, M.D., Dr.P.H.
Assistant Secretary for Health
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 716-G HHH
Washington, D.C. 20201
Phone: (202) 245-7694
FAX : (202) 245-6960
Staff Assistant - Jane Zopf
Point of Contact: Patricia Hoben
Phone: (202) 245-6135
FAX: (202) 245-6603
VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. David J. Galas
Associate Director for Health
and Environmental Research
Office of Energy Research, ER-70
Department of Energy (GTN)
Washington, D.C. 20545
Phone: (301) 353-3251
FAX : (301) 353-5051
Secretary - Becky Mathias
Point of Contact:
Phone:
FAX:
OMB EX-OFFICIO MEMBER: Mr. David K. Kleinberg
Deputy Associate Director for
Health and Income Maintenance Division
NEOB, Rm. 7025
Phone: (202) 395-4922
FAX : (202) 395-3910
Secretary: Pamula Simms
8
OSTP EX-OFFICIO MEMBER: James B. Wyngaarden, M.D.
Associate Director for Life Sciences
Phone: (202) 456-6272
FAX : (202) 395-3261
Confidential Assistant - Margaret Quinlan
Point of Contact: Rachel Levinson
Phone: (202) 395-4850
FAX:
(202) 395-3719
MEMBERS:
9
PHYSICAL, MATHEMATICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Erich Bloch
Director
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street, N.W., Room 520
Washington, D.C. 20550
Phone: (202) 357-7748
FAX : (202) 357-9725
Secretary - - Maydie Hughes
Point of Contact: Jane Stutsman
Phone: (202) 357-7611
FAX: (202) 357-7994
VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Charles Herzfeld
Director
Defense Research and Engineering
Department of Defense
Pentagon - - Room 3E1014
Washington, D.C. 20301-3100
Phone: (703) 697-5776
FAX : (703) 693-7167
Confidential Assistant - Maggie Souleyret
Point of Contact: George Millburn
Phone: (202) 695-5036
FAX: (202) 693-5229
OMB EX-OFFICIO MEMBER: Dr. Norine E. Noonan, Chief
Science and Space Programs Branch
Office of Management and Budget
NEOB, Rm. 8001
Phone: (202) 395-3534
FAX : (202) 395-4817
Secretary: Alice Sheck
10
OSTP EX-OFFICIO MEMBER: Dr. Eugene Wong
Associate Director for Physical Science
and Engineering
Phone: (202) 395-3902
FAX : (202) 395-3716
Confidential Assistant - Sally Sherman
Point of Contact: Karl Erb
Phone: (202) 395-5130
FAX: (202) 395-3719
MEMBERS:
11
TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. J. Thomas Murrin
Deputy Secretary
Department of Commerce
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Room 5840
Washington, D.C. 20230
Phone: (202) 377-4625
FAX : (202) 377-8610
Secretary - Dolores Buckley
Point of Contact: Robert White
Phone: (202) 377-1091
FAX: (202) 377-4498
VICE CHAIRMAN: Mr. J. R. Thompson, Jr.
Deputy Administrator
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Room 7137
Washington, D.C. 20546
Phone: (202) 453-1007
FAX : (202) 755-2568
Secretary - Evelyn Staples
Point of Contact: Carl Praktish
Phone: (202) 453-8309
FAX: (202) 755-3741
OMB EX-OFFICIO MEMBER: Mr. Joseph S. Hezir
Associate Director for Energy and Science
NEOB, Rm. 8001
Phone: (202) 395-3404
FAX : (202) 395-4817
Secretary: Twanna Wiggins
12
OSTP EX-OFFICIO MEMBER: Dr. William D. Phillips
Associate Director for Industrial Technology
Phone: (202) 395-3125
FAX : (202) 395-3716
Confidential Assistant - Wanell Gale
Point of Contact:
Phone:
FAX:
MEMBERS:
13
INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
CHAIRMAN:
Ambassador Reginald Bartholomew
Under Secretary for
International Security Affairs
Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W., Room 7208
Washington, D.C. 20520
Phone: (202) 647-1049
FAX : (202) 647-0775
Point of Contact: Bob Carr
Phone: (202) 647-3526
FAX: (202) 657-0775
VICE CHAIRMEN: Dr. Fred Bernthal
Deputy Director
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street, N.W., Room 520
Washington, D.C. 20550
Phone: (202) 357-9425
FAX : (202) 357-9725
Secretary - Pat Dennis
Point of Contact:
Phone:
FAX:
Dr. Philip Schambra
Director
Fogarty International Center
National Institutes of Health
Department of Health and Human Services
9000 Rockville Pike, Room 605 Building 38A
Bethesda, Maryland 20892
Phone: (202) 496-1415
FAX : (202) 480-3414
Secretary: Marge Dodds
Point of Contact: Gray Handley
Phone: (202) 496-5903
FAX: (202) 480-3414
14
OMB EX-OFFICIO MEMBER: Daniel H. Taft
Deputy Associate Director
National Security and International
Affairs, Special Studies Division
NEOB, Room 10007
Phone: (202) 395-3285
FAX : (202) 395-3307
Secretary: Mary Jo Siclari
OSTP EX-OFFICIO MEMBER: J. Thomas Ratchford
Associate Director for Policy
and International Affairs
Phone: (202) 456-7396
FAX : (202) 395-3719
Point of Contact: Sara Bowden
Phone: (202) 395-4626
FAX: (202) 395-3719
MEMBERS:
15
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
April 15, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR HONORABLE ROBERT M. WHITE, CHAIRMAN, FCCSET
COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY AND TECHNOLOGY
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY, CHAIRMAN
Anan
SUBJECT: CHARTER FOR COMMITTEE
It is my pleasure to forward to you the signed charter for the Committee on
"Industry and Technology." On behalf of the Full FCCSET, let me thank you and the
Vice-Chairman for your hard work and dedication to assisting in further coordination
of Federal R&D activities.
The signed charter reflects both your recommendations and revisions based on final
review by the Council. It is an internal working document to guide the Committee in
the deliberative process of providing recommendations to the FCCSET. Feel free to
contact me or Maryanne Bach, Executive Director of FCCSET, for any clarification
you may desire.
Again, thank you for your enthusiastic support for and continued participation in the
FCCSET process.
Attachment
InternalDocument
CHARTER
COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY AND TECHNOLOGY
of the
Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology
The Committee on Industry and Technology (CIT) is hereby established by action of
the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET).
It serves as a part of the deliberative process of the FCCSET, which provides overall
guidance and direction on the agenda and activities of the Committee. The Council
shall serve as the forum for developing consensus and resolving issues raised by the
Committee Process
Purpose
The purpose of the Committee on Industry and Technology is to address and assist
the FCCSET in science and technology (S&T) issues critical to examining, monitoring,
encouraging and increasing the effectiveness of Federal policies, programs and
initiatives to enhance the development and application of technology by U.S. industry
to improve global competitiveness. Particular attention will be given to encouraging
industry leadership and initiative in meeting our competitive challenges. The
Committee will address significant national S&T policy matters which cut across
agency boundaries and shall provide a formal mechanism for interagency science
policy coordination and exchanges of information regarding industry and technology.
Functions
Reporting to and under the direction of the Chairman of FCCSET, the CIT will:
o
improve planning, communication and coordination among Federal
agencies which conduct programs affecting the use of technology by
industry.
0
develop and recommend criteria for identifying generic, precompetitive
enabling technologies.
0
identify and assess Federal programs which expedite the
commercialization of new technologies by industry in less time and at
lower cost, resulting in world-class products and services. These may
include efforts in concurrent engineering and management, total quality
management, and flexible computer-integrated manufacturing.
Internal Document
0
identify and address issues that affect the diffusion and exchange of
technology among universities, Federal laboratories, and industry.
0
improve the coordination of Federal technology and industry outreach
programs with state and local initiatives, and examine the effectiveness
of existing mechanisms based largely in the Federal laboratories.
0
review options for gaining greater commercial advantage from Federal
science and technology investments.
0
evaluate, strengthen, and recommend establishment of mechanisms,
which balance long and short term perspectives, for systematic and early
private sector involvement in setting Federal R&D priorities, and in
advising on Federal program implementation whenever industry is likely
to be affected.
0
review Federal agency technology efforts to track foreign technology
advances and business strategies, and recommend ways to more
effectively gather, process and disseminate such information for use by
U.S. industry.
0
review the role of the Federal government in stimulating private sector
training, and in closing the gap between workforce skills and technology
requirements.
0
review specific technology-industry issues and problems that affect two or
more Federal agencies.
Structure
The Chairman of the FCCSET appoints as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the
Committee on Industry and Technology, with the approval of the Full FCCSET. The
Vice Chairman is from an agency other than that which the Chairman represents.
The Executive Secretary is designated by the CIT Chairman, with the approval of the
FCCSET Chairman. The Committee Chairman has responsibility for additional staff
assistance and funding and may call upon other agencies for support, as needed,
consistent with the function of the charter.
Responsibilities of the Chairman
0
hold regular meetings of the Committee (no fewer than three per year)
and approve agendas.
0
submit an annual report to the Chairman of the FCCSET for review by
the full Council.
2
Internal Document
0
appoint, in consultation with the FCCSET Chairman, (and as necessary
abolish) sub-committees, task forces and working groups as necessary to
achieve the committee's purpose.
0
meet regularly with the Chairman of the FCCSET and other committee
chairmen to evaluate progress, discuss policy coordination, receive new
instructions from the FCCSET and report on ongoing activities.
The following departments and agencies are represented on this committee, normally
at the Assistant Secretary level or above:
Department of State
Department of Treasury
Department of Defense
Department of Justice
Department of the Interior
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Labor
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Transportation
Department of Energy
Department of Education
Department of Veterans Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
Central Intelligence Agency
United States Trade Representative
Office of Science and Technology Policy
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
National Science Foundation
Council on Environmental Quality
Economic Policy Council
Membership on subcommittees, task forces, and working groups is not restricted to
Committee members, but all members must be full-time Federal employees. The
Committee will subsume the previously existing FCCSET Committee on Materials.
The Committee Chairman will appoint the Chairs of all subcommittees, task forces,
and/or working groups after consultation with the Committee and approval of the
FCCSET Chairman.
A Terms of Reference (ToR) shall be developed by the Committee Chairman, in
consultation with the Committee, and approved the the FCCSET Chairman for all
subcommittees, task forces and working groups dealing with significant and complex
3
Internal Document
questions. The ToR will identify and bound the issues to be addressed, specify the
desired products and delivery times to the Committee, and be forwarded to the
FCCSET Directorate for FCCSET final review, coordination with other ongoing
activities and approval. All documents are considered internal unless otherwise
approved by FCCSET for publication.
The Committee shall work closely with other FCCSET committees and interagency
groups to include the Council on Competitiveness headed by the Vice President,
subgroups of the Economic Policy Council and Domestic Policy Council, Interagency
Committee for Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer, Trade Policy Review Group,
Interagency Working Group on Advanced Manufacturing, Interagency Committee on
Standards Policy, and Interagency Council on Metric Policy.
Committee activities shall be coordinated by an Executive Secretary, designated by the
Committee Chairman with the approval of the FCCSET Chairman. Additional staff
and funding assistance, consistent with the functions of this charter, shall be the
responsibility of the Chairman.
Private Sector Interface
The Committee shall recommend to the Chairman of the FCCSET the nature of
private sector advice needed to accomplish its mission. The Chairman of the
FCCSET shall take necessary steps to ensure appropriate interaction between the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and the
Committee. The Committee may also receive ad hoc advice from various private
sector groups as consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Compensation
All members are full-time Federal employees who are allowed reimbursement for
travel expenses by their agencies plus per diem or subsistence while away from their
duty stations and in accordance with standard government travel regulations.
Documentation
Agendas and records of actions of committee meetings are prepared and disseminated
to members by the Executive Secretary. Records of actions are submitted to members
for approval. Complete records of all committee activities including those of
subgroups, are maintained in the office of the Chairman. The Committee prepares a
report for the Chairman of the FCCSET not later than 60 days after the end of each
fiscal year. The report contains, as a minimum, the Committee's functions; a list of
members; a list of subcommittees, task forces and working groups and their terms of
reference; the dates, places and agendas for all meetings; and a summary of the
Committee's activities, accomplishments and recommendations during the year.
4
Internal Document
Termination date
Unless renewed by the Chairman of FCCSET prior to its expiration, the Committee
on Industry and Technology shall terminate not later than October 1, 1992.
Determination
I hereby determine that the formation of the Committee on Industry and Technology
is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the
Executive Branch by law and that such duties can best be performed through the
advice and counsel of such a group.
Approved:
Damn Chairman, FCCSET Samley
April 16, 1491
Date
5