CRS-4

precise information about when or why most bilaterals were initiated and what their political aims are. However, there were considerable details regarding technical activities conducted in cooperative programs.

Also, there was confusion about exactly how many bilateral science and technology agreements the United States has underway. At one point, on page 17, it was stated that the United States "has bilateral science and technology (S&T) agreements with 86 nations around the world." Then a few lines later it was noted: "This chapter highlights activities with 25 of the countries with which the United States has active bilateral S&T programs." According to last year's Title V report, the United States maintained bilateral relations with 21 countries. Are 61 bilateral S&T agreements inactive? Who are the new partners? It is stated that Mexico and the United States have 16 bilateral S&T agreements in force, (p. 33). Does this include technical agency-to-agency agreements? Is there a difference between kinds of agreements? It would be helpful to have identified all the executive agencies that administer the bilateral program for the U.S. Government.

There are several other organizational problems. Often throughout the document when reference was made to a specific report or analysis prepared by a group or agency, insufficient information was given about the title, date, and publisher of the report, thereby making it difficult for the reader to identify the source report for further reading. It would seem appropriate that every attempt should be made to give in the text or a footnote the correct and full name of a report when it is mentioned. This problem occurred, for instance, in the executive summary discussion regarding chapter 3, in chapter 1, and in chapter 3 itself when reference was made to an unnamed Department of State report that reviewed the S and T activities of multilateral organizations. Similarly adequate bibliographic information was not given

CRS-5

about: an unnamed report on environmental monitoring from the Bonn Economic Summit meeting and an unnamed report '. . . released by the [U.S.] Embassy [in India] in early 1986 [that] showed that over 259 projects were underway" (p. 30). Two named reports were identified (on p. 12): "The Use of Remote Sensing Technology in Africa for Drought Early Warning and Monitoring" and "A Report on the Environment" by the TG&E working group of the London Economic Summit, but no citation or source information was given.

The eighth report, like preceding annual reports, did not consistently provide information required about ". . . the adequacy of the funding for and administration of [bilateral and multilateral] activities and agreements

Financial details w
were given in some chapters, but generally only for

a few of the activities that were described in that chapter. Among the
funding information included were details regarding the Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) funding and Department
of State expenditures for participation in some bilateral agreements and
international commissions and groups, (p. 10). Funding information was
reported also for several agencies' international science and technology
activities, including: some aspects of the Department of Agriculture's S&T
cooperation (pp. 42-43); U.S. contributions to some specific International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) programs; some aspects of the National Park
Service's funding for international park activities, (p. 88); details about the
Geological Survey's international S&T cooperation, (p. 96); information about
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's expenditures for
international drought and disaster early warning and technical assistance;

CRS-6

costs of the Bureau of Mines international cooperative research activities; and U.S. expenditures for population programs. The Department of Transportation gave estimates of FY1985 expenditures for international exchange activities, consisting of "approximately $18 million for salaries and travel expenses of Headquarters and field personnel, and approximately $600,000 for participation in work of various international organizations", (p. 158). Chapter 14, on the Agency for International Development, included some detailed expenditure data as did chapter 15 on basic science and engineering activities.

Even though some financial information was included, accurate and complete information was not given for all U.S. Government science and technology efforts. Thus, it does not appear that the report meets the statutory requirements for information about ". . . the adequacy of the funding for and administration of such activities and agreements. In this

respect comments made in the critique of the 1986 Title V report bear
repeating:

Apparently there are serious obstacles to reporting funding. Some
agencies, for example, say that foreign and international science
activities are financed from budgets for domestic programs, therefore
these agencies cannot provide details about funding levels. But this
method of funding should not preclude program managers from providing
information about expenditure levels for foreign and international
scientific and technological activities and for travel. Some
agencies which use funds from domestic activity budgets do report
funds expended for international activities. .
[As stated in the
critique of a previous report]

. . The ability of Congress to conduct proper oversight of these activities without knowing levels of program expenditures is greatly, impeded [because of the lack of financial information]."

4

Congressional Research Service Comments on the 1985 (sic) Title V Report, The Seventh Annual Report for 1985, Submitted to the Congress by the President Pursuant to Section 503 (b) of Title V of Public Law 95-426. In U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Science and Technology. Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy, 1986. 99th Cong., 2d Sess. Joint Committee Print. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.

CRS-7

There is a related problem. According to the 1987 Title V report, several of the bilateral agreements discussed received congressionally authorized and appropriated line-item funding or were supported with a capital fund. This occurred in the case of the U.S.-Indian bilateral science and technology agreement, supported with a $100 million capital fund, (p. 2); the U.S.Yugoslav Agreement, supported by a joint fund with the Yugoslav Government, with Congress appropriating $1.9 million as a line-item in the Department of State budget for FY 1987 activities, (p. 10); and the U.S.-Spain Agreement, with Congress appropriating for 1986 a total of $12 million, with $7 million transferred to the Joint Committee for Scientific and Technological Cooperation, (p. 21).

There was no clear-cut explanation in the report about why some bilateral agreements received specific authorized funding and others did not.

Questions can be raised about why different kinds of funding instruments are used to support S&T agreements with different countries. How do these activities differ? Why do some have status that others do not?

D. EVALUATION

This report, like all of its predecessors, does not appear to give information which meets the statutory requirements of providing the Congress with "... plans for future evaluation of such activities and agreements on a routine basis." Throughout the report statements appeared which amounted to evaluations of the scientific/technical and foreign policy implications of

current activities. For example:

Off., May 1986, p. 217, quoting from: Congressional Research Service Comments on the 1985 Title V Report, the Sixth Annual Report, for 1984, Submitted to the Congress by the President, Pursuant to Section 503 of Title V of P.L. 95-426.

CRS-8

[With respect to Yugoslavia] the program was initiated to strengthen
relations with Yugoslavia's non-aligned post-war government, and has
developed into a highly visible and successful joint research and
exchange program. Cooperative research projects, workshops, and the
joint production and analysis of data, and the exchange of experts in
most basic and applied sciences, including the agricultural, health
and biomedical, environmental and earth sciences, and engineering,
have proved mutually beneficial. The program is well regarded in the
United States and has grown to become Yugoslavia's largest with any
country (p. 23).

Such a statement appears to constitute an evaluation which used implicit and
unstated criteria, thus the reader does not know the basis for the
assessment. Such criteria were noticeably absent from the discussions of
bilateral S&T programs in Chapter 4. It would be helpful if the next report
outlined the general criteria upon which evaluations of activities are based.
In addition, to comply with the statutory requirements, the report should

identify plans for future evaluation of such activities and agreement s

on a routine basis."

E.

STATEMENTS REGARDING THE IMPLICATIONS FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND FOR FOREIGN POLICY

For the most part, the report examined the scientific and technological as well as political implications of the activities described in terms which conformed to the language and intent of the statute. However, such coverage

was uneven.

Many important policy issues at the interface of science, technology and foreign policy were raised. The following issues, for instance, are

illustrative.

There was considerable discussion about the State Department's concerns to assess the objectives of multilateral organizations that deal with science and technology. In addition, questions were raised regarding the need to "re-orient these bodies away from extraneous and polemical debate