3.5-SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 3.5(a)—Federal Information Policy Mechanisms Background The Federal Government is the largest producer, consumer, and disseminator of information in the country. It is also the most important entity in the field of scientific and technical information. Yet, it is difficult to point to a coherent federal policy regarding scientific and technical information. The Subcommittee's interest in information policy dates back well over a decade. In the National Science and Technology Policy, Organizational Priorities Act of 1976, the Committee attempted to establish a mechanism for resolution of issues in information policy by giving the Office of Science and Technology Policy lead responsibility for ensuring that the various agencies were coordinating their efforts in this area. Unfortunately, no Administration since that time has viewed matters of information policy as having high priority. During the 1980's matters have slipped from bad to worse when fiscal concerns have been the driving force behind federal information policy. Major budget cuts affected both quantity and refinement of data while major outlets of federal information such as the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) achieved a fraction of their potential because they were denied the funds needed to modernize. Repeated attempts to privatize NTIS have also taken their toll. Summary of the Hearing The Subcommittee, through hearings on July 14 and 15, 1987, conducted a survey of the major current information policy issues. Also considered were the bills: H.R. 2159, which would change the National Technical Information Service into a wholly owned government corporation; and H.R. 1615, which would pull government information functions together into a Government Information Agency. A recent Executive Order dealing with the collection and dissemination of foreign scientific and technical information was also considered. Mr. Melvin Day, who has held a variety of key federal information positions, including Deputy Director of the National Library of Medicine, opened the hearing with an overview of the last 20 years of federal information policy. Mr. Harold Shill of the American Library Association, John Shattuck of the Association of American Universities, Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Professor Martin Weingartner of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents presented the views of the major users of scientific and technical information. Mr. Kenneth Allen of the Information Industries Association, Dr. James Seals of Chemical Abstracts Service, and Mr. Vincent Barabba of General Motor's Market Research Division presented the views of the information industry and what they felt their role vis-a-vis the government should be. On the second day, Mr. James Fossedal, the Superintendent of Documents, began the discussion of the same questions from the federal point of view. He was followed by Mr. James Pierce, National President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, and by spokesmen for each of the departments and agencies which have a role in collection and dissemination of scientific information from around the world. Committee Publication Number 100-36. 3.5(b) Superconductivity (H.R. 3024, the National Superconductor Manufacturing and Processing Technology Act of 1987; H.R. 3048, the National Superconductivity and Competitiveness Act of 1987; and H.R. 3217, the National Superconductivity, Competitiveness and National Security Act of 1987) Background On October 7, 1987, the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology and the Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Materials held a joint hearing on three bills pertaining to superconductivity activity in the Federal Government. The bills focus on the issue of a national initiative for superconductivity research, including the appropriate priorities and directions of various federal agencies, collaboration between the public and private sectors, organizational concerns, and appropriate funding levels over a fiveyear time period. Witnesses included representatives from the National Science Foundation, National Critical Materials Council, the National Bureau of Standards, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the National Academy of Sciences. Committee Publication Number 100-57. 3.5(c)-The Role and Balance of Federal R&D Support Background The Federal government plays a pivotal role in the encouragement and support of research and development in the United States. The goal of this investment is the growth of the scientific and technological knowledge base which, in turn, leads to such practical benefits as new opportunities for economic growth and enhanced national security. The Federal government allocates research support through agencies which may be categorized as having defense or non-defense missions. Recently, the balance between federal research and development support for defense and civilian purposes has shifted significantly in favor of defense. In constant dollars, defense R&D has grown from 51 percent of the federal R&D budget in 1980 to 71 percent in 1986. Over the same period, federal support for civilian R&D declined by 6 percent. This funding trend raises questions about whether civilian research needs are being neglected with possible adverse effects for the U.S. economy. The U.S. currently spends less on civilian R&D as a fraction of GNP than its international competitors. Although commercial spinoffs from military research occur, most of the increases in the defense R&D budget have been for the development of specific weapons systems, benefiting a relatively few industries. The basic research portion of the defense R&D budget, which traditionally has been the main source of technological innovations and commercial spinoffs, is small and has declined as a percentage of the total budget. Summary of Hearing On June 18, 1987, a hearing was held to review the effects of the current balance of federal R&D support on the economy, including the effects of commercial spinoffs from military research, and on the training and allocation of scientific manpower. Witnesses included representatives from federal research-funding agencies, academe, and the Center for Defense Information, a group critical of the current funding balance. The witnesses covered the spectrum of positions on the balance issue and placed on the record the basic arguments, pro and con. The witnesses expressed contradictory views on whether the current emphasis on defense R&D has significantly influenced the recent decline in U.S. economic competitiveness in the world and on whether significant commercial spinoffs have resulted from defense R&D. The panel on scientific manpower, while again presenting conflicting views, provided evidence from a recent National Academy of Engineering study that the recent expansion in defense research has not deprived the civilian sector of scientists and engineers. Committee Publication Number 100-44. 3.5(d)-The Role of Science and Technology in Competitiveness Background The Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology has been concerned with the subject of innovation and productivity for the past four Congresses, and has held numerous hearings on this subject. For the most part, the same recommendation has surfaced in all these hearings: the United States must place a higher priority on technology development, innovation, manufacturing productivity, and commercialization of technological products at the federal level. Focus of the Hearings In an effort to address the issue, the Subcommittee held three days of hearings to explore various legislative proposals concerned with the federal role of science and technology in competitiveness. Among the bills discussed were: S. 907, the Technology Competitiveness Act of 1987, introduced by Senator Hollings, and H.R. 2068, the National Bureau of Standards and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 1987, introduced by Mr. Ritter, which would strengthen the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) and expand its historical mission; H.R. 1964, the Metric Usage Act of 1987, introduced by Mr. Brown of California, which would require the use of the metric system in federal programs and procurements; H.R. 2164, the Department of Science and Technology Act of 1987, and H.R. 2165, the National Policy and Technology Foundation Act of 1987, introduced by Mr. Brown of California, which would create alternative focal points within the Federal Government for civilian efforts in support of technology development; H.R. 2191, the National Advisory Committee on Semiconductor Research and Development Act of 1987, introduced by Mr. Valentine, to address the competitiveness problems and research needs of the semiconductor industry; H.R. 2069, the Superconductivity Competition Act of 1987, introduced by Mr. Ritter, which would require the President to appoint a National Commission on Superconductivity to review major policy issues related to recent advances in superconductor research; H.R. 2492, the Federal Industrial Extension Act of 1987, introduced by Mr. Boehlert and Mr. MacKay, that would provide federal aid and technical support to help states start or improve technical extension programs; and H.R. 2219, the Competitiveness Enhancement Act of 1987, introduced by Miss Schneider and Mr. Walgren, which would establish a Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives to collect and disseminate information on federal, state, and local technology initiatives. Witnesses included the President's Science Advisor, Members of Congress, Representatives from government agencies, and experts from major corporations, small businesses, universities, and professional societies. Committee Publication Number 100-22. 3.5(e)-Hearing on Research and Competitiveness in the Background The health of the building industry is of vital importance of the nation's economy. In 1986 alone, the United States construction industry had sales of $375 billion at home and abroad. The economic well-being of the construction industry impacts positively on the American economy and when that industry declines, it adversely affects a wide variety of workers, including boilermakers, carpenters, electricians, masons, and painters, as well as producers of construction materials, mechanical equipment, white goods, and other building contents. Recently released statistics point to a two-decade downward trend in the productivity of the United States construction industry. Construction's share of the Gross National Product has fallen, the volume of United States construction business abroad has sharply declined, and the number of foreign companies acquiring United States construction firms or contracts has declined. The United States construction industry invests far less in research and development as a percentage of sales than most other United States industries. For these reasons, the Science, Research and Technology Subcommittee held a hearing on Research and Competitiveness in the United States Construction Industry on June 4, 1987. Summary of hearing Witnesses represented a variety of organizations, including the National Bureau of Standards, academic centers for buildings and construction research, residential and commercial construction firms, and architectural groups. They testified that productivity in construction is decreasing nationwide, that the lack of research and development in the construction industry is alarming, and that the United States needs to reestablish its technological preeminence in order to regain its worldwide competitiveness. They also testified on the importance of improved technology transfer in the construction industry, to be able to translate the results of research and development into the marketplace at a much faster pace that exists today. They strongly urged the Federal government to lend support and assistance to improving the health of the construction industry. Committee Publication Number 100-21. 3.5(f)-Field Hearing on "Scientific and Technical Literacy in the Workforce" (Raleigh, North Carolina) Background Since the Colonial era, the need for basic proficiency in mathematics, reading, and writing has been recognized by educators as a central goal of instructional programs. With the creation of a public education system during the 19th century, the goal was to provide the opportunity to develop these skills for all citizens. These basic skills were to be developed in the primary grades and were to serve as the foundation for both the vocational and academic tracks established as part of the public school system. A major reexamination of basic skills and their relation to occupational preparation occurred in the 1950's after Sputnik, when increased concern over national defense and a national commitment to manned space exploration led to the enactment of the National Defense Education Act. This legislation encouraged secondary and post-secondary institutions to place additional emphasis on the development of strong science and math skills, as well as to increase the supply of scientists and technical personnel. During this period, recognition of the increasing importance of the sciences for vocational and occupational preparation and for the understanding of key national issues led to a redefining of "basic skills" to include a foundation in the sciences. In the early 1970's, however, employers began to voice concerns about the "basic skills" deficiencies in entry-level personnel. This trend continued through the 1970's and into the 1980's. In the past several years, a number of studies were released which reflected growing national awareness of the relevance of education, training, and retraining to international economic competition. Concern was expressed over the state of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary institutions, as well as the future U.S. economy. The studies included: "A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform" (The Educational Commission of the United States, 1983); "America's Competitive Challenge: The Need for a National Response" (The Business-Higher Educational Forum, 1983); and "Technology and Employment" (National Academy of Sciences, 1987). These reports point to the low student participation rate in science and math beyond the 10th grade, high levels of functional illiteracy within the general population, and the implications these conditions could have on continued U.S. economic growth and participation in the world economy. The major question for the future U.S. economy is whether the average American worker will be prepared to adapt to the changes in the workplace brought about by new technology. This is an important question because most of the emerging skilled jobs will have to be filled by today's workers. People already in the workforce will make up over 90 percent of the workers in 1990 and over 75 percent in the year 2000. Yet more than 10 million American |