Order Code RL34328
America COMPETES Act:
Programs, Funding, and Selected Issues
Updated October 17, 2008
Deborah D. Stine
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
America COMPETES Act:
Programs, Funding, and Selected Issues
Summary
On August 2, 2007, Congress passed the America COMPETES Act (H.R.
2272), which the President signed into law (P.L. 110-69) on August 9, 2007. The act
responds to concerns that the United States may not be able to compete economically
with other nations in the future due to insufficient investment today in science and
technology research and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
education and workforce development. A similar concern had led President Bush to
announce the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) in January 2006 during his
State of the Union address.
The America COMPETES Act authorizes an increase in the nation’s investment
in science and engineering research and in STEM education from kindergarten to
graduate school and postdoctoral education. The act also establishes the Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) and Discovery Science and Engineering
Innovation Institutes. (Appendix A provides a summary of the act’s programs.)
The act authorizes increases in funding for the National Science Foundation
(NSF), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories, and the
Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science over FY2008-FY2010. If
maintained, the increases would double the budgets of those agencies over seven
years. The Administration’s ACI also proposes a doubling-path, but for over ten
years for physical sciences and engineering research at the three agencies.
Within DOE, ARPA-E is designed to support transformational energy
technology research projects with the goal of enhancing the economic and energy
security of the United States, based on the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA). The Administration and others support the conceptual goal of
ARPA-E, but questions whether or not the DARPA model can be used for the energy
sector, and has concerns about it potentially redirecting funds from current DOE
research activities. ARPA-E proponents counter that ARPA-E is needed to facilitate
the energy marketplace by accelerating research that will bridge the gap between
basic research and industrial development.
At the heart of the America COMPETES Act is the goal of maintaining the
United States as the leader in the global economy. Three broad trends influence
today’s globalization of the economy. The first is technology, which has sharply
reduced the cost of communication and transportation that previously divided
markets. The second is a dramatic increase in the world supply of labor producing
goods and services traded internationally. The third is government policies that have
reduced barriers to trade and investment.
An issue for Congress is whether to fund America COMPETES Act programs
at authorized funding levels. FY2008 appropriations did not. For FY2009, the
federal agencies that manage America COMPETES Act programs are funded through
an interim continuing resolution until March 6, 2009, at the FY2008 level. Funding
for the remainder of FY2009 and all of FY2010 remains to be determined.
Contents
Overview of America COMPETES Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of U.S. Competitiveness Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Perspectives on the Definition of Competitiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Trade Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Foreign Direct Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Workforce and Wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Competitiveness in Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
General Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
American Competitiveness Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Science and Engineering Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Research Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
NASA Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
High-Risk, High-Reward Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Discovery Science and Engineering Innovation Institutes . . . . . . . . . . 27
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education . 28
Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
National Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Department of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Appropriations Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Evaluation of the America COMPETES Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Evaluation Mechanisms Within the America COMPETES Act . . . . . . . . . 50
Evaluation Mechanisms Beyond Those in the America COMPETES Act . 51
Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Output Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Input Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Concluding Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Appendix A. Summary of Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Appendix B. Legislative Information System Summary of America
COMPETES Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Title I: Office of Science and Technology Policy; Government-Wide
Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Title II: National Aeronautics and Space Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Title III: National Institute of Standards and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Title IV: Ocean and Atmospheric Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Title V: Department of Energy - Protecting America’s Competitive
Edge Through Energy Act, or the PACE-Energy Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Title VI: Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Subtitle A: Teacher Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Subtitle B: Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Subtitle C: Foreign Language Partnership Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Subtitle D: Alignment of Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Subtitle E: Mathematics and Science Partnership Bonus Grants . . . . . 68
Title VII: National Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Title VIII: General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
List of Figures
Figure 1. Foreign Direct Investment in the United States and U.S. Direct
Investment Abroad, Annual Flows, 1990-2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 2. Trends in Routine and Nonroutine Task Input, 1960-1980 . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 3. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Workforce,
1950-2000 (in thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 4. Trends in Annual U.S. Base Salaries, in Constant 2005 Dollars,
1995-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 5. World Economic Forum Analysis of U.S. Competitiveness . . . . . . . . 53
List of Tables
Table 1. U.S. Trade in Advanced Technology Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 2. Comparison of America COMPETES Act Programs, the
FY2008 Appropriation, and the President’s FY2009 Budget Request, the
House of Representatives FY2009 Appropriations, the Senate
FY2009 Appropriations, and the America COMPETES Act FY2008,
FY2009, and FY2010 Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
America COMPETES Act: Programs,
Funding, and Selected Issues
On August 2, 2007, Congress passed the America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act or the
America COMPETES Act (H.R. 2272), which the President signed into law (P.L.
110-69) on August 9, 2007. The America COMPETES Act had substantial
bipartisan support passing 367-57 in the House and by unanimous consent in the
Senate.
The America COMPETES Act is intended to increase the nation’s investment
in science and engineering research, and in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education from kindergarten to graduate school and
postdoctoral education. The act is designed to focus on two perceived concerns
believed to influence future U.S. competitiveness: inadequate research and
development funding to generate sufficient technological progress, and inadequate
numbers of American students proficient in science and mathematics or interested
in science and engineering careers relative to international competitors.
The act is an authorization act, so new programs established by the act will not
be initiated unless funded through subsequent appropriations.1 Similarly, increases
in the authorization level of existing programs may or may not translate into
increased funding.
This report provides an overview of the America COMPETES Act provisions,
summarizes its legislative origin and the origins of some of the new programs it
authorizes, analyzes selected America COMPETES Act programs that are the focus
of appropriation discussions, and provides a comparison of the President’s budget,
congressional appropriations, and America COMPETES Act authorization levels for
FY2008. Appendix A provides an overview of the act’s legislative history.
Appendix B provides a summary of all the provisions of the act.
Overview of America COMPETES Act
The America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) has eight titles that authorize
programs and activities at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the
Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Education (ED), the National
Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of
1 For a discussion of the authorization/appropriations process, see CRS Report RS20371,
Overview of the Authorization-Appropriations Process, by Bill Heniff Jr.
CRS-2
Standards and Technology (NIST), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).
Among its provisions, the act authorizes the following:
Research
! Funding of research supported by NIST, the DOE Office of Science,
and the NSF for FY2008-FY2010 at a rate that, if sustained, would
double these agencies’ research budgets over seven years;
! Early career and new investigator grants for science, engineering,
and mathematics researchers at DOE and NSF;
! A new Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)2 in
DOE that would sponsor transformational energy technology
research projects; and
! New Discovery Science and Engineering Innovation Institutes at
DOE National Laboratories, which are multidisciplinary institutes
that are intended to apply fundamental science and engineering
discoveries to technological innovations.
Education
! Scholarship and training programs to recruit new K-12 STEM
teachers who would simultaneously earn STEM degrees plus teacher
certification, and enhance the skills of existing STEM teachers
through a variety of activities administered by the DOE, NASA,
NSF, and ED; and
! Student-focused STEM programs at ED, DOE, and NSF including
Math Now for elementary and middle school students, grants to
states for public, statewide, specialty, secondary schools in science
and mathematics, Advanced Placement (AP) or International
Baccalaureate (IB) courses at the high school level, scholarships and
fellowships for undergraduate and graduate students, and enhanced
mentoring for postdoctoral scholars.
The act also includes White House efforts, under OSTP, to foster innovation and
competitiveness activities including a National Science and Technology Summit,
National Technology and Innovation Medal, and President’s Council on Innovation
and Competitiveness.
2 For more information on ARPA-E, see CRS Report RL34497, Advanced Research Projects
Agency - Energy (ARPA-E): Background, Status, and Selected Issues for Congress, by
Deborah D. Stine.
CRS-3
Overview of U.S. Competitiveness Initiatives
For the nation to maintain economic growth and a high standard of living, the
United States must be competitive in a global economy. To be competitive, U.S.
companies must engage in trade, retain market shares, and offer high quality products
processes and services. Scientific and technological advances can further economic
growth because they contribute to the creation of new goods, services, jobs, and
capital, or increase productivity. Such advances can compensate for possible
disadvantages in the cost of capital and labor faced by firms by enhancing the quality
or efficiency in the production of existing goods and services. Scientific advances,
government activity, the organization and management of firms, and serendipity can
all influence technological progress regardless of economic conditions. In addressing
U.S. competitiveness, two policy approaches have primarily been used. One relies
on direct measures that include budget outlays and the provision of services by
government agencies. The other uses indirect measures such as financial incentives
and legal changes.3
Since World War II, the United States has used a combination of direct and
indirect approaches to enhance current and future U.S. competitiveness.4 Following
World War II, the Steelman report was issued expressing concerns about U.S.
competitiveness: “the future is certain to confront us with competition from other
national economies of a sort we have not hitherto had to meet.”5
Interest in the competitiveness issue perhaps reached its peak in the 1970s, when
some experts became concerned that Japan, Europe, and newly industrialized
countries were becoming major competitors with the United States. The United
States had lost market share in autos, cameras, stereos, television sets, steel, machine
tools, and microelectronics. Some also expressed concerns that U.S. technological
superiority, as exhibited by the balance of trade in high-technology products, was
declining as the U.S. share of world exports on research and development (R&D)-
intensive goods fell while the Japanese share rose. Other indicators were lower
productivity growth in the United States than Japan, a narrowing in the gap of the
production in the number of scientists and engineers graduating from U.S.
universities and those engaged in R&D in the United States compared to Japan and
West Germany, the relative proficiency of U.S. high school students in science and
mathematics, and a decline in the number of patents granted to Americans while
those to foreign inventors doubled. The cause, some believed, was due to U.S.
expenditures for civilian R&D falling behind that of Europe and Japan, or some
3 Excerpt from CRS Report RL33528, Industrial Competitiveness and Technological
Advancement: Debate Over Government Policy, by Wendy H. Schacht.
4 Bruce L. R. Smith, American Science Policy Since World War II (Washington, DC:
Brookings Press, 2000). Kent H. Hughes, Building the Next American Century: The Past
and Present of American Economic Competitiveness (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press,
2005). James Turner, “The Next Innovation Revolution: Laying the Groundwork for the
United States,” innovations, spring 2006, p. 123-144, at [http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/
Documents/News%20and%20Publications/Other%20Documents/Turner-Innovations.pdf].
5 John R. Steelman, Science and Public Policy (Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office, August 1947). Reprinted by the Arno Press, New York, NY, 1980.
CRS-4
European countries and Japan deriving more economic benefit from their R&D
expenditures.6
Congress responded by taking a number of actions including passing the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-480), the Patent and
Trademark Act Amendments of 1980 (known as the Bayh-Dole Act, P.L. 96-517),
the Federal Technology Transfer Act (P.L. 99-502), the National Cooperative
Research Act (P.L. 98-462), and the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988 (P.L. 100-418). In addition, the Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology, or
SEMATECH, consortium, an on-site test facility and a conduit for new technological
advances for the U.S. semiconductor industry, was created.7
Additional congressional actions also focused on increasing corporate spending
on research and development in response to competitiveness concerns included the
1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act (P.L. 97-34) and the Tax Reform Act of 1986
(P.L. 99-514), which provided for a research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit.
The Small Business Development Act (P.L. 97-219; P.L. 99-443) established a set-
aside of federal R&D funds to support work in innovative small firms. 8
The competitiveness concerns continued until the mid-1990s when the United
States economy and technological innovation improved. Actions were taken by U.S.
manufacturers to improve their quality and efficiency, universities and national
laboratories increased their linkages to U.S. companies, and the United States was
successful in many innovation-based industries such as Internet applications,
biotechnology, and nanotechnology while the Japanese economy was in a decline.9
Now that the nation has entered the 21st century, today’s competitiveness
concerns tend to be focused on issues related to globalization — that is, a global
economy — along with some of the same concerns discussed in previous
competitiveness debates — these include whether or not federal science and
engineering research funding is sufficient, questions about STEM education quality,
and the number of Americans obtaining science and engineering degrees. Much of
what Americans consume or buy is produced in other countries, and much of what
Americans produce is exported abroad. For example, a growing number of the
6 Bruce L. R. Smith, American Science Policy Since World War II (Washington, DC:
Brookings Press, 2000), p. 101-105.
7 CRS Report RL32076, The Bayh-Dole Act: Selected Issues in Patent Policy and the
Commercialization of Technology, CRS Report RL30320, Patent Ownership and Federal
Research and Development (R&D): A Discussion on the Bayh-Dole Act and the
Stevenson-Wydler Act, and CRS Report RL33526, Cooperative R&D: Federal Efforts to
Promote Industrial Competitiveness, all by Wendy H. Schacht. CRS Report IB93024,
SEMATECH: Issues and Options, by Glenn J. McLoughlin.
8 CRS Report RL33528, Industrial Competitiveness and Technological Advancement:
Debate Over Government Policy, by Wendy H. Schacht.
9 George R. Heaton, Jr., Christopher T. Hill, Patrick Windham, David W. Cheney,
“Innovation Policy Today in the United States: The Mainstream Consensus and Other
Views,” Technology Policy International, May 2007, at [http://www.technopoli.net/
InnovationPolicy2007.pdf].
CRS-5
largest U.S. companies rely on international markets for over 50% of their sales and
employ more foreign workers than domestic. This globalization has a growing
impact, both positive and negative, on the economic futures of American companies,
workers, and families. Increasing integration with the world economy can make the
United States more productive, leading to increases in living standards and real
disposable incomes. However, rising trade with low-wage developing countries
increases workers’ concerns about job loss, lower wages, and benefits as American
companies take actions to compete in a global economy. The information technology
revolution has expanded these competitiveness concerns to U.S. white collar jobs.10
Three broad trends influence today’s globalization of the economy. The first is
technology, which has sharply reduced the cost of communication and transportation
that previously divided markets. The second is a dramatic increase in the world
supply of labor producing goods and services traded internationally. The third is
government policies that have reduced barriers to trade and investment.11
The America COMPETES Act includes policies that address each of these
trends. The act addresses these issues by authorizing primarily direct measures in
each of these policy areas. In addition, the act authorizes two committees — one
inside government and the other outside government — to look at indirect policy
mechanisms.
With respect to technology, some believe that today’s federal funding of basic
science and engineering research is inadequate to generate the technological progress
needed to create new industries and the associated jobs. The act responds to that
concern by increasing federal funding of basic research at the federal agencies
primarily responsible for funding physical sciences, engineering, mathematics, and
computer science — fields that are considered to be major contributors to
competitiveness due to their potential for innovation and job creation. In addition,
the America COMPETES Act renames and refocuses an existing program that helps
fund high-risk research and development at small and medium-sized businesses.
With respect to labor, the act takes actions that are intended to make the U.S.
labor pool more competitive with the world supply of labor. Currently, some believe
that inadequate numbers of American students are proficient in science and
mathematics. In addition, the number of Americans pursuing post-secondary STEM
degrees is considered to be low relative to students in countries considered to be U.S.
competitors.12 The act responds to these concerns by initiating a number of actions
to increase the quality and quantity of STEM teachers as well as mechanisms to
encourage more American students to undertake advanced STEM classes and post-
secondary STEM degrees.
10 Excerpt from CRS Report RL34091, Globalization, Worker Insecurity, and Policy
Approaches, by Raymond J. Ahearn.
11 Ibid.
12 CRS Report 98-871, Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Status and
Issues, by Christine M. Matthews. CRS Report RL33434, Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: Background, Federal Policy, and
Legislative Action, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
CRS-6
With respect to government trade and investment policies, the act authorizes
meetings, studies, and committees to identify possible actions the United States
might undertake. This includes, for example, studying and reviewing the costs faced
by U.S. businesses engaged in innovation compared with foreign competitors.
Beyond the America COMPETES Act, other recent legislative initiatives
propose federal efforts that
! encourage industry to spend more on research and development,
! promote joint research activities between companies,
! foster cooperative work between industry and universities,
! facilitate the transfer of technology from federal laboratories to the
private sector, and
! provide incentives for quality improvements.13
Issues for Congress
The America COMPETES Act had strong bipartisan support. Even though
President Bush signed the act into law, however, the Administration stated a series
of concerns, many related to the Administration’s American Competitiveness
Initiative (ACI).14 In addition, while some experts believe that actions should be
taken to make the United States more competitive, others do not.15 Some believe that
actions should be taken in response to competitiveness concerns, but express doubts
that the actions proposed in the America COMPETES Act are the best actions to
take.16
Perspectives on the Definition of Competitiveness
The definition of a nation’s competitiveness, and the public’s response to
particular policies, can vary depending on whether it is from the perspective of an
individual domestic firm, a multinational corporation, or domestic labor. For an
individual domestic firm, the focus of competitiveness is trade and the firm’s ability
to compete for market share against imports from abroad or to compete with foreign
13 For more details, see CRS Report RL33528, Industrial Competitiveness and
Technological Advancement: Debate Over Government Policy, by Wendy H. Schacht.
14 U.S. President (G.W. Bush), American Competitiveness Initiative, Domestic Policy
Council/Office of Science and Technology Policy, February 2006, p. 19, at
[http://www.ostp.gov/pdf/acibooklet.pdf].
15 See for example, Robert J. Samuelson, “A Phony Science Gap?,” Washington Post,
February 22, 2006, at [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/21/
AR2006022101166.html]; Sebastian Mallaby, “The Fake Science Threat,” Washington Post,
February 6, 2006 at [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/05/
AR2006020501059.html].
16 See, for example, David Goldston, “Making room for dissent,” Nature, 448:524, August
2, 2007, at [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/full/448524a.html].
CRS-7
firms in overseas export markets. From this perspective, a key measure of
competitiveness is the economy’s trade balance.17
Trade Balance. Table 1 shows U.S. trade in advanced technology products.
In the past, the United States ran a surplus in these products, but that surplus dropped
sharply in 2000 and turned into a deficit in 2002. Since then, the nation’s trade
balance deficit increased to $43.6 billion in 2005, then declined to $38.1 billion in
2006. Since many U.S. companies, however, particularly those in electronics,
assemble their products overseas, it is difficult to tell whether or not the United States
is losing the high technology race.18
Table 1. U.S. Trade in Advanced Technology Products
(billions of U.S. dollars)
Year
U.S. Exports
U.S. Imports
Trade Balance
1990
93.4
59.3
34.1
1995
138.4
124.8
13.6
1996
154.9
130.4
24.5
1997
179.5
147.3
32.2
1998
186.4
156.8
29.6
1999
200.3
181.2
19.1
2000
227.4
222.1
5.3
2001
200.1
195.3
4.8
2002
178.6
195.2
-16.6
2003
180.2
207.0
-26.8
2004
201.4
238.3
-36.9
2005
216.1
259.7
-43.6
2006
252.7
290.8
-38.1
2007
273.4
326.9
-53.5
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services. FT-900, issued
monthly. Excerpt from CRS Report RL33577, U.S. International Trade: Trends and Forecasts, by
Dick K. Nanto, Shayerah Ilias, and J. Michael Donnelly.
Notes: Includes about 500 of some 22,000 commodity classification codes that meet the following
criteria: (1) contains products whose technology is from a recognized high technology field (e.g.,
biotechnology), (2) represent leading edge technology in that field, and (3) constitute a significant part
of all items covered in the selected classification code. Data are on a BoP basis.
Foreign Direct Investment. For a U.S. multinational corporation, one based
in the United States but with production facilities abroad, competitiveness is defined
as the ability of its overseas operations to compete for market share with firms from
foreign host countries or firms from third countries. From this perspective, a key
measure of competitiveness is the degree to which these firms invest their resources
17 CRS Report RS22445, Taxes and International Competitiveness, by David L. Brumbaugh.
18 Excerpt from CRS Report RL33577, U.S. International Trade: Trends and Forecasts, by
Dick K. Nanto, Shayerah Ilias, J. Michael Donnelly.
CRS-8
in the United States or in other countries (known as “foreign direct investment”).19
As shown in Figure 1, foreign direct investment in the United States20 declined
sharply after 2000, when a record $300 billion was invested in U.S. businesses and
real estate, but rebounded to $184 billion by 2006.21
Figure 1. Foreign Direct Investment in the United States
and U.S. Direct Investment Abroad, Annual Flows,
1990-2006
Source: Excerpt from CRS Report RS21857, Foreign Direct Investment in the United States: An
Economic Analysis, by James K. Jackson. CRS analysis from Department of Commerce data.
Domestic labor is likely to share some of the same concerns of the firms and
corporations for whom they work, but is also likely to define competitiveness as the
firm’s ability to compete against foreign firms in export markets or in markets within
the United States. Competition is viewed as being between different investment sites
and the ability of the United States to compete with foreign countries as a location
for what domestic labor views as a job-creating business investment. Key measures
for domestic labor are the level of employment and the wages received from
employment in the economy.22
19 Excerpt from CRS Report RS22445, Taxes and International Competitiveness, by David
L. Brumbaugh.
20 The United States defines foreign direct investment as the ownership or control, directly
or indirectly, by one foreign person (individual, branch, partnership, association,
government, etc.) of 10% or more of the voting securities of an incorporated U.S. business
enterprise or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated U.S. business enterprise. 15 C.F.R.
§ 806.15 (a)(1).
21 Excerpt from CRS Report RS21857, Foreign Direct Investment in the United States: An
Economic Analysis, by James K. Jackson.
22 Excerpt from CRS Report RS22445, Taxes and International Competitiveness, by David
L. Brumbaugh.
CRS-9
The United States is both the largest recipient of foreign direct investments as
well as the largest investor abroad.23 Investment by U.S. firms abroad was $249
billion in 2006 (see Figure 1).24 While some view these investments as an economic
gain, others express concern about displaced U.S. workers and lower wages. Seventy
percent of U.S. foreign direct investment, however, is concentrated in high-income
developed countries and the share of investment going to developing countries has
fallen in recent years. As a result, most economists conclude that direct investment
abroad is due to a broad restructuring of U.S. manufacturing industries and does not
lead to fewer jobs or lower incomes overall for Americans.25
Workforce and Wages. NSF statistical analysts have indicated that
determining the science and engineering workforce and the jobs created as a result
of science and engineering is a challenging task. NSF identifies five broad categories
of science and engineering occupations: computer and mathematical scientists, life
scientists, physical scientists, social scientists, and engineers.
This classification, however, does not account for all those with science and
engineering degrees who use this knowledge in their occupations. For example, a
chemist who teaches high school chemistry and an engineer who manages a
manufacturing plant are classified as a teacher and a manager, respectively, and are
not included in NSF’s analysis of the science and engineering (S&E) workforce. In
addition, there are those who are in science- and engineering-related occupations who
use science and engineering knowledge in their jobs, but who may or may not have
degrees in science and engineering: for example, a patent attorney or a physician.
Some also use their S&E training in nominally non-S&E occupations such as writers,
salesmen, financial managers, and legal consultants. As the need for science and
engineering knowledge has increased for a growing number of occupations,
traditional accounting of such occupations provides less understanding of the science
and engineering workforce and it could be considerably larger, perhaps two to three
times, than provided in government analyses by the NSF, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS), and the U.S. Census Bureau.26
According to the National Science Board (NSB), depending on the definition
and perspective used, the size of the science and engineering workforce varied
between approximately 5.0 million and 21.4 million individuals in 2006. NSB
suggests that the most relevant number may be 17.0 million, which in 2006 was the
number of individuals who had at least one degree in a science and engineering field,
23 Excerpt from CRS Report RS21118, U.S. Direct Investment Abroad: Trends and Current
Issues, by James K. Jackson.
24 Excerpt from CRS Report RS21857, Foreign Direct Investment in the United States: An
Economic Analysis, by James K. Jackson.
25 Excerpt from CRS Report RS21118, U.S. Direct Investment Abroad: Trends and Current
Issues, by James K. Jackson.
26 National Science Foundation, “Counting the S&E Workforce — It’s Not that Easy,” NSF
99-344, May 3, 1999 at [http://nsf.gov/statistics/issuebrf/sib99344.htm]. National Science
Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation) Chapter 3 at [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/c03.pdf].
CRS-10
or 21.4 million, which also includes those who have degrees in an S&E related field
such as health or technology. According to the NSB, these numbers reflect the many
ways science and technical knowledge is used in the United States. This is quite
different from that of NSF’s science and engineering occupation data (5.0 million in
2006), the U.S. Census Bureau’s data (3.9 million in 2005), or BLS data (5.4 million
for S&E and 7.4 for STEM occupations27 in May 2006). A third option is provided
by NSF’s data that is based on workers’ own reporting of their need for at least a
bachelor’s degree level of science and engineering knowledge (12.9 million in
2003).28
Statistical analysts also find challenging accounting for the need of all workers
to have a basic understanding of STEM and of the workers whose employment is
related to new technologies. Figure 2 provides an analysis that shows how the skills
needed for employment have changed due to computerization. This computerization
has reduced the need for routine manual and cognitive tasks and replaced them with
high-level tasks. This analysis found that “Translating task shifts into education
demand, the model can explain sixty percent of the estimated relative demand shift
favoring college labor during 1970 to 1998. Task changes within nominally identical
occupations account for almost half of this impact.”29
The most long-term analysis of S&E workforce trends is that of the U.S. Census
Bureau. As shown in Figure 3, the number of workers in science and engineering
occupations grew significantly — 7.7 times larger in 2000 than in 1950. This growth
rate is higher than that of the total labor force, which grew 2.3 times, and that of all
managers and professionals, which grew 4.9 times. The STEM growth rate in the
1990s was a little more than three times that of the overall labor force.30
27 The NSB defines STEM occupations as science and engineering (S&E) occupations plus
technicians, programmers, technical managers, and a small number of S&E-related
occupations such as actuary and architect.
28 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation) Chapter 3 at [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/
c03.pdf].
29 David H. Autor, Frank Levy, and Richard J. Murnane, “The Skill Content of Recent
Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration,” Quarterly Journal of Economics,
118(4), November 2003.
30 B. Lindsay Lowell and Mark Regets, “A Half-Century Snapshot of the STEM Workforce,
1950-2000,” Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology, August 2006, at
[https://www.cpst.org/STEM/STEM_White1.pdf].
CRS-11
Figure 2. Trends in Routine and Nonroutine Task Input, 1960-1980
Source: David H. Autor, Frank Levy, and Richard J. Murnane, “The Skill Content of Recent
Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4),
November 2003.
Figure 3. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Workforce, 1950-2000 (in thousands)
Source: B. Lindsay Lowell and Mark Regets, “A Half-Century Snapshot of the STEM Workforce,
1950-2000,” Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology, August 2006 at
[https://www.cpst.org/STEM/STEM_White1.pdf].
Notes: Derived from U.S. Census microdata. STEM Core = engineering, life and physical scientists,
and math and information technology.
CRS-12
More recent data of STEM workforce trends from BLS shows mixed results.
These data show a decline in STEM professionals as a percentage of the employed
civilian workforce beginning in 2000.31 On the other hand, BLS reports that science
and engineering occupations are projected to grow by 21.4% from 2004 to 2014,
compared to a growth of 13% in all occupations during the same time period.32 It is
anticipated that approximately 65% of the growth in science and engineering
occupations will be in the computer-related occupations.33 Faster than average
growth is expected as well in the life sciences, social sciences, and the science and
engineering-related occupations of post-secondary teachers, healthcare practitioners
and technicians, and science managers. In addition, unemployment in S&E
occupations was 1.6% in 2006. And, as discussed above, it is important to remember
that these projections involve only the demand for strictly defined S&E occupations,
and do not include the wider range of jobs in which S&E degree holders often use
their training.34
Figure 4 shows that the compensation for those in most STEM occupations is
above those for the entire U.S. labor force while the growth rate in compensation is
about the same. For all STEM workers, compensation ranges from $53,000 to
$58,000 per annum compared to $47,000 to $49,500 for people in the professions,
and $31,500 to $34,500 for all workers in 2005.35
The mean real salary for recent S&E bachelor’s degree recipients increased an
average of 15% across all fields from 1993 to 2003. In 2003, median salaries for
S&E bachelor’s degree holders 15-19 years after receiving their degree had the
highest salary, $65,000 — higher than non-S&E bachelor’s degree recipients whose
salary at that stage of their career was $49,000.36 There can be a great deal of
variance, however, among STEM occupations, fields, and sub-fields.
31 Richard Ellis, “Is U.S. Science and Technology Policy Adrift?,” Commission on
Professionals in Science and Technology, October 2007, at [https://www.cpst.org/
STEM/STEM8_Report.pdf].
32 Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Occupational Statistics and
Employment Projections, BLS Releases 2004-2014 Employment Projections, December 7,
2005, [http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm].
33 Computer-related occupations include mathematical science occupations.
34 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation) Chapter 3 at [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/
c03.pdf].
35 Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology, “Science and Technology
Salaries: Trends and Details, 1995-2005,” August 2006, at [https://www.cpst.org/STEM/
STEM5_Report.pdf].
36 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation) Chapter 3 at [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/
c03.pdf].
CRS-13
Figure 4. Trends in Annual U.S. Base Salaries, in Constant 2005
Dollars, 1995-2005
Source: Derived from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Surveys data. Commission
on Professionals in Science and Technology, “Science and Technology Salaries: Trends and Details,
1995-2005,” August 2006, at [https://www.cpst.org/STEM/STEM5_Report.pdf].
Competitiveness in Perspective. The Council on Competitiveness
contends that these traditional measures of competitiveness — trade balance, foreign
direct investment, level of employment and wages — do not fully capture a nation’s
competitiveness. For firms, factors such as foreign affiliate sales, intrafirm trade,
fragmentation of global supply chains, and lack of inclusion of services and
intangibles such as knowledge and intellectual property are not incorporated into
today’s assessment of the nation’s competitiveness. The Council on Competitiveness
also suggests that due to the global economy, assessing a nation’s trade balance is not
as useful a measure as it once was. Today, competition is not as much domestic
companies competing with foreign companies (as captured in trade balances), but a
world where “value is created through intangible assets flowing through constantly
shifting global networks of multinational firms.”37 For individuals, the Council on
Competitiveness suggest that factors such as pension funds, real estate, value of
healthcare benefits, and purchasing power should be additional measures to
understand an individual’s prosperity. They also propose assessing whether or not
prosperity is equivalent across all levels of society, and the potential individuals have
to improve their prosperity through their own efforts.38
General Issues
The America COMPETES Act is based on a set of assumptions such as the
following:
! STEM knowledge is necessary for all Americans, not just those
entering science and engineering careers. American K-12 students
do not have sufficient proficiency in STEM due to a lack of teachers
with education or training in STEM. Scientists, engineers, and
37 Council on Competitiveness, Competitiveness Index: Where America Stands (Washington,
DC: Council on Competitiveness, November 2006), p. 23.
38 Ibid.
CRS-14
teachers with STEM degrees or enhanced STEM knowledge will
generate more enthusiasm for STEM in students than those without
such degrees; more enthusiastic students will lead to a better-trained
and more competitive workforce.
! An insufficient number of Americans obtain degrees in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics compared to the nation’s
economic competitors. More Americans need to be encouraged to
pursue such fields so that the United States has the workforce
necessary to generate the new ideas that led to the new industries.
Individuals who obtain STEM degrees are smart people who can
work in a variety of occupations beyond those traditionally assumed
for those who earn such degrees.
! Science and engineering research is important to U.S.
competitiveness because of its influence on U.S. economic growth.
Current science and engineering basic research funding, particularly
in the physical sciences, engineering, mathematics, and computer
science, is insufficient compared to other countries with whom the
United States competes. Additional federal funding of basic science
and engineering research will make the nation more competitive by
creating whole new industries, and the related jobs, and enhancing
existing ones.
These assumptions are based on a variety of analyses. For example, in K-12
STEM education,39 the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s
(OECD) Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) compared the scores
of U.S. 15-year-old students in science and mathematics literacy to the scores of their
peers internationally in 2006. American students scored an average of 489 points on
science literacy, lower than the OECD average of 500 points, and 474 points in
mathematics literacy, lower than the OECD average score of 498.40 Further, another
study found that middle school mathematics teachers in the United States are not as
well prepared to teach mathematics as many of their counterparts in five other
countries, and this inadequate teacher preparation joins deficiencies in mathematics
curriculum as reasons contributing to lower scores for American middle-schoolers.41
39 See also CRS Report 98-871, Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Status
and Issues, by Christine M. Matthews, and CRS Report RL33434, Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: Background, Federal Policy, and
Legislative Action, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
40 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “Highlights From
PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Science and Mathematics
Literacy in an International Context,” NCES Report Number 2008-016, December 2007 at
[http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008016.pdf].
41 William Schmidt, et al., “The Preparation Gap: Teacher Education for Middle School
Mathematics in Six Countries,” Mathematics Teaching in the 21st Century (MT21) project,
conducted by Michigan State University for the National Science Foundation, 2007, at
[http://usteds.msu.edu/MT21Report.pdf]. National Science Foundation, “U.S. Middle
(continued...)
CRS-15
The United States has one of the lowest rates of first university degrees42
awarded in STEM fields to that in non-STEM degree production in the world
according to NSF data. In 2002, STEM degrees accounted for 16.8% of all first
university degrees awarded in the United States compared to an international average
of 26.4%.43
In science and engineering research, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,
with support from the National Science Foundation, has developed a research and
development satellite account to estimate the effect of investment in research and
development on U.S. economic growth. By this analysis, if R&D were treated as
investment, it would have accounted for 5% of real gross domestic product (GDP)
growth between 1959 and 2004, and 7% between 1995 and 2004.44
These are illustrations of the many analyses available that emphasize such
themes. Some, however, question these fundamental assumptions. They question,
for example, if the United States invests in federal research programs, to what extent
can the U.S. exclusively benefit from those investments? Since research is
international, could not any country benefit from these investments? At what point
is the nation’s research investment sufficient to reach its goals? In STEM education,
is this not a state and local issue? Can the federal government really have any major
influence in this policy area? Will STEM education investments take too long to
reach fruition relative to other investments? Will federal investments in research and
STEM education provide jobs for all Americans as opposed to just scientists and
engineers? Others question whether or not the actions in the act are by themselves
sufficient to enhance U.S. competitiveness as many other factors beyond STEM
research and education contribute to U.S. competitiveness.45
Further, some question the fundamental premise that any action is necessary at
all regarding U.S. competitiveness. They question whether or not science and
41 (...continued)
School Math Teachers Are Ill-prepared Among International Counterparts,” press release
07-185, December 11, 2007, at [http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=
110845].
42 First university degrees are those designated Level 5A by the International Standard
Classification of Education (ISCED 97), and usually require less than five years to complete.
More information on this classification and the ISCED is available at
[http://www.unesco.org/education/information/nfsunesco/doc/isced_1997.htm].
43 CRS Report RL33434, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Education: Background, Federal Policy, and Legislative Action, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
44 Bureau of Economic Analysis/National Science Foundation, “2007 Research and
Development Satellite Account,” September 28, 2007 at [http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/
general/rd/2007/pdf/rdreport07.pdf].
45 George R. Heaton, Jr., Christopher T. Hill, Patrick Windham, David W. Cheney,
“Innovation Policy Today in the United States: The Mainstream Consensus and Other
Views,” Technology Policy International, May 2007, at [http://www.technopoli.net/
InnovationPolicy2007.pdf].
CRS-16
engineering research and STEM education are problems at all.46 These analysts
express doubts as to whether additional scientists and engineers in the United States
are needed given current workforce projections, and why if the demand is so high,
salaries for those in STEM occupations are not higher.47 Other analysts indicate that
the quality and number of scientists and engineers in China and India are
exaggerated.48
Another set of issues focuses on the possible unintended side-effects of
implementation. For example, will the act result in an oversupply of scientists and
engineers?49 Can the doubling of funding for some research programs be properly
managed? Will the agencies who receive these funds face the same challenges as
NIH faces today once the funding declines?50
Assuming that policymakers’ concerns about U.S. competitiveness are sufficient
for a response, both direct (such as increased funding) and indirect measures (such
as tax policy) are proposed by proponents. The act focuses on direct measures while
studying possible indirect measures that can be taken. When looking at technology
development, those favoring direct government assistance contend that the
government’s scarce resources should focus on technologies that have the greatest
promise, as determined by industry and indicated by industry’s willingness to match
funds. Those favoring indirect measures contend that the market is superior to
government in deciding which technologies are worthy of investment, and worry
about potential political interests’ influences on an agency’s decision to assist one
technology in preference to another. Indirect policy mechanism proponents instead
support policies that enhance the market’s opportunities and abilities to make such
choices. Those who prefer direct measures contend that indirect measures are
wasteful, ineffective, and can compromise other public policy goals.51
46 See, for example, testimony at U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and
Technology, The Globalization of R&D and Innovation, Pt. IV: Implications for the Science
and Engineering Workforce, hearing, 110th Congress, 1st sess., November 6, 2007 at
[http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2032].
47 B. Lindsay Lowell and Hal Salzman, “Into the Eye of the Storm: Assessing the Evidence
on Science and Engineering Education, Quality, and Workforce Demand” (Washington,
D.C.: The Urban Institute, October 2007).
48 J. Bhagwati, The World is Not Flat, Wall Street Journal, August 4, 2005. Vivek
Wadhwa, Gary Gereffi, Ben Rissing, Ryan Ong, “Seeing through Preconceptions: A Deeper
Look at China and India,” Issues in Science and Technology, Spring 2007 at
[http://www.issues.org/23.3/wadhwa.html].
49 Michael Teitelbaum, “Do We Need More Scientists,” Public Interest, Fall 2003, pp. 40-
53 at [http://www.sloan.org/programs/documents/PublicInterestTeitelbaum2003.pdf].
50 Elias A. Zerhouni, “Enhanced: NIH in the Post-Doubling Era: Realities and Strategies,”
Science, (314:5802), pp. 1088 - 1090, November 17 2006, at [http://www.sciencemag.org/
cgi/content/full/31/5802/1088?ijkey=R/B99JFPZAJgA&keytype=ref&siteid=sci].
51 CRS Report RL33528, Industrial Competitiveness and Technological Advancement:
Debate Over Government Policy, by Wendy H. Schacht.
CRS-17
American Competitiveness Initiative
President Bush announced the American Competitiveness Initiative52 in January
2006 during his State of the Union address. The America COMPETES Act and the
ACI respond to the same concern — that the United States may not be able to
compete economically with other nations in the future due to insufficient investment
today in science and technology research and workforce development. Many, but not
all, of the provisions of ACI are part of the America COMPETES Act. Provisions
of ACI found in the America COMPETES Act include increased research funding
at the NSF, NIST laboratories, and the DOE Office of Science. Two STEM
Education programs, Math Now and the AP/IB program, are also in both ACI and the
America COMPETES Act.
The Administration has continued to make a commitment to the research
funding goals outlined in ACI. The ACI would, if maintained, double the physical
sciences and engineering research funding of the three agencies, in aggregate, over
ten years.53 These funds were proposed in the President’s FY2007, FY2008, and
FY2009 budget submission.
Although President Bush signed the America COMPETES Act into law because
it shares the goals of ACI, he did not support all the provisions within it. At the time
of its signing, the Administration expressed concern that the act includes excessive
authorizations and new duplicative programs. The Administration stated,
The bill creates over 30 new programs that are mostly duplicative or
counterproductive — including a new Department of Energy agency to fund
late-stage technology development more appropriately left to the private sector
— and also provides excessive authorization for existing programs.
Accordingly, the President will request funding in his 2009 budget for those
authorizations that support the focused priorities of the ACI, but will not propose
excessive or duplicative funding based on authorizations in the bill.54
In STEM education, the Bush Administration criticized the inclusion of new
STEM programs beyond Math Now and the AP/IB program in the American
COMPETES Act.55 For existing programs, the Administration is opposed to
increasing funding beyond what was requested in the President’s budget.
52 U.S. President (G.W. Bush), American Competitiveness Initiative, Domestic Policy
Council/Office of Science and Technology Policy, February 2006, p. 19, at
[http://www.ostp.gov/pdf/acibooklet.pdf].
53 Ibid., The ACI proposes to double “innovation-enabling physical science and engineering
research” at the three agencies over ten years, and states that “individual agency allocations
remain to be determined.”
54 U.S. President (G.W. Bush), “America COMPETES Act of 2007,” Fact Sheet, August
9, 2007 at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070809-6.html].
55 Ibid.
CRS-18
Science and Engineering Research
The America COMPETES Act authorizes increases in funding for the NSF,
NIST laboratories, and the DOE Office of Science, as well as two new research
organizations: the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) and the
Discovery Science and Engineering Innovation Institutes.
In addition, the act expresses a sense of the Congress that each executive agency
that funds research is requested to set a goal of allocating an “appropriate” percentage
of its annual basic research budget to fund high-risk, high-reward basic research
projects. The act also expresses the sense of the Congress that appropriately funding
NASA at the authorized levels contained in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005
(P.L. 109-155) would allow it to contribute significantly to U.S. innovation and
competitiveness.
Research Funding. The America COMPETES Act authorizes increases in
funding for the NSF, NIST laboratories,56 and the DOE Office of Science over
FY2008-2010. If maintained beyond 2010, the increases would double funding for
these agencies over seven years.57 The Administration’s ACI also proposed increases
in funding, as exhibited in the FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009 budgets, but at a rate
that would provide a doubling path over 10 years instead of 7 years.
Many organizations have advocated increasing research funding for the physical
sciences, engineering, mathematics, and computer science. The specific rate of
increase in the America COMPETES Act is based on the National Academies58
Rising Above the Gathering Storm report,59 which called for the federal government
to increase its investment in long-term basic research by 10% annually over the next
seven years. The National Academies committee that developed the report concluded
that this rate of change was necessary, particularly in the physical sciences,
engineering, mathematics, and information sciences, because federal funding in these
56 NIST is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce, whose
mission is to “promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing
measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security
and improve our quality of life.” NIST laboratories conduct “research that advances the
nation’s technology infrastructure and is needed by U.S. industry to continually improve
products and services.” See [http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/general2.htm] for more
information.
57 For additional information, see CRS Report RL34048, Federal Research and
Development Funding: FY2008, coordinated by John F. Sargent; CRS Report 95-307, U.S.
National Science Foundation: An Overview, by Christine M. Matthews; and CRS Report
95-30, The National Institute of Standards and Technology: An Appropriations Overview,
by Wendy H. Schacht.
58 The National Academies include the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy
of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
59 The National Academies, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Economic Future (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2007).
This report is often referred to as the “Gathering Storm report” or the “Augustine report,”
for its chair, Norman Augustine, retired CEO and chairman of Lockheed Martin.
CRS-19
fields has remained relatively flat for 15 years. According to the National
Academies, agencies are less likely to support high-potential high-risk research when
funding is stagnant. In addition, this type of research tends to be overlooked when
there are inadequate funds to support all proposals that independent external
reviewers rate as very good or excellent. Corporations are unlikely to fill this need,
according to the National Academies; they fund little basic research, as it typically
offers greater benefits to society than its sponsor, and is riskier than shareholders are
willing to tolerate.60
The National Academies committee reviewed proposals from a wide variety of
organizations before determining that a 10% annual increase over a seven-year period
would be most appropriate. In particular, the NSF Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L.
107-368) authorized doubling NSF’s research budget over five years. The committee
took this into account and expanded it to other federal agencies. In sum, “The
committee believes that this rate of growth strikes an appropriate balance between
the urgency of the issue being addressed and the ability of the research community
to apply new funds efficiently.”61
The Administration has not indicated why it selected a 7% annual rate, that
would provide a doubling-path for these research activities over 10 years, as an
appropriate rate of increase for these agencies. The Administration has indicated,
however, that the amount of funding available is limited:
Wide consensus ... exists on the importance of federally funded science to our
nation’s long term economic competitiveness.... The National Academies’ 2005
report “Rising Above the Gathering Storm…” was an important expression of
this view, and echoed findings of many other reports. Notable among its
recommendations was increased funding for basic research in the physical
sciences, mathematics, and engineering — areas that had stagnated while the
budget for biomedical research soared. The report even recommended that
investment in these areas should increase “ideally through reallocation of
existing funds, but if necessary via new funds.” That statement is a rare
recognition of the fact that federal funds for science are limited and that some
programs may have to be held constant or reduced to fund priorities. The
Administration’s response to this consensus was the American Competitiveness
Initiative, which among other things proposed doubling budgets for NSF, NIST
and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science over ten years.62
NASA Funding. The America COMPETES Act states that NASA should be
a full participant in any interagency effort to promote innovation and economic
competitiveness through near-term and long-term basic scientific and engineering
60 The National Academies, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Economic Future (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2007),
pp. 136-138.
61 Ibid., p. 141.
62 John Marburger, Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “2007
AAAS Policy Forum,” Speech at the 2007 American Association for the Advancement of
Science Policy Forum, May 2007, at [http://www.ostp.gov/pdf/jhm_2007_aaas_policy_
forum_final.pdf].
CRS-20
research and development and in the promotion of STEM education consistent with
NASA’s mission. The act also expresses the sense of the Congress that “robust”
funding of NASA, at the levels authorized in the National Aeronautics and Space Act
of 2005 (P.L. 109-55) and subsequent years, would allow NASA to contribute
significantly to U.S. innovation and competitiveness, enable a fair balance of funding
among its science, aeronautics, education, exploration, and human space flight
programs, and allow full participation in any interagency efforts to promote
innovation and economic competitiveness.63
The Senate and House appropriations committees have expressed concern that
the President’s FY2008 budget is not appropriately balanced and that insufficient
funds are requested for both the President’s Vision for Space Exploration and the
other important initiatives at NASA.64
Similarly, a National Research Council report indicated that “NASA is being
asked to accomplish too much with too little.”65 The report recommended that “both
the executive and the legislative branches of the federal government need to seriously
examine the mismatch between the tasks assigned to NASA and the resources that
the agency has been provided to accomplish them and should identify actions that
will make the agency’s portfolio of responsibilities sustainable.” Others also
question if NASA has the right priorities.66
Although the Administration has agreed that funding is challenging given
NASA’s many tasks, it also believes that NASA’s budget priorities as proposed in
the President’s budget are appropriate.67 Further, the Administration contends that
63 America COMPETES Act, P.L. 110-69, Section 2001. For more discussion regarding
NASA and its priorities, see CRS Report RL34263, U.S. Civilian Space Policy Priorities:
Reflections 50 Years After Sputnik, by Deborah D. Stine, and CRS Report RS22625,
“National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Overview, FY2008 Budget in Brief, and
Key Issues for Congress,” by Daniel Morgan and Carl E. Behrens.
64 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, report to accompany H.R. 3093,
110th Cong., 1st sess., July 25, 2007, H.Rept. 110-24, part 1 (Washington: GPO, 2007) p.
109; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, report to accompany S. 1745,
110th Cong., 1st sess., June 29, 2007, S.Rept. 110-24, part 1 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p.
101; National Research Council, Space Studies Board, An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s
Science Program, Washington, DC, 2006, p. 2 [http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=
11644].
65 National Research Council, Space Studies Board, An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s
Science Program, Washington, DC, 2006, p. 2 [http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=
11644].
66 See, for example, Gregg Easterbrook, “How NASA Screwed Up (And Four Ways to Fix
It),” Wired, May 22, 2007, at [http://www.wired.com/science/space/magazine/15-06/
ff_space_nasa]; The Economist, “Spacemen Are from Mars,” September 27, 2007, at
[http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9867224].
67 Testimony of Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, FY2008 Budget
(continued...)
CRS-21
rebalancing funding within NASA’s portfolio would disrupt funding for ongoing
activities.68
High-Risk, High-Reward Research. The America COMPETES Act also
expresses the sense of the Congress that each executive research agency should set
a goal of allocating an appropriate percentage of its basic research funding for high-
risk, high reward (“transformative”) projects. Such transformative research, the act
states, should meet fundamental technological or scientific challenges, and involve
multidisciplinary work and a high degree of novelty.69
The America COMPETES Act high-risk research provision responds to some
researchers’ concerns that current federal research funding review mechanisms are
not as open as they could be to new, unproven ideas.70 The National Science Board
(NSB) found that
Transformative research frequently does not fit comfortably within the scope of
project-focused, innovative, step-by-step research or even major centers, nor does
it tend to fare well wherever a review system is dominated by experts highly
invested in current paradigms or during times of especially limited budgets that
promote aversion to risk.71
Further, “investigators are reluctant to submit radical or paradigm-challenging
research ideas to NSF given the low conventional success rate (over $2 billion of
highly rated proposals were declined in FY2004).”72 The National Institutes of
67 (...continued)
Hearing, March 13, 2007, at [http://www.cq.com/display.do?dockey=/cqonline/prod/data
/docs/html/transcripts/congressional/110/congressionaltranscripts110-000002468892.ht
ml@committees&metapub=CQ-CONGTRANSCRIPTS].
68 U.S. President (George W. Bush), “S. 761 — America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act,” Statement
of Administration Policy, April 23, 2007, at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
legislative/sap/110-1/s761sap-s.pdf].
69 America COMPETES Act, Section 1008, “ Sense of Congress on Innovation Acceleration
Research.”
70 The National Academies, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Economic Future (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2007),
p. 149; Jeff Mervis, “Risky Business: Can the U.S. Government Do a Better Job of Betting
on Long Shots in Science? NSF and NIH Hope the Answer Is Yes,” Science, October 8,
2004.
71 National Science Board, Enhancing Support for Transformational Research at the
National Science Foundation, 2007, at [http://nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2007/tr_report.pdf].
72 National Science Board, Report of the National Science Board on the National Science
Foundation’s Merit Review System, 2005, at [http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/
documents/2005/0930/merit_review.pdf].
CRS-22
Health also has indicated that this issue is a concern and, in response, has developed
the Pioneer’s Award to foster high-risk research.73
The Administration believes this provision in the America COMPETES Act
could have negative, unintended consequences and impede the ability of federal
research agencies to carry out their missions.74
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) explanatory
language states the following regarding transformative research at NSF:
Transformative research is considered to be both revolutionary and “cutting
edge.” While the Foundation currently conducts research that could be
considered transformational, several reports including the National Science
Board’s (NSB) Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at the National
Science Foundation notes that no funds are dedicated for this express purpose.
The Appropriations Committees direct the Foundation to review current practices
supporting the solicitation of, and the support of, transformational proposals. The
Foundation shall provide a report regarding this review to the Committees on
how this emerging area can be addressed, 90 days after enactment of this Act,
and provide semi-annual reports with any updates thereafter. The initial report
should include the Foundation’s definition of transformative research.
The House Committee on Appropriations also indicated that $10 million of NSF’s
budget should be for a “new and dedicated program emphasizing transformative
research.”75
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy. The America
COMPETES Act authorizes ARPA-E.76 If fully funded, ARPA-E would be a new
federal organization in DOE. As outlined in the America COMPETES Act, the goal
of ARPA-E is to enhance the economic and energy security of the United States
through the development of technologies that reduce foreign energy imports, reduce
energy-related greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency in all economic
sectors, and ensure the United States is a technical leader in developing and
deploying advanced energy technologies.
73 National Institutes of Health, “NIH Roadmap for Medical Research, High-Risk Research”,
webpage, at [http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/highrisk/].
74 U.S. President (George W. Bush), “S. 761 — America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act,” Statement
of Administration Policy, April 23, 2007 at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
legislative/sap/110-1/s761sap-s.pdf]. No additional details were given as to the potential
consequences of this action.
75 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, report to accompany H.R. 3093,
110th Cong., 1st sess., July 25, 2007, H.Rept. 110-24, part 1 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p.
124.
76 For more information on ARPA-E, see CRS Report RL34497, Advanced Research
Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E): Background, Status, and Selected Issues for Congress,
by Deborah D. Stine.
CRS-23
ARPA-E is intended to achieve this goal through energy technology projects by
identifying and promoting revolutionary advances in fundamental sciences,
translating scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into technological
innovations, and accelerating transformational technological advances in areas that
industry, by itself, is not likely to undertake because of technical and financial
uncertainty.
ARPA-E is based on the DARPA research management model used by the
Department of Defense. Currently, DARPA seeks to sponsor revolutionary, high-
payoff research that “bridges the gap between fundamental discoveries and their
military use.”77 Although the concept for ARPA-E in the act was based on that in the
National Academies report Rising Above the Gathering Storm,78 proposing the
DARPA model for other parts of the U.S. federal research system has been explored
before. Historically, a number of similar initiatives have been proposed. For
example, a number of initiatives including an advanced civilian technology agency
were proposed in the 100th and 101st Congresses.79 In 1992, a National Academy of
Sciences report recommended that the government consider a civilian technology
corporation or a civilian technology agency, in limited areas, including energy
research.80 A similar action was proposed by the Progressive Policy Institute in
1993.81 At the time presidential candidate Bill Clinton and Senator Al Gore proposed
the creation of a civilian advanced research agency to support research on renewable
technologies and renewable fuels.82
In congressional testimony, members of the committee that wrote the National
Academies report indicated ARPA-E should have four objectives:
1. Bring a freshness, excitement, and sense of mission to energy research that
will attract many of our best and brightest minds — those of experienced
77 Testimony of Dr. Tony Tether, Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,
in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, The Future of Computer Science Research
in the United States, hearing, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 12, 2005, H.Hrg. 109-14
(Washington, GPO, 2005) at [http://science.house.gov/commdocs/hearings/full05/
may12/tether.pdf].
78 The National Academies, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Economic Future (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2007),
p. 154.
79 During the 101st Congress, 2nd session, these included S. 1978, H.R. 3833, H.R. 4715, S.
2765. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Making Things Better: Competing
in Manufacturing, OTA-ITE-443 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office),
February 1990.
80 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine,
The Government Role in Civilian Technology: Building a New Alliance (Washington, DC:
National Academy Press, 1992).
81 Will Marshall and Martin Schram, Mandate for Change (New York: Berkeley Books,
1993).
82 Bill Clinton and Al Gore, Putting People First: How We Can All Change America (New
York: Random House, 1992).
CRS-24
scientists and engineers, and, especially, those of students and young researchers,
including those in the entrepreneurial world.
2. Focus on creative, out-of-the-box, potentially transformational research that
industry cannot or will not support.
3. Utilize an ARPA-like organization that is flat, nimble, and sparse, yet capable
of setting goals and making decisions that will allow it to sustain for long periods
of time those projects whose promise is real, and to phase out programs that do
not prove to be productive or as promising as anticipated.
4. Create a new tool to bridge the troubling gaps between basic energy research,
development, and industrial innovation. It can serve as a model for how to
improve science and technology transfer in other areas that are essential to our
future prosperity.83
The report proposed that funding for ARPA-E start at $300 million the first year
and increase to $1 billion per year over five to six years. At that point, the program’s
effectiveness would be evaluated and appropriate actions taken. Regarding the
funding of ARPA-E, National Academies committee members testified that it was
critical that ARPA-E funding not jeopardize the basic research supported by the
DOE’s Office of Science.
The National Academies committee did not believe it appropriate to specify the
organization and mission of ARPA-E in great detail, but rather that those details
should be “worked out by the Secretary of Energy and the Under Secretary for
Science in rapid, but intense, consultation with experts from the scientific and
engineering communities.”84
What type of research would ARPA-E fund? A member of the National
Academies committee has provided two illustrations of what ARPA-E might fund.
The first is a new class of inexpensive, efficient, and long lasting solar cells created
using novel materials manufactured with thin-film technologies or nano-particle
devices that convert sunlight. ARPA-E could also fund the creation of new plants
to be grown for energy by incorporating a number of genes introduced into plants, or
make plants self-fertilizing and drought- and pest-resistant so less energy is used in
agriculture.85
83 Testimony of Dr. Charles M. Vest, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, Protecting America’s Competitive Edge — Energy, hearings, 109th
Congress, 2nd sess., February 14, 2006, S.Hrg. 109-358 (Washington: GPO, 2006) at
[http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_I
D=1526&Witness_ID=4320]. Testimony of Dr. Steven Chu, in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Science, Should Congress Establish “ARPA-E”, The Advanced Research
Projects Agency - Energy?, hearings, 109th Congress, 2nd sess., March 9, 2006, H.Hrg. 109-
39 (Washington: GPO, 2006).
84 Ibid.
85 Testimony of Dr. Steven Chu, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Should
Congress Establish “ARPA-E”, The Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy?,
(continued...)
CRS-25
After final passage of the act, Raymond Orbach, DOE Under Secretary for
Science, stated that although the goal of the newly authorized agency is “laudable,”
its structure needs to be developed. He also indicated that although the act required
that a director be named for ARPA-E, President Bush will not seek appropriations
for the new agency.86
Between the release of the Gathering Storm report and the passage of the
America COMPETES Act, there were a number of congressional hearings on
ARPA-E.87 Proponents of ARPA-E indicate that additional science and technology
would help respond to the nation’s need for clean, affordable, and reliable energy.
Others question whether ARPA-E is necessary to develop new technologies, when
existing energy technologies are not fully utilized due to a insufficient policies to
encourage their implementation.
Some witnesses also indicated that the problems ARPA-E is trying to solve are
unclear. These concerns addressed whether the challenge is a lack of private-sector
investment in basic research or federal funding for innovative, high-risk research,
failure to effectively transfer new energy technologies to the marketplace, or some
combination of these. In particular, they question the lack of a direct customer, as the
energy market is a broad and diverse public and private market, while DARPA has
DOD as a primary customer to create demand.
Witnesses supporting ARPA-E testified that it will focus on breakthrough
research, using emerging basic research in areas such as nanotechnology to develop
totally new technologies, as opposed to existing programs that have already identified
paths forward and tend to focus on incremental advances. Further, it is designed to
bridge the gap between basic research and industrial development — not to get
products to the marketplace, but to transform the marketplace by accelerating
research.
Some testifying expressed concerns about a potential shift of funds from DOE’s
Office of Science to ARPA-E, while funding for the Office of Science is a goal of
both ACI and the America COMPETES Act. They also questioned if the authorized
funding for ARPA-E is enough to support the research necessary for ARPA-E to
85 (...continued)
hearings, 109th Congress, 2nd sess., March 9, 2006, H.Hrg. 109-39 (Washington: GPO, 2006)
at [http://science.house.gov/commdocs/hearings/full06/March%209/Chu.pdf].
86 American Institute of Physics, “Ray Orbach on FY 2008 Funding Bill: ‘The Clock is
Ticking,’” newsletter, FYI Number 97, September 21, 2007, at [http://www.aip.org/fyi/
2007/097.html].
87 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology Committee, “Establishing
the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E),” hearing, 110th Cong., 1st
session, April 26, 2007, at [http://www.science.house.gov/publications/
hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=1778]; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Science, “Should Congress Establish ‘ARPA-E,’ The Advanced Research Projects Agency
- Energy?,” hearings, 109th Congress, 2nd sess., March 9, 2006, (Washington: GPO, 2006)
at [http://www.science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=
1056].
CRS-26
reach its goals, and expressed concern that a lack of acceptance by DOE of ARPA-E
might impede its success.
Supporters of ARPA-E testified that funds for ARPA-E should not be redirected
from the DOE Office of Science. They maintain that ARPA-E will also “create a
freshness, excitement, and sense of mission to attract the best scientific minds” so
that its goals have a high potential of being reached. Further, proponents argue,
ARPA-E will address organizational problems at DOE, by being sufficiently small
and flexible to work across and around risk-averse, parochial organizational
stovepipes.
Some have proposed providing an advance appropriation supporting ARPA-E
for several years, rather than the usual one-year appropriation. Another option is to
identify a dedicated revenue source for ARPA-E. Some of the funding sources that
have been proposed are
! repeal of oil industry tax and other incentives;88
! gasoline tax;89
! oil company profit tax;90
! federal oil and gas royalties;91
! climate change cap-and-trade program;92 and
! Strategic Petroleum Reserve funds.93
88 House Committee on Science and Technology, “Chairman Gordon Presses Establishment
of ARPA-E as a Key to Clean Energy Independence,” press release, May 9, 2008, at
[http://science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2189].
89 For more information on the federal excise tax on gasoline, see CRS Report RL30304,
The Federal Excise Tax on Gasoline and the Highway Trust Fund: A Short History, by
Pamela J. Jackson.
90 For more information on use of oil company profits, see CRS Report RL34044, The Use
of Profit by the Five Major Oil Companies, by Robert Pirog.
91 Testimony of Melanie Kenderdine, Vice President, Gas Technology Institute in U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Science, “Should Congress Establish ARPA-E, The
Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy?,” hearings, 109th Congress, 2nd session,
March 9, 2006, H.Hrg. 109-39 (Washington: GPO, 2006) at [http://science.house.gov/
commdocs/hearings/full06/March%209/Kenderdine.pdf]. For an example of oil and gas
royalties, see CRS Report RS22567, Royalty Relief for U.S. Deepwater Oil and Gas Leases,
by Marc Humphries.
92 Testimony of Melanie Kenderdine, Vice President, Gas Technology Institute in U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Science, “Should Congress Establish ARPA-E, The
Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy?,” hearings, 109th Congress, 2nd session,
March 9, 2006, H.Hrg. 109-39 (Washington: GPO, 2006) at [http://science.house.gov/
commdocs/hearings/full06/March%209/Kenderdine.pdf]. For more information on cap-and-
trade programs, see CRS Report RL33846, Greenhouse Gas Reduction: Cap-and-Trade
Bills in the 110th Congress, by Larry Parker, Brent D. Yacobucci, and Jonathan L. Ramseur.
93 For more information on the strategic petroleum reserve, see CRS Report RL33341, The
Strategic Petroleum Reserve: History, Perspectives, and Issues, by Robert Bamberger.
CRS-27
An analogous situation might be research supported through the Ultra-Deepwater and
Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources Program,94 authorized
by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), which receives funding of $50
million per year derived from royalties, rents, and bonuses from federal onshore and
offshore oil and gas leases.95 Based on past experience, however, all of these
proposals would face challenges in Congress.
Discovery Science and Engineering Innovation Institutes. The
America COMPETES Act directs DOE to establish multidisciplinary Discovery
Science and Engineering Innovation Institutes at DOE National Laboratories to apply
fundamental science and engineering discoveries to technological innovations. The
institutes, along with their higher-education and private industry partners, would
support science and engineering research on emerging technologies determined by
the Secretary of Energy to be critical to global competitiveness. In addition, the
Institutes are intended to train undergraduate and graduate science and engineering
students, develop innovative undergraduate and graduate educational curricula,
conduct research with higher-education partners, and develop innovative
technologies with industrial partners.96
In the discussions leading up to the America COMPETES Act, the
Administration opposed the Institutes, stating,
The Administration strongly objects to using DOE funds to support State and
local economic development activities. In addition to diverting funds from
priority research areas, such a focus on commercialization is not a priority of the
Federal government and could result in putting the government in the position
of competing with private investment and influencing market decisions in
potentially inefficient and ineffective ways.97
94 For more information, see [http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/ultra_and_
unconventional/index.html].
95 For more information, see CRS Report RL33493, Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over
Oil and Gas Leasing and Revenue Sharing, by Marc Humphries.
96 A similar concept, Discovery-Innovation Institutes proposed in a National Academy of
Engineering report, was the starting point for the Discovery Science and Engineering
Innovation Institutes concept. The purpose of the institutes, located on the campuses of
research universities, was to “link fundamental scientific discoveries with technological
innovations to create products, processes, services to meet the needs of society.” The NAE
committee recommended that these institutes play a role similar to that of academic medical
centers and agricultural experiment stations that combine research, education, and
professional practice to drive transformative change and stimulate significant regional
economic activity, such as the location nearby of clusters of start-up firms, private research
organizations, suppliers, and other complementary groups and businesses. National
Academy of Engineering, Engineering Research and America’s Future: Meeting the
Challenges of a Global Economy (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2005), at
[http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11393].
97 U.S. President (George W. Bush), “S. 761 — America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act,” Statement
of Administration Policy, April 23, 2007 at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
(continued...)
CRS-28
Those supporting the institutes believe it will provide an opportunity for DOE
National Laboratories to work with universities to train engineers in such areas as
nanoscience and microsystems.98 The training of those engineers and the tasks they
perform, proponents indicate, require a reshaping of the nation’s engineering
research, education, and practices to respond to challenges in global markets, national
security, energy sustainability, and public health. They contend that the changes are
not only technological, but also cultural, and they will affect the structure of
organizations and relationships between institutional sectors of the country. This task,
proponents indicate, cannot be accomplished by any one sector of society but must
involve the federal government, states, industry, foundations, and academia.99
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Education
The America COMPETES Act authorizes many new STEM education programs
focused on recruiting more STEM teachers and enhancing the knowledge and skills
of current STEM teachers. The act also encourages and supports students at all levels
to undertake STEM education through a variety of initiatives that include not only
traditional education, but also summer institutes and research internships at national
labs. Many of the programs in the act place an emphasis on outreach and mentoring
for women and minorities and inclusion of students and teachers from high-need
schools.100
The STEM education programs in the America COMPETES Act include
! a pilot program of grants to states to help establish or expand
statewide specialty high schools in STEM education;
! experiential-based learning opportunities, internships for middle and
high-school students101 including hands-on learning at the DOE
national labs;
97 (...continued)
legislative/sap/110-1/s761sap-s.pdf].
98 Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico Senators’ “America COMPETES Act” Passed by
Senate, 88-8, press release, April 25, 2007.
99 National Academy of Engineering, Engineering Research and America’s Future: Meeting
the Challenges of a Global Economy, p. 24 (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
2005), at [http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11393].
100 The definition of “high-need” varies throughout the act. See footnotes 11 and 12 for the
definition of high-need for a particular program.
101 Priority is given to students from schools in which not less than 30% of the children
enrolled in the school are from low-income families, or that are designated with a school
locale code of 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the Secretary of Education; and for which
there is a high percentage of teachers who are not teaching in the academic subject areas or
grade levels in which the teachers were trained to teach, a high teacher turnover rate, or a
high percentage of teachers with emergency, provisional, or temporary certification or
licenses.
CRS-29
! centers of excellence in STEM education in at least one high-need,
public secondary school102 in each DOE National lab region, in order
to develop and disseminate best practices in STEM education;
! summer institutes at the DOE national labs and partner universities,
in order to improve the STEM content knowledge of kindergarten
through 12th grade teachers throughout the country;
! a newly appointed Director for STEM Education at the Department
of Energy, who would also serve as an interagency liaison for K-12
STEM education;
! a graduate research fellowship program for outstanding graduate
students, called Protecting America’s Competitive Edge (PACE), in
fields of interest to the DOE plus imagination, creativity, and
excellent written and oral communication skills;
! two new competitive grant programs at the Department of Education
(ED), called Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow, that would
enable partnerships to implement, in STEM fields, courses of study
that lead to a baccalaureate degree with concurrent teacher
certification, and at the graduate level, a two- or three-year, part-
time, master’s degree program for current teachers to improve their
content knowledge and pedagogical skills in these areas;
! a program called Math Now would improve instruction in
mathematics by providing teachers with research-based tools and
professional development to enhance elementary and middle school
students’ achievement in math;
! a new program called the Advanced Placement/International
Baccalaureate (AP/IB) Program would expand low-income students’
access to AP/IB coursework by training more high school teachers
to lead AP/IB courses in math, science, and critical foreign
languages in high-need103 schools;
102 For this program, a “high-need public secondary school” is defined in the America
COMPETES Act (42 U.S.C. 7381l) as a secondary school with “(1) with a high
concentration of low-income individuals (as defined in section 1707 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6537)); or (2) designated with a school locale
code of 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the Secretary of Education.”
103 A “high-need school” is defined in the act as one with a pervasive need for Advanced
Placement or International Baccalaureate courses in mathematics, science, or critical foreign
languages, or for additional Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses in
such a subject; and with a high concentration of low-income students; or is designated with
a school locale code of 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the Secretary of Education.
CRS-30
! increased support for a number of existing NSF programs including
the
-Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program, which seeks to
encourage talented science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
majors and professionals to become K-12 mathematics and science
teachers;
-Math and Science Partnerships program, which develops and
implements ways of advancing mathematics and science education for
students;
-STEM talent expansion program (STEP), whose goal is increasing
the number of students receiving associate or baccalaureate STEM
degrees;
-Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program, which promotes
improvement in the education of science and engineering technicians
at the undergraduate and secondary school levels;
-Graduate Research Fellowships (GRF), which provide three years of
support for graduate study in STEM fields; and
-Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT)
program, which seeks to catalyze a cultural change in graduate
education by establishing innovative new models.
The issues for Congress related to these provisions are discussed below.
Department of Energy. A number of the America COMPETES Act
programs are to be managed by the DOE and its National Laboratories, which have
not previously played a major role in K-12 STEM education. The Administration has
opposed several of the DOE-Managed STEM initiatives, including the Specialty
Schools in Math and Science, Experiential-based Learning Opportunities, Summer
Institutes, and the National Laboratories Centers of Excellence, indicating such
programs should not be a DOE responsibility.104 Proponents counter that the biggest
challenge in K-12 STEM education is inspiring children to learn math and science,
and that the best way to inspire teachers and students is by providing them with an
opportunity to interact with DOE scientists and engineers actively conducting
research.105
The DOE specialty schools for math and science are to be public secondary
schools whose students reside in the state where the school is located. These schools
104 U.S. President (George W. Bush), “S. 761 — America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act,” Statement
of Administration Policy, April 23, 2007, at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
legislative/sap/110-1/s761sap-s.pdf].
105 Senator Lamar Alexander, “America’s Competitiveness,” remarks in the Senate,
Congressional Record, April 24, 2007, p. S5011.
CRS-31
are intended to offer students a high-quality, comprehensive STEM curriculum
designed to improve the academic achievement of students in science and
mathematics. The Administration contends that establishing or expanding K-12
schools should not be a DOE responsibility.106 Supporters state that such schools will
be important because states that have similar specialty schools have been a “nucleus
of excellence” in math and science, that attracts and inspires the best students and
teachers.107
The America COMPETES Act authorizes summer internship programs at DOE
national laboratories for middle and secondary school students to provide them with
experiential, hands-on learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
The Administration advocates that resources instead should be focused on identifying
what works and improving the effectiveness of existing efforts before starting a new
program for which the Administration believes that there is no clear and compelling
need.108 Proponents counter that the few weeks students spend in such programs
makes a “remarkable” difference in the quality of education.109
DOE National Laboratory Centers of Excellence in STEM education are
designed to assist teachers and allow them to use national laboratory equipment to
teach courses located in at least one high-need public secondary school in the region
served by a DOE national laboratory, in partnership with local higher education
institution. The Administration believes that establishing school-based centers is not
a proper role for DOE and would divert national laboratory resources that currently
benefit their surrounding communities.110 Proponents counter that such programs
inspire teachers and students, and provide them with necessary resources.111
National Science Foundation. The America COMPETES Act reauthorizes
a number of existing STEM education programs at the NSF and authorizes one new
program. The Administration has opposed two provisions in the act: increasing
106 U.S. President (George W. Bush), “S. 761 — America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act,” Statement
of Administration Policy, April 23, 2007 at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
legislative/sap/110-1/s761sap-s.pdf].
107 Senator Lamar Alexander, “America’s Competitiveness,” remarks in the Senate,
Congressional Record, April 24, 2007, p. S5011.
108 U.S. President (George W. Bush), “S. 761 — America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act,” Statement
of Administration Policy, April 23, 2007 at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
legislative/sap/110-1/s761sap-s.pdf].
109 Senator Lamar Alexander, “America’s Competitiveness,” remarks in the Senate,
Congressional Record, April 24, 2007, p. S5011.
110 U.S. President (George W. Bush), “S. 761 — America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act,” Statement
of Administration Policy, April 23, 2007 at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
legislative/sap/110-1/s761sap-s.pdf].
111 Senator Lamar Alexander, “America’s Competitiveness,” remarks in the Senate,
Congressional Record, April 24, 2007, p. S5011.
CRS-32
funding for an existing program, the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program, and
establishing funding for a new program, the Laboratory Science Pilot program.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 explanatory language states the
following regarding NSF STEM education programs and the Noyce Program:
NSF not only includes research, but also shares in the responsibility for
promoting quality math and science education as intertwining objectives at all
levels of education across the United States. Math and science educators play a
major role in keeping the U.S. competitive in the 21st century. Increasing the
number of highly qualified K-12 math and science teachers is critical to the
creation of a new generation of innovators. Recommendations included in the
National Academies’ Rising Above the Gathering Storm report discussed the
importance of expanding programs to enhance the undergraduate education of
the future science and engineering workforce. Within the amounts provided, an
additional $5,000,000, for a total of $15,000,000, shall be provided for the
Robert Noyce Scholarship program.... The Robert Noyce Scholarship program
encourages talented Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) undergraduate students and postgraduate professionals to become K-12
mathematics and science teachers.
The Noyce program awards grants to higher education institutions to recruit and
prepare undergraduate students majoring in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics to become elementary and secondary mathematics and science teachers.
Students receive scholarships and stipends in exchange for 2-6 years of service as a
mathematics or science teacher in a high-need K-12 school district.112 This program
is related to another activity in the America COMPETES Act, the ED Baccalaureate
Degrees in STEM/Foreign Languages with Concurrent Teacher Certification
program, that provides funds to institutions of higher education to manage these
programs.
The program is considered by some to be radical because academic research
institutions have traditionally trained science and mathematics teachers in education
departments rather than in science and mathematics departments. In addition, many
of the current programs use master K-12 classroom teachers to educate students in
the program and serve as role models, rather than relying solely upon the education
department faculty. Further, universities involved with the program have had to
change their traditional viewpoint that they are preparing students just for research
careers, but also for education careers, and that these students are not “washouts,” but
some of their best science, engineering, and mathematics undergraduates.113
112 For more information on this program, see [http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf07529/
nsf07529.htm] and National Science Foundation, Cultivating Math and Science Teachers
for High-need School Districts, press release, at [http://www.nsf.gov/news/
news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110481&org=NSF&from=news]. As of October 2007, 91 awards
to institutions in 32 states have been made. These institutions then provide scholarships to
students. The results of an ongoing program evaluation, which will provide an analysis of
the program since it originated in 2002, will be available in 2008.
113 Jeffrey Mervis, “A New Twist on Training Teachers,” Science, June 1, 2007, 316:5829,
pp. 1270 - 1277 at [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5829/1270].
CRS-33
The Administration has expressed concerns that additional evaluation of the
Noyce program is needed to determine its impact on improving the efficacy or
retention of teachers who are program graduates, and that the program is too new to
conduct this evaluation. Therefore, the Administration maintains that it is
unreasonable to increase the funding at the pace and magnitude called for in the
America COMPETES Act. Proponents contend that both the UTeach114 and
California Teach115 programs, which use the same model as the Noyce program, have
been successful in better preparing teachers for the classroom.116
The NSF Laboratory Science Pilot program will award grants to partnerships of
higher education institutions, high-need local educational agencies, businesses,
eligible nonprofit organization, and others to improve school laboratories and
instrumentation as part of a comprehensive program to enhance the quality of STEM
instruction. The program would provide professional development and training for
teachers; purchase, rental, or leasing of equipment, instrumentation, and other
scientific educational materials; develop instructional programs to integrate
laboratory experiences with classroom instruction; and design and implement
hands-on laboratory experiences.
The Administration has stated that supporting the acquisition of laboratory
equipment when that equipment is linked to the development and implementation of
novel curricula, professional development, or teaching methods is already part of an
existing NSF program. Further, routine purchase of consumable supplies and
construction, renovation, or maintenance of physical facilities should remain the
responsibility of the recipient institution or state and local education agencies,
according to the President.117 Proponents counter that a National Research Council
report118 on the state of America’s high school labs found that the current quality of
laboratory experiences is poor for most students, and schools with higher
concentrations of non-Asian minorities and schools with higher concentrations of
poor students are less likely to have adequate laboratory facilities than other
schools.119
114 For more information, see [http://www.uteach.utexas.edu/].
115 For more information, see [http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/academics/
1000teachers/].
116 Rep. George Miller, “Conference Report on H.R. 2272, America COMPETES Act,”
remarks in the House, Congressional Record, August 2, 2007, p. H9592.
117 U.S. President (George W. Bush), “H.R. 362 — 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds
Science and Math Scholarship Act,” Statement of Administration Policy, April 23, 2007.
118 National Research Council, America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science
(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2005) at [http://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=11311].
119 Testimony of Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
House Science and Technology Committee, Improving the Laboratory Experience for
America’s High School Students, 110th Cong., 1st sess., H.Hrg. 110-9, March 8, 2007, at
[http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2007/research/
08mar/hinojosa_testimony.pdf].
CRS-34
Department of Education. Math Now is one of two ED programs that are
in both the America COMPETES Act and the Administration’s ACI proposal. The
goal of Math Now is to improve instruction in mathematics by providing teachers
with research-based tools and professional development to improve elementary and
middle school students’ achievement in math.
Math Now originated in the ACI, so it has been part of congressional
discussions since 2006. Congress has not so far supported appropriations for the
Math Now program. Both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
indicated in their reports on the ED appropriations bills that existing programs are
sufficient, specifically the Math and Science Partnership program and the Institute
for Education Sciences program, both already at the Department of Education.
Therefore, the committees did not believe that additional programs are needed.120
Appropriations Status
Table 2 summarizes the America COMPETES Act programs and authorizations
for FY2008, FY2009, and FY2010; the FY2008 appropriation; and, Senate and
House activities regarding these programs in the FY2009 budget process.121 For
FY2009, federal government operations are funded through an interim continuing
resolution (H.R. 2638; P.L. 110-329).122 The resolution funds federal programs from
October 1, 2008, until March 6, 2009, at the FY2008 level, but does not include
funding from the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252) in
determining the level of funding during this time.123
The table includes programs for which the America COMPETES Act authorized
funding. Not all the programs addressed by the America COMPETES Act had an
enumerated authorization of appropriation level. Further, not all of the authorized
programs will necessarily be at a sufficient programmatic level to have a line item
within their agency’s budget in the President’s request, the appropriations bills, or the
agency budgets. Therefore, a lack of an enumerated appropriation does not
necessarily mean that a given program is not funded.
120 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, report to accompanying H.R. 3043,
110th Cong., 1st sess., July 13, 2007, H.Rept. 110-231 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 226;
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, report to accompany S. 1710, 110th
Cong., 1st sess., June 27, 2007, S.Rept. 110-107 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 220.
121 For additional information on the America COMPETES Act in the FY2009 budget, see
CRS Report RL34396, The America COMPETES Act and the FY2009 Budget, by Deborah
D. Stine. CRS Report RL34448, Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2009,
coordinated by John F. Sargent, provides detailed analysis on an agency-specific basis for
DOE, NSF, and NIST.
122 For more information, see CRS Report RL34700, Interim Continuing Resolutions (CRs):
Potential Impacts on Agency Operations, by Clinton T. Brass.
123 For additional details, see Office of Management and Budget, Apportionment of the
Continuing Resolution(s) for Fiscal Year 2009, OMB Bulletin No. 08-02, September 30,
2008 at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/fy2008/b08-02.pdf].
CRS-35
Table 2. Comparison of America COMPETES Act Programs, the FY2008 Appropriation, and the President’s FY2009
Budget Request, the House of Representatives FY2009 Appropriations, the Senate FY2009 Appropriations, and the
America COMPETES Act FY2008, FY2009, and FY2010 Authorization
(in millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Appropriation
Programs with Specific
(Consolidated
Authorized Budgets
Appropriations
House
Senate
Authorization
in the America
Act, 2008 (P.L.
Authorization
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Authorization
(America
COMPETES Act
110-161);
(America
(President’s
(as reported*
(as reported*
(America
COMPETES
Supplemental
COMPETES
Budget)
or in draft bill
or in draft bill
COMPETES
Act)
Appropriations
Act)
or report**)
or report**)
Act)
Act, 2008 (P.L.
110-252))
Department of Commerce
National Institute of
Standards and Technology
(Sec. 3001)
— Scientific & Technical
$502.1
$440.5
$541.9
$535.0a
** $500.7
* $489.5
$584.8
Research and Services
(STRS) (Sec. 3001)
— Construction &
150.9
160.5
86.4
99.0
** 129.0
* 149.0
49.7
Maintenance (Sec. 3001)
— Technology Innovation
100.0
65.2b
131.5
0.0
** 65.2
* 65.0
140.5
Program (TIP) (Sec.
3001/3012)
CRS-36
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Appropriation
Programs with Specific
(Consolidated
Authorized Budgets
Appropriations
House
Senate
Authorization
in the America
Act, 2008 (P.L.
Authorization
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Authorization
(America
COMPETES Act
110-161);
(America
(President’s
(as reported*
(as reported*
(America
COMPETES
Supplemental
COMPETES
Budget)
or in draft bill
or in draft bill
COMPETES
Act)
Appropriations
Act)
or report**)
or report**)
Act)
Act, 2008 (P.L.
110-252))
— Manufacturing Extension
110.0
89.6
122.0
4.0
** 89.6
* 110.0
131.8
Partnership (MEP) (Sec.
3001/3003)
Department of Energy
DOE Science, Engineering
and Mathematics Programs
(Sec. 5003)
— Pilot Program of Grants
14.0
Not Included
22.5
Not Included
Not Included
Not Included
30.0
to Specialty Schools for
Science and Mathematics
(Sec. 5003) [NEW]
— Experiential Based
7.5
Not Included
7.5
Not Included
Not Included
Not Included
7.5
Learning Opportunities (Sec.
5003) [NEW]
— Summer Institutes (Sec.
15.0
Not Included
20.0
6.4
**6.4
* 6.4
25.0
5003) [NEW]c
— National Energy
0.5
Not Included
Such sums as
Not Included
Not Included
Not Included
Such sums as
Education Development
necessary
necessary
(Sec. 5003) [NEW]
CRS-37
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Appropriation
Programs with Specific
(Consolidated
Authorized Budgets
Appropriations
House
Senate
Authorization
in the America
Act, 2008 (P.L.
Authorization
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Authorization
(America
COMPETES Act
110-161);
(America
(President’s
(as reported*
(as reported*
(America
COMPETES
Supplemental
COMPETES
Budget)
or in draft bill
or in draft bill
COMPETES
Act)
Appropriations
Act)
or report**)
or report**)
Act)
Act, 2008 (P.L.
110-252))
Nuclear Science Talent
Expansion Program (Sec.
5004)
— Nuclear Science Program
3.5
Not Included
6.5
Not Included
Not Included
*3.0d
9.5
Expansion Grants for
Institutions of Higher
Education (Sec. 5004)
[NEW]
— Nuclear Science
3.0
Not Included
5.5
Not Included
Not Included
Not Included
8.0
Competitiveness Grants for
Institutions of Higher
Education (Sec. 5004)
[NEW]
Hydrocarbon Systems
Science Talent Expansion
Program (Sec. 5005)
— Hydrocarbon Systems
3.5
Not Included
6.5
Not Included
Not Included
Not Included
9.5
Science Program Expansion
Grants for Institutions of
Higher Education (Sec.
5005) [NEW]
CRS-38
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Appropriation
Programs with Specific
(Consolidated
Authorized Budgets
Appropriations
House
Senate
Authorization
in the America
Act, 2008 (P.L.
Authorization
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Authorization
(America
COMPETES Act
110-161);
(America
(President’s
(as reported*
(as reported*
(America
COMPETES
Supplemental
COMPETES
Budget)
or in draft bill
or in draft bill
COMPETES
Act)
Appropriations
Act)
or report**)
or report**)
Act)
Act, 2008 (P.L.
110-252))
— Hydrocarbon Systems
3.0
Not Included
5.5
Not Included
Not Included
Not Included
8.0
Science Competitiveness
Grants for Institutions of
Higher Education (Sec.
5005) [NEW]
Early Career Awards for
25.0
Not Included
25.0
10.0
**10.0
* 10.0
25.0
Science, Engineering, and
Mathematics Researchers
(Sec. 5006)[NEW]c
Office of Science (Sec.
4,486.0e 4,035.6
5,200.0e
4,721.9
**4,861.7
* 4,640.5
5,814.0
5007) (as act amends the
(3,973.1
Energy Policy Act of 2005
consolidated
for FY2010)
+62.5
supplemental)
Discovery Science and
10.0-30.0f Not
Included
10.0-30.0f
182.2
**182.2
* 82.2g
10.0-30.0f
Engineering Innovation
Institutes (Sec. 5008)
[NEW]c
CRS-39
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Appropriation
Programs with Specific
(Consolidated
Authorized Budgets
Appropriations
House
Senate
Authorization
in the America
Act, 2008 (P.L.
Authorization
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Authorization
(America
COMPETES Act
110-161);
(America
(President’s
(as reported*
(as reported*
(America
COMPETES
Supplemental
COMPETES
Budget)
or in draft bill
or in draft bill
COMPETES
Act)
Appropriations
Act)
or report**)
or report**)
Act)
Act, 2008 (P.L.
110-252))
Protecting America’s Edge
7.5
Not Included
12.0
19.0
**19.0
* 19.0
20.0
(PACE) Graduate
Fellowship Program (Sec.
5009)[NEW]c
Distinguished Scientist
15.0
Not Included
20.0
Not Included
Not Included
Not Included
30.0
Program (Sec. 5011) [NEW]
Advanced Research
300
Not Included
Such sums as
Not Included
**15.0
Not Included
Such sums as
Projects Agency — Energy
are necessary
are necessary
[ARPA-E] (Sec. 5012)
[NEW]
Department of Education
Teachers for a Competitive
151.2
* 0.98
151.2
0.0
* 0.0
* 0.98
151.2
Tomorrow: Baccalaureate
Degrees in Science,
Technology, Engineering,
Mathematics, or Critical
Foreign Languages, with
Concurrent Teacher
Certification (Sec. 6113,
6115, 6116) [NEW]
CRS-40
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Appropriation
Programs with Specific
(Consolidated
Authorized Budgets
Appropriations
House
Senate
Authorization
in the America
Act, 2008 (P.L.
Authorization
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Authorization
(America
COMPETES Act
110-161);
(America
(President’s
(as reported*
(as reported*
(America
COMPETES
Supplemental
COMPETES
Budget)
or in draft bill
or in draft bill
COMPETES
Act)
Appropriations
Act)
or report**)
or report**)
Act)
Act, 2008 (P.L.
110-252))
Teachers for a Competitive
125.0
* 0.98
125.0
0.0
** 0.0
* 0.98
125.0
Tomorrow: Master’s
Degrees in Science,
Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics, or
Critical Foreign Language
Education (Sec. 6114-6116)
[NEW]
Advanced Placement and
75.0
Not Included
Such sums as
70.0/47.0h
** 43.5/0.0h
*43.5/20.5h
Such sums as
International
may be
may be
Baccalaureate Programs
necessary
necessary
(Sec. 6121-6123)h [NEW]
Math Now (Sec. 6201)
95.0
* 0.0
Such sums as
95.0
**0.0i
* 0.0i
Such sums as
[NEW]
may be
may be
necessary
necessary
Summer Term Education
Such sums as
Not Included
Such sums as
Not Included
Not Included
Not Included
Such sums as
Programs (Sec. 6202)
may be
may be
may be
[NEW]
necessary
necessary
necessary
CRS-41
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Appropriation
Programs with Specific
(Consolidated
Authorized Budgets
Appropriations
House
Senate
Authorization
in the America
Act, 2008 (P.L.
Authorization
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Authorization
(America
COMPETES Act
110-161);
(America
(President’s
(as reported*
(as reported*
(America
COMPETES
Supplemental
COMPETES
Budget)
or in draft bill
or in draft bill
COMPETES
Act)
Appropriations
Act)
or report**)
or report**)
Act)
Act, 2008 (P.L.
110-252))
Math Skills for Secondary
95.0
Not Included
95.0
Not Included
Not Included
Not Included
95.0
School Students (Sec. 6203)
[NEW]
Advancing America
28.0
Not Included
Such sums as
24.0
**0.0
* 0.0
Such sums as
Through Foreign Language
may be
may be
Partnership Program (Sec.
necessary
necessary
6301-6304) [NEW]j
P-16 Alignment of
120.0
Not Included
Such sums as
Not Included
Not Included
Not Included
Such sums as
Secondary School Graduate
may be
may be
Requirements with the
necessary
necessary
Demands of 21st Century
Postsecondary Endeavors
and Support for P-16
Education Data Systems
(Sec. 6401) [NEW]
Mathematics and Science
Such sums as
Not Included
Such sums as
Not Included
Not Included
Not Included
Such sums as
Partnership Bonus Grants
may be
may be
may be
(Sec. 6501) [NEW]
necessary
necessary
necessary
CRS-42
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Appropriation
Programs with Specific
(Consolidated
Authorized Budgets
Appropriations
House
Senate
Authorization
in the America
Act, 2008 (P.L.
Authorization
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Authorization
(America
COMPETES Act
110-161);
(America
(President’s
(as reported*
(as reported*
(America
COMPETES
Supplemental
COMPETES
Budget)
or in draft bill
or in draft bill
COMPETES
Act)
Appropriations
Act)
or report**)
or report**)
Act)
Act, 2008 (P.L.
110-252))
National Science
6,600.0
6,127.5
7,326.0
6,854.1
** 6,854.1
* 6,854.1
8,132.0
Foundation (Sec. 7002)
(6,065.0
consolidated
+62.5
supplemental)
Research and Related
5,156.0
4,844.0k
5,742.3
5,594.0
** 5,544.1
* 5,594.0
6,401.0
Activities
(4,821.5
consolidated
+22.5
supplemental)
— Major Research
115.0
Not Included
123.1
115.0
Not Included
Not Included
131.7
Instrumentation (MRI) (Sec.
7002/Sec. 7036)
— Faculty Early Career
165.4
Not Included
183.6
181.9
Not Included
Not Included
203.8
Development (CAREER)
(Sec.7002)
— Research Experiences for
61.6
Not Included
68.4
61.6
Not Included
Not Included
75.9
Undergraduates (REU)
(Sec.7002)
CRS-43
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Appropriation
Programs with Specific
(Consolidated
Authorized Budgets
Appropriations
House
Senate
Authorization
in the America
Act, 2008 (P.L.
Authorization
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Authorization
(America
COMPETES Act
110-161);
(America
(President’s
(as reported*
(as reported*
(America
COMPETES
Supplemental
COMPETES
Budget)
or in draft bill
or in draft bill
COMPETES
Act)
Appropriations
Act)
or report**)
or report**)
Act)
Act, 2008 (P.L.
110-252))
— Experimental Programs
120.0
* 120.0
133.2
113.5
** 133.0
* 125.0
147.8
to Stimulate Competitive
(115.0
Research (EPSCoR)
consolidated
(Sec.7002)
+5.0l
supplemental)
— Integrative Graduate
47.3
Not Included
52.5
38.8
Not Included
Not Included
58.3
Education and Research
Traineeship/R&RA (IGERT)
(Sec.7002)m
— Graduate Research
9.0
Not Included
10.0
8.1
Not Included
Not Included
11.1
Fellowship/R&RA (GRF)
(Sec.7002)
— Professional Science
10.0
Not Included
12.0
Not Included
Not Included
Not Included
15.0
Master’s Degree Program
(Sec. 7002/7034) [NEW]
CRS-44
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Appropriation
Programs with Specific
(Consolidated
Authorized Budgets
Appropriations
House
Senate
Authorization
in the America
Act, 2008 (P.L.
Authorization
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Authorization
(America
COMPETES Act
110-161);
(America
(President’s
(as reported*
(as reported*
(America
COMPETES
Supplemental
COMPETES
Budget)
or in draft bill
or in draft bill
COMPETES
Act)
Appropriations
Act)
or report**)
or report**)
Act)
Act, 2008 (P.L.
110-252))
Education and Human
896.0
765.6
995.0
790.4
** 840.3
* 790.4
1,104.0
Resources
(725.6
consolidated
+40.0
supplemental)
— Mathematics and Science
100.0
Not Included
111.0
51.0
** 61.0
Not Included
123.2
Education Partnership (MSP)
(Sec.7002/7028)
— Robert Noyce Teacher
89.8
* 55.0
115.0
11.6
** 50.0j
* 55.0n
140.5
Scholarship Program
(15.0
(Sec.7002/7030)
consolidated
+40.0
supplemental)
— Science, Mathematics,
40.0
Not Included
50.0
29.7
Not Included
Not Included
55.0
Engineering, and Technology
Talent Expansion
(Sec.7002/7025)
— Advanced Technological
52.0
Not Included
57.7
51.6
Not Included
Not Included
64.0
Education (ATE) (Sec.7002)
CRS-45
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Appropriation
Programs with Specific
(Consolidated
Authorized Budgets
Appropriations
House
Senate
Authorization
in the America
Act, 2008 (P.L.
Authorization
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Authorization
(America
COMPETES Act
110-161);
(America
(President’s
(as reported*
(as reported*
(America
COMPETES
Supplemental
COMPETES
Budget)
or in draft bill
or in draft bill
COMPETES
Act)
Appropriations
Act)
or report**)
or report**)
Act)
Act, 2008 (P.L.
110-252))
— Integrative Graduate
27.1
Not Included
30.1
25.0
Not Included
Not Included
33.4
Education and Research
Traineeship/EHR (IGERT)
(Sec.7002)m
— Graduate Research
96.6
Not Included
107.2
116.7
**107.0
Not Included
119.0
Fellowship/EHR (GRF)
(Sec.7002)
Major Research Equipment
245.0
220.7
262.0
147.5
** 147.5
* 152.0
280.0
and Facilities Construction
(Sec.7002)
Agency Operations and
285.6
281.8
309.76
305.1
**305.1
* 300.6
329.45
Award Management
(Sec.7002)
National Science Board
4.05
3.97
4.19
4.0
**4.0
* 4.0
4.34
(Sec.7002)
Inspector General
12.35
11.4
12.75
13.1
**13.1
* 13.1
13.21
(Sec.7002)
CRS-46
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
Appropriation
Programs with Specific
(Consolidated
Authorized Budgets
Appropriations
House
Senate
Authorization
in the America
Act, 2008 (P.L.
Authorization
Request
Appropriation
Appropriation
Authorization
(America
COMPETES Act
110-161);
(America
(President’s
(as reported*
(as reported*
(America
COMPETES
Supplemental
COMPETES
Budget)
or in draft bill
or in draft bill
COMPETES
Act)
Appropriations
Act)
or report**)
or report**)
Act)
Act, 2008 (P.L.
110-252))
Laboratory Science Pilot
5.0
Not Included
Such sums as
Not Included
Not Included
Not Included
Such sums as
Program (Sec. 7026) [NEW]
may be
may be
necessary
necessary
Sources: America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69); For FY2008, information is from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) and joint explanatory statement;
Congressional Record, December 17, 2007; Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252); H.Rept. 110-240; S.Rept. 110-124; H.Rept. 110-231; and S.Rept. 110-107. The
FY2009 request information is based on FY2009 Congressional Budget Request documents from the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. The Department
of Education FY2009 information is based on its Budget Summary. The NIST FY2009 request information is from the Fiscal Year 2009 Budget of the U.S. Government. Senate
Committee on Appropriations FY2009 information is from the Senate Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Committee (S. 3182; S.Rept. 110-397), the
Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Committee (S. 3258; S.Rept. 110-416), and the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
(S. 3230; S.Rept. 110-410), as reported to the full Senate. House Committee on Appropriations information is based on draft bills and subcommittee reports as provided on the
Congressional Quarterly website as of July 18, 2008.
Notes: Section numbers refer to the America COMPETES Act. “[NEW]” means a program that was not authorized prior to the America COMPETES Act. “Not Included” means
that these programs were not specifically identified in the budget request, bill, act, or report. * = as reported. ** = as in draft bill or report language. All other appropriations are numbers
from bill language.
a. The President’s budget request for STRS includes almost $8 million for the Baldrige National Quality Award Program. The TIP/ATP program Senate appropriation does not include
the $30.8 million directed away from the ATP appropriation for use by other non-NIST related programs.
b. The following statement is in the Consolidated Appropriations Act joint explanatory statement: “Of the amounts provided to ITS [Industrial Technology Services], $65,200,000
is for the Technology Innovation Program as authorized by Public Law 110-69 [the America COMPETES Act]. TIP is structured to fund high-risk, high reward research focused
on broad national needs such as advanced automotive batteries, aquaculture, novel lightweight materials, and other emerging technologies. The funding provided for TIP will
address mortgage obligations relating to projects created under the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). The amended bill also includes language to allow the TIP immediate
access to an additional $5,000,000 from deobligations and prior-year recoveries from ATP.”
CRS-47
c. According to an email communication between CRS and the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Science and Technology Policy received on October 14, 2008,
OMB contends that the following DOE programs correspond to programs authorized by the America COMPETES Act:
! DOE Summer Institutes (§5003) corresponds to the pre-existing DOE Academies Creating Teacher Scientists program (DOE ACTS);
! DOE Early Career Awards (§5006) corresponds to pre-existing High Energy Physics Outstanding Junior Investigator, Nuclear Physics Outstanding Junior
Investigator, Fusion Energy Sciences Plasma Physics Junior Faculty Development; Advanced Scientific Computing Research Early Career Principle Investigator;
and the Office of Science Early Career Scientist and Engineer Award programs;
! Discovery Science and Engineering Innovation Institutes (§5008) correspond with pre-existing Bioenergy Research Centers, SciDAC Institutes, and the proposed
Energy Frontier Research Centers; and the
! Protecting America’s Competitive Edge (PACE) Fellowship program (§5009) corresponds to pre-existing Computer Science Graduate Fellowships; Graduate
Research Environmental Fellowships; American Meteorological Society/Industry/Government Graduate Fellowships; Spallation Neutron Source Instrumentation
Fellowships, and the Fusion Energy Sciences Graduate Fellowships.
Note that the information above is not included in DOE’s FY2009 budget request as, according to OMB, DOE did not reorganize its budget structure to match the America
COMPETES Act categories. The FY2009 budget request information provided in the table is from Attachment 4 in Testimony of Dr. John Marburger, III, Director, White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy, House Committee on Science and Technology, Funding for the America COMPETES Act in the FY2009 Administration Budget
Request, hearing, 110th Congress, 2nd session, February 14, 2008, at [http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2008/Full/14feb/
Marburger_Testimony.pdf].
d. The committee recommends this action as part of its congressionally directed science projects stating $3 million should be appropriated for the Center for Advanced Energy Studies
at Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls “to conduct a pilot program to demonstrate the Nuclear Science Talent Expansion Program.”
ec. The America COMPETES Act amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Section 971(b), for FY2010. The FY2008 and FY2009 authorization number provided here
are from the Energy Policy Act.
f. The Secretary of Energy can decide to establish up to three institutes per fiscal year. Each institute could receive $10 million per year for three fiscal years.
g. The Senate report did not specify an appropriation for the Energy Frontier Research Centers (ERFCs). The report did specify a reduction in the Office of Science Basic Energy
Sciences funding of $152.8 million. Of this decrease, the Senate directs $59.4 million to move from the Office of Science to another office within DOE. According to OMB,
DOE does not plan to fund the ERFCs in response to the remaining reduction of $93.3 million. (Source: Personal communication between CRS and OMB on October 15, 2008.)
h. There is a similarly-named existing ED program called the Advanced Placement Incentive Program (API), authorized under Title I, Part G of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA). In its FY2009 congressional budget justification, the Department of Education proposes merging the ESEA API and the America COMPETES Advanced
Placement and International Baccalaureate Program(AP/IB) to provide a new “vision” for API. The request states that, “Of the requested amount [$70 million], roughly $12
million would be required to fund State applications for the Test Fees Program and approximately $11 million would fund API continuation grants under the ESEA program,
leaving an estimated $47 million for new grants under the COMPETES Act authority. Funds available for new awards will support projects expanding AP offerings and
participation in mathematics, science, and critical languages.” This is represented in the table as “70.0/47.0,” with the first number in the table providing the total for both the
existing Advanced Placement Incentive Program (API), and if funded, the new America COMPETES Act Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate (AP/IB) program;
the second number is the Administration estimated portion of the total that would be used for the AP/IB program. A similar notation is used for the congressional recommendations
and estimates. The Senate committee and House subcommittee both recommended $43.5 million for this program, but the Senate committee recommended $20.5 million for
the AP/IB program, while the House subcommittee recommended not funding the COMPETES Act program stating that the “2 to 1 match from non-Federal sources would
preclude low-income schools from participating.”
i. The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations each reported they did not wish to appropriate funds for this program.
CRS-48
j. The title for this program in the America COMPETES Act is the Foreign Language Partnership Program. The table uses the title for this program from the ED FY2009 congressional
budget justification to help distinguish it from other ED foreign language programs such as the existing Foreign Language Assistance program.
k. The following statement is in the Consolidated Appropriations Act joint explanatory statement: “ The Appropriations Committees strongly support increases for the math and physical
sciences, computer sciences, and engineering directorates in fiscal year 2008 for research and related activities (R&RA). However, the Committees also believe the Foundation
should maintain comparable growth in fiscal year 2008, to the extent possible, for the biological sciences and social, behavioral and economic sciences directorates. Each of the
science disciplines is valuable in maintaining U.S. competitiveness. The Committees urge NSF to provide each directorate with funding levels that are consistent with the goals
of the America COMPETES Act and look forward to the Foundation’s operating plan in addressing these concerns.”
l. Although included in the FY2008 supplemental appropriation, the act specifies a section in the America COMPETES Act authorizing funding for the FY2009 EPSCoR program.
m. Two directorates of the National Science Foundation manage the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program — the Education and Human
Resources Directorate (EHR) and the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) directorate. The America COMPETES Act and the NSF budget request both identify the allocations
for each directorate.
n. The House subcommittee recommends $20 million and the Senate committee recommends $45 million of the appropriated funding for the Noyce program be used for the “National
Science Foundation Teaching Fellowships and Master Teaching Fellowships” portion of the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program. A description of this program is provided
in the America COMPETES Act Section 7030, which amends the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368), providing a new Section 10A.
CRS-49
Evaluation of the America COMPETES Act
Should Congress decide to appropriate funds for the actions authorized in the
America COMPETES Act, how will the nation know if it is successful? The purpose
of the act is “to invest in innovation through research and development, and to
improve the competitiveness of the United States.” (See the earlier discussion on
issues related to the definition of competitiveness.)
Many policy actions and other factors influence these indicators beyond the act,
so cause and effect is difficult to analyze, but such indicators can provide some
understanding of how the overall U.S. economy is faring relative to other countries.
The United States currently ranks first on the international competitiveness rankings
available. As stated in the legislation, the goal of the act is to maintain this ranking
even as other nations increase their science and technology investments and
activities.
There are evaluation mechanisms within the act as well as longitudinal analysis
conducted by international organizations that assess competitiveness by ranking the
ability of the United States to compete compared with other countries. These
mechanisms use a combination of inputs, outputs, and outcomes to make their
assessments.
In assessing the nation’s competitiveness and the evaluation mechanisms
discussed in more depth below, it is important to keep the following caveats in mind.
! There are no direct measures of innovation or competitiveness:
numerous indicators of innovation activity are available. These
indicators are quantitative assessments of actions that play a role in
the innovation process, but adding these indicators together is not
necessarily an accurate assessment of innovation or a nation’s
competitiveness. Other factors such as necessity or serendipity may
also play a critical role.
! The ability to evaluate the quality of an innovation, its contribution
to improved quality of life, and its value to economic growth is
limited and can differ depending on a company or individual’s
perspective.
! There is no guarantee that inputs, such as increased spending for
research and development, will lead to new or enhanced
technologies. And, should technologies result or improve, there is
no guarantee that they will be “innovative” or used in the
marketplace or by society. Further, innovation may occur regardless
of research and development due to market demand, perceived need,
or minor alterations in existing products and processes.
! The federal government, the industrial sector, and universities all
play a major role in funding R&D and innovation. Innovation
measures often focus on research and development funding without
CRS-50
differentiating between the two. While federal funding of basic
research is the primary focus of the America COMPETES Act, the
industrial sector also plays a critical development role in
technological innovation and advancement in both the public and
private sector. University-industry cooperation is also a critical
component serving as a liaison between basic research and industry
through the education and training of scientists, engineers, and
managers.
! In relating R&D funding to gross domestic product, it is important
to keep in mind that while much of U.S. R&D funding is for
defense-related research, that is not the case in other countries.
Analyzing non-defense R&D may provide a different picture than all
of R&D.
! In examining industry R&D, the nature of the investment may be an
important factor such as the degree of funding spent on research
versus development, and the degree of funding spent in particular
industrial sectors. For example, more industry funding might be
spent on electronic equipment research in one country, while another
may spend more of its industrial R&D funding on transportation.
! Although patent data can be an indicator of the state of innovation,
not all that results from R&D, such as new ideas, are able to be
patented and some companies and individuals choose not to patent
in order to prevent disclosure of an idea or plans for an activity, or
because of the time needed to obtain a timely patent relative to
marketplace needs.
! The number of scientists and engineers may or may not reflect a
nation’s innovative capacity as new industries have been developed
by individuals with and without college degrees.
In sum, there are no guarantees that any particular action will result in innovation or
enhanced competitiveness. Instead, the focus of government policy is on creating an
environment where innovation has an opportunity to flourish with the result that the
United States is competitive with the other nations who are also taking steps to
increase their innovation environment. Both international and U.S. government
monitoring and assessments of the effect of U.S. policies is important so that policy
adjustments can be made as these other nations take policy actions of their own.
Evaluation Mechanisms Within the America COMPETES Act
A number of mechanisms within the act are designed to measure its
effectiveness at both the general and program specific level. For example, the act
calls for a President’s Council on Innovation and Competitiveness whose members
include the Secretary or head of departments of independent agencies linked to
science and innovation. The Council is to monitor implementation of public laws
and initiatives for promoting innovation, provide advice to the President with respect
to global trends in competitiveness and innovation, identify opportunities and make
CRS-51
recommendations to improve innovation including monitoring and reporting on the
implementation of the recommendations, and develop metrics for measuring the
progress of the federal government in improving conditions for innovation, including
through talent development, investment, and infrastructure improvements.
In addition, there are provisions to evaluate specific research and education
programs. For example, in research, ARPA-E is to be evaluated after it has been in
operation for four years by the National Academy of Sciences to determine how well
ARPA-E is achieving its goals and mission. A similar provision is in place for the
Discovery Science and Engineering Innovation Institutes. Current White House
guidelines also require federal research programs to be evaluated using the criteria
of quality, relevance, and performance in response to the Government Performance
and Results Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-62). A merit-based, competitive process is used
by agencies in an attempt to determine which research activities, graduate students,
distinguished scientists, etc. to fund.
In education, the DOE summer institutes are to submit an annual report to
Congress as part of the annual budget submission as to the degree to which the
summer institutes improve STEM teaching skills of participating teachers, increase
the number of STEM teachers who participate, and improve student academic
achievement on State STEM assessments.
Similarly, the recipients of grants in the ED STEM baccalaureate degree with
concurrent teacher certification and the Master’s program in STEM education are to
evaluate their programs and provide information on their ability to increase the
number and percentage of new STEM teachers in schools deemed to be most in need,
increase the number of underrepresented groups teaching STEM, bring professionals
in STEM into the field of teaching, and retain teachers who participate in the
program. In addition, the act authorizes conducting an annual independent evaluation
to assess the impact of the activities on student academic achievement with a report
to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, the House
Committee on Education and Labor, and the Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations.
Evaluation Mechanisms Beyond Those in the America
COMPETES Act
Mechanisms are also available to monitor and evaluate the status of U.S.
competitiveness outside of the act’s provisions. These include inputs, outputs, and
outcomes.
Outcomes. In terms of outcomes, overall indicators such as the annual World
Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Competitiveness Report124 and the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) annual Science, Technology
124 World Economic Form, Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008, at
[http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/inde
x.htm].
CRS-52
and Industry Scoreboard125 might be useful. The WEF Global Competitiveness
Report rankings are based on publicly available data and an executive opinion survey
of over 11,000 business leaders in 131 countries. An illustrative country profile for
the United States from the 2007-2008 Global Competitiveness report is shown in
Figure 5. The OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard report provides
information on innovation by regions and industries, innovation strategies by
companies, and patterns in trade competitiveness and productivity. These analyses
are both based on a variety of input and output indicators.
Output Indicators. The nation’s economic trade balance, foreign direct
investment, employment, and wages are examples of output indicators. As discussed
earlier in the section discussing the definition of competitiveness, different audiences
are interested in different output indicators. The Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the U.S. Census Bureau, and the
National Science Foundation monitor output indicators on a regular basis. The NSF
releases a biannual Science and Engineering Indicators report126 that monitors the
health of the science and engineering enterprise that compiles much of this
information. The BEA, on behalf of NSF, is currently conducting an experimental
analysis that examines the contribution of R&D to GDP growth.
Input Indicators. The quality of education, the availability of a STEM
workforce, and the nation’s quality and capacity for innovation are examples of input
indicators. All of the reports described above monitor input indicators to some
extent. These can provide a useful indicator of policy areas on which the United
States needs to focus relative to its competitors, and many of these are more directly
linked to the act.
For example, although the United States is ranked number one overall in the
WEF competitiveness analysis, it does not currently rank number one on each of
these input/output indicators in the WEF analysis. Provided below is a list of some
of the key sub-indicators related to the America COMPETES Act programs and the
U.S. ranking in each of these sub-indicators out of 131 countries (see Figure 5):
! quality of primary education (28th)
! quality of math and science education in higher education (45th)
! capacity for innovation (9th)
! quality of scientific research institutions (2nd)
! availability of scientists and engineers (12th).127
125 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Science, Technology
and Industry Scoreboard 2007, at [http://www.oecd.org/document/10/
0,3343,en_2649_33703_39493962_1_1_1_1,00.html#web].
126 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation) at [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08].
127 World Economic Form, Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008, at
[http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/
index.htm].
CRS-53
Figure 5. World Economic Forum Analysis of U.S. Competitiveness
CRS-54
Source: World Economic Form, Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008, at
[http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm].
CRS-55
Analysis of state-level competitiveness — relative to other states, not
internationally — is also available. Some of the input/output indicators in these
analyses are factors that would be influenced by the America COMPETES Act. For
example, the Information Technology and Innovation Institute uses factors such as
the number of high-tech jobs and scientists and engineers in the workforce and
workforce educational attainment.128 Alera uses factors such as R&D expenditures,
human capital, and public education.129 Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute
uses factors such as academic R&D funding and STEM degrees.130
Concluding Observations
An issue for Congress is whether to fund America COMPETES Act programs
at authorized funding levels. FY2008 appropriations did not. For FY2009, the
federal agencies that manage America COMPETES Act programs are funded through
an interim continuing resolution until March 6, 2009, at the FY2008 level. Funding
for the remainder of FY2009 and all of FY2010 remains to be determined.
Should Congress decide to fund the America COMPETES Act programs, many
policymakers will be observing its impact to determine if the act truly addresses
concerns about U.S. competitiveness and the role of the United States in the global
economy. For many, this will be the test as to whether U.S. policies can truly
enhance the U.S. competitive position in this vital area of science and technology.
128 Information Technology and Innovation Institute, “The 2007 State New Economy Index:
Benchmarking Economic Transformation in the States,” February 2007 at
[http://www.itif.org/files/2007_State_New_Economy_Index_Small.pdf].
129 Alera, “State Knowledge Economy Index, 2007” at [http://mightydeck.com/public/
mightyshare/AeleraSKEI.pdf].
1 3 0 Beacon Hill Institute, “State Competitiveness Report 2006,” at
[http://www.beaconhill.org/Compete06/06StateCompeteFinal.pdf].
CRS-56
Appendix A. Summary of Legislative History
The America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) originated as the 21st Century
Competitiveness Act of 2007 (H.R. 2272/Gordon) and the America Creating
Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and
Science Act (S. 761/Reid), in the 110th Congress. The Senate passed S. 761 by 88-8
on April 25, 2007. The House passed H.R. 2272 by voice vote on May 21, 2007. On
July 19, 2007, the Senate agreed to incorporate S. 761 into H.R. 2272 as an
amendment and passed this bill by unanimous consent. A conference committee
negotiated the final version of the America COMPETES Act (H.R. 2272) and filed
its report on August 1, 2007. The House, by a 367-57 vote, and the Senate, by
unanimous consent, both passed the bill on August 2, 2007. The President signed the
bill into law (P.L. 110-69) on August 9, 2007.
The act incorporated several House bills that had been introduced, and in some
cases passed, earlier in the 110th Congress, including the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million
Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act (H.R. 362/Gordon); the Sowing the Seeds
Through Science and Engineering Research Act (H.R. 363/Gordon); an act to amend
the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (H.R. 1068/Baird); the National
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 1867/Baird); the Technology
Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007 (H.R. 1868/Wu); and an act
to provide for the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy
(H.R. 364/Gordon). All of these bills were reported by the House Committee on
Science and Technology.131
In the 109th Congress, the major House bills addressing these issues were the
10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act (H.R. 4434/
Gordon); an act to provide for the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy (H.R. 4435/Gordon), the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and
Engineering Research Act (H.R. 4596/Gordon), the Early Career Research Act (H.R.
5356/McCaul), and the Science and Mathematics Education for Competitiveness Act
(H.R. 5358/Schwarz). H.R. 5356 and H.R. 5358 were reported by the House
Committee on Science.132
On the Senate side in the 110th Congress, S. 761 was a reintroduction of a
similar bill introduced at the end of the 109th Congress, the National Competitiveness
Investment Act [NCIA] (S. 3936/Frist). Senators Frist and Reid, then the majority
and minority leaders, respectively, in the 109th Congress, cosponsored S. 3936.
131 The following are the reports for each of the relevant bills in the 110th Congress: H.R.
2272 (H.Rept. 110-289), H.R. 362 (H.Rept. 110-85), H.R. 363 (H.Rept. 110-39), H.R. 364
(ordered to be reported), H.R. 1068 (H.Rept. 110-40), H.R. 1867 (H.Rept. 110-114), and
H.R. 1868 (H.Rept. 110-115).
132 See H.Rept. 109-525 (H.R. 5356) and H.Rept. 109-524 (H.R. 5358) in the 109th Congress.
In the 110th Congress, the House Committee on Science was renamed the House Committee
on Science and Technology.
CRS-57
Similarly, Senators Reid and McConnell, the Senate majority and minority leaders,
respectively, in the 110th Congress introduced S. 761.133
The NCIA was based on two bills that were introduced and reported by the
relevant Senate committees earlier in the 109th Congress: Protecting America’s
Competitive Edge Through Energy Act of 2006 [PACE-Energy] (S. 2197/Domenici),
reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the
American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (S. 2802/Ensign), reported by the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.134
In the 110th Congress, the provisions of S. 761, S. 2197, H.R. 2272, H.R. 362,
H.R. 363, and H.R. 364 and in the 109th Congress, the PACE-Energy bill (S.
2197/Domenici), PACE-Education (S. 2198/Domenici), and PACE-Finance (S.
2199/Domenici) were based largely on the recommendations of the National
Academies report Rising Above the Gathering Storm,135 also known as the “Gathering
Storm Report” or “Augustine Report.”136 This report was written in response to a
request from Senator Lamar Alexander, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Congressman
Sherwood Boehlert, and Congressman Bart Gordon. The American Innovation and
Competitiveness Act bill (S. 2802/Ensign) was in response to both the Council of
Competitiveness report Innovate America137 and the Gathering Storm report.138
133 Both S. 761 in the 110th Congress and S. 3936 in the 109th Congress went on the Senate
calendar with no committee report.
134 See S. 2197 (S.Rept. 109-249) and S. 2802 (S.Rept. 109-285) for additional information.
135 The National Academies, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Economic Future (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2007).
The report was developed by a committee chaired by Norman Augustine. A prepublication
version of the report was released in October 2005. Many other bills were also based on the
report (e.g., S. 2398/Baucus and S. 2196/Clinton in the 109th Congress). The ones listed
here are only those which were reported by a committee for discussion on the Senate or
House Floor.
136 Office of Senator Harry Reid, Reid Works to Keep America Competitive, press release,
March 5, 2007, at [http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=270119&]; Office of
Senator Pete Domenici, Domenici, Bingaman & Partners Unveil “Protecting America’s
Competitive Edge” Legislation, press release, January 25, 2006; House Committee on
Science and Technology, Legislative Highlights, H.R. 2272, The America Creating
Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science
Act (COMPETES), July 31, 2007, at [http://science.house.gov/legislation/
leg_highlights_detail.aspx?NewsID=1938]; H.R. 362, “10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds.”
Science and Math Scholarship Act, January 10, 2007, at [http://science.house.gov/
legislation/leg_highlights_detail.aspx?NewsID=1233]; H.R. 363, Sowing the Seeds Through
Science and Engineering Research Act, January 10, 2007, at [http://science.house.gov/
legislation/leg_highlights_detail.aspx?NewsID=1284]; H.R. 364, Establishing the Advanced
Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) Act, January 10, 2007, at
[http://science.house.gov/legislation/leg_highlights_detail.aspx?NewsID=1235].
1 3 7 C o u n c i l o n C o mp e t i t i v e n e s s , I n n o v a t e A m e r i c a , 2 0 0 4 , a t
[http://www.innovateamerica.org/webscr/NII_EXEC_SUM.pdf].
138 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senate Commerce
(continued...)
CRS-58
Appendix B. Legislative Information System
Summary of America COMPETES Act
America COMPETES Act or America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully
Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act
Title I: Office of Science and Technology Policy;
Government-Wide Science
(Sec. 1001) Directs the President to: (1) convene a National Science and Technology
Summit to examine the health and direction of the United States’ science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics enterprises; and (2) issue a report on
Summit results. Requires, beginning with the President’s budget submission for the
fiscal year following the conclusion of the Summit and for each of the following four
budget submissions, the analytical perspectives component of the budget that
describes the research and development (R&D) priorities to include a description of
how those priorities relate to the conclusions and recommendations of the Summit.
(Sec. 1002) Requires the: (1) Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct
and complete a study to identify, and review methods to mitigate, new forms of risk
for businesses beyond conventional operational and financial risk that affect the
ability to innovate; and (2) NAS to report study results to Congress. Authorizes
appropriations.
(Sec. 1003) Amends the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to
rename the National Technology Medal established under such Act the National
Technology and Innovation Medal.
(Sec. 1004) Expresses the sense of Congress that the OSTP Director should: (1)
encourage all elementary and middle schools to observe a Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Day twice in every school year; (2) initiate a program
to encourage federal employees with scientific, technological, engineering, or
mathematical skills to interact with school children on such Days; and (3) promote
involvement in such Days by appropriate private sector and institution of higher
education employees.
(Sec. 1005) Expresses the sense of Congress that the federal government should
better understand and respond strategically to the emerging management and learning
discipline known as service science. Requires the OSTP Director to study and report
to Congress on ways the federal government could support service science through
research, education, and training.
138 (...continued)
Committee Approves American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, press release, May 18,
2 0 0 6 a t [ h t t p : / / c o m m e r c e . s e n a t e . g o v / p u b l i c / i n d e x . c f m ? F u s e A c t i o n =
PressReleases.Print&PressRelease_id=248614&SuppressLayouts=True].
CRS-59
(Sec. 1006) Directs the President to establish a President’s Council on Innovation and
Competitiveness to undertake various activities for promoting innovation and
competitiveness in the United States, measure progress in such promotion, and report
annually to the President and Congress on such progress. Requires the NAS to submit
to the President a list of 50 recommended advisors to such Council.
(Sec. 1007) Requires the Director of OSTP, through the National Science and
Technology Council, to: (1) identify and prioritize the deficiencies in research
facilities and major instrumentation at federal laboratories and national user facilities
at academic institutions that are widely accessible for use by researchers in the United
States; and (2) coordinate the planning by federal agencies for the acquisition,
refurbishment, and maintenance of research facilities and major instrumentation to
address the deficiencies identified. Requires submission annually to Congress of
reports: (1) describing the deficiencies in research infrastructure identified; (2) listing
projects and budget proposals of federal research facilities for major instrumentation
acquisitions that are included in the President’s budget proposal; and (3) explaining
how the projects and instrumentation acquisitions relate to the identified deficiencies
and priorities.
(Sec. 1008) Expresses the sense of Congress that (1) each federal research agency
should strive to support and promote innovation in the United States through
high-risk, high-reward basic research projects; and (2) each executive agency that
funds research in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics should set a goal
of allocating an appropriate percentage of the annual basic research budget of that
agency to funding such projects. Requires each such executive agency to report
annually with respect to its funding goals.
(Sec. 1009) Requires the OSTP Director to develop and issue a set of principles to
ensure the communication and open exchange of data and results to other agencies,
policymakers, and the public of research conducted by a scientist employed by a
federal civilian agency and to prevent the intentional or unintentional suppression or
distortion of such research findings. Requires such principles to take into
consideration the policies of peer-reviewed scientific journals in which federal
scientists may currently publish results.
Title II: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(Sec. 2001) Requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) be a full participant in any interagency effort to promote innovation and
economic competitiveness through near- and long-term basic scientific R&D and the
promotion of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Requires
an annual report from the NASA Administrator to Congress and the President on
promotional activities conducted.
Requires the NASA Administrator to submit to Congress a report on its plan for
instituting assessments of the effectiveness of NASA’s science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics education programs in improving student achievement,
including with regard to challenging state achievement standards.
CRS-60
(Sec. 2002) Requires the Administrator to coordinate, as appropriate, NASA’s
aeronautics activities with relevant programs in the Department of Transportation,
the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Commerce, and the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including the activities of the Joint
Planning and Development Office established under the Vision 100-Century of
Aviation Reauthorization Act.
(Sec. 2003) Requires the NASA Administrator, the Director of the National Science
Foundation (NSF), and the Secretaries of Energy, Defense, and Commerce to
coordinate basic research activities related to physical sciences, technology,
engineering, and mathematics.
(Sec. 2004) Expresses the sense of Congress that the NASA Administrator should
implement a program to address aging workforce issues in aerospace that (1)
documents technical and management experiences before senior people leave NASA;
(2) provides incentives for retirees to return and teaches new employees about career
lessons and experiences; and (3) provides for development of an award to recognize
outstanding senior employees for their contributions to knowledge sharing.
(Sec. 2005) Expresses the sense of Congress that the NASA Administrator should
utilize the existing Undergraduate Student Research Program to support basic
research projects on subjects of relevance to NASA that (1) are to be carried out
primarily by undergraduate students; and (2) combine undergraduate research with
other research supported by NASA.
(Sec. 2006) Requires the NASA Administrator to develop: (1) a plan for
implementation of at least one education project that utilizes the resources offered by
the International Space Station, and in developing any such plan, make use of the
findings and recommendations of the International Space Station National Laboratory
Education Concept Development Task Force; and (2) a plan for identification and
support of research to be conducted aboard the Space Station, which offers the
potential for enhancement of U.S. competitiveness in science, technology, and
engineering.
Title III: National Institute of Standards and Technology
(Sec. 3001) Authorizes appropriations to the Secretary of Commerce (the Secretary)
for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for FY2008-FY2010
for: (1) scientific and technical research and services laboratory activities; (2)
construction and maintenance of facilities; and (3) Industrial Technology Services
activities.
(Sec. 3002) Amends the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to
repeal provisions regarding the establishment of the Technology Administration
within the Department of Commerce. Makes technical and conforming amendments
with respect to the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology.
Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to provide for the
Director of the NIST to report directly to the Secretary.
CRS-61
(Sec. 3003) Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to
generally revise provisions concerning eligible contributions for the financial support
of regional centers responsible for implementing the objectives of the Hollings
Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program.
Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to require that a
Manufacturing Center that has not received a positive evaluation shall be notified of
the deficiencies in its performance and placed on probation for one year, after which
an evaluation panel shall reevaluate such Center. Authorizes the acceptance of funds
from other federal departments and agencies and the private sector for the purpose
of strengthening U.S. manufacturing. Requires the NIST Director to determine
whether funds accepted from other federal departments or agencies shall be counted
in calculating the federal share of capital and annual operating and maintenance costs
required to create and maintain such Centers.
Establishes within NIST a Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Advisory
Board. Requires such Board to provide to the Director advice on: (1) MEP programs,
plans, and policies; (2) assessments of the soundness of MEP plans and strategies;
and (3) assessments of current performance against MEP program plans. Requires
such Board to transmit annual reports to the Secretary for transmittal to Congress
within 30 days after the submission to Congress of the President’s annual budget
request which shall address the status of the MEP program and comment on the
relevant sections of the programmatic planning document and updates thereto
transmitted to Congress by the NIST Director pursuant to this title.
Requires the Director to establish within the MEP program a program to award
competitive grants among the Centers, or a consortium of such Centers, for the
development of projects to solve new or emerging manufacturing problems.
Permits one or more themes for the competition to be identified, which may vary
from year to year, depending on the needs of manufacturers and the success of
previous competitions. Bars recipients of such grant awards from being required to
provide a matching contribution.
(Sec. 3004) Requires the NIST Director, concurrent with submission to Congress of
the President’s annual budget request, to transmit a three-year programmatic planning
report for NIST, including programs under the Scientific and Technical Research and
Services, Industrial Technology Services, and Construction of Research Facilities
functions, and subsequent updates.
(Sec. 3005) Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to
provide that annual reports to the Secretary and Congress be submitted by the
Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology not later than 30 days (under current
law, on or before January 31 in each year) after the submittal to Congress of the
President’s annual budget request. Requires that such report also comment on the
programmatic planning document and updates thereto submitted to Congress by the
Director.
(Sec. 3006) Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to
provide for the Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology to meet at least twice
CRS-62
each year (under current law at least quarterly) at the call of the chairman of the
Committee or whenever one-third of the Committee’s members so request in writing.
(Sec. 3007) Requires the Director to establish a manufacturing research pilot grants
program to make awards to partnerships to foster cost-shared collaborations among
firms, educational and research institutions, state agencies, and nonprofit
organizations in the development of innovative, multidisciplinary manufacturing
technologies. Requires such partnerships to include at least one manufacturing
industry partner and one nonindustry partner.
Requires partnerships receiving awards to conduct applied research to develop new
manufacturing processes, techniques, or materials that would contribute to improved
performance, productivity, and competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing, and build
lasting alliances among collaborators. Bars: (1) awards from providing for not more
than one-third of the costs of a partnership; and (2) not more than an additional
one-third of such costs from being obtained directly or indirectly from other federal
sources.
Instructs the Director, in selecting applications, to ensure, a distribution of overall
awards among a variety of manufacturing industry sectors and a range of firm sizes.
Requires the Director to run a single pilot competition to solicit and make awards.
Limits each award to a three-year period.
(Sec. 3008) Requires the Director, in order to promote the development of a robust
research community working at the leading edge of manufacturing sciences, to
establish a program to award: (1) postdoctoral research fellowships at NIST for
research activities related to manufacturing sciences; and (2) senior research
fellowships to establish researchers in industry or at institutions of higher education
who wish to pursue studies related to the manufacturing sciences at NIST. Requires
the Director to provide stipends for post-doctoral research fellowships at a level
consistent with the National Institute of Standards and Technology Postdoctoral
Research Fellowship Program, and senior research fellowships at levels consistent
with support for a faculty member in a sabbatical position.
(Sec. 3009) Allows the Director, through September 30, 2010, to annually procure
the temporary or intermittent services of up to 200 experts or consultants to assist
with urgent or short-term projects.
Directs the Comptroller General to report on whether additional safeguards would
be needed with respect to the use of such authority if it were to be made permanent.
(Sec. 3010) Amends the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to
revise the limitation on the number of Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards
that may be made in any year by permitting not more than 18 awards to be made in
any year to recipients who have not previously received such an award. Prohibits any
award from being made within any category in which such an award may be given
if there are no qualifying enterprises in that category.
CRS-63
(Sec. 3011) Requires the NIST Director to submit a report on efforts to recruit and
retain young scientists and engineers at the early stages of their careers at the NIST
laboratories and joint institutes.
(Sec. 3012) Abolishes the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and replaces it with
the Technology Innovation Program (TIP), while continuing support originally
awarded under ATP. Provides for TIP to assist U.S. businesses and institutions of
higher education or other organizations, such as national laboratories and nonprofit
research institutions, to support, promote, and accelerate innovation in the United
States through high-risk, high-reward research in areas of critical national need.
Requires the Director to award competitive, merit-reviewed grants, cooperative
agreements, or contracts to: (1) eligible companies that are small or medium-sized
businesses; or (2) joint ventures. Sets forth limitations on single company and joint
venture awards. Limits the federal share of a project funded by an award under TIP
to not more than half of total project costs. Bars any business that is not a small or
medium-sized business from receiving any funding under TIP.
Requires the Director to solicit proposals at least annually to address areas of critical
national need for high-risk, high-reward projects.
Requires: (1) the NIST Director to submit annually reports on TIP’s activities; and
(2) the first annual report to include best practices for management of programs to
stimulate high-risk, high-reward research.
Requires the Director, in carrying out TIP, as appropriate, to coordinate with other
senior state and federal officials to ensure cooperation and coordination in state and
federal technology programs and to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts.
Requires that funds accepted from other federal agencies be included as part of the
federal cost share of any project funded under TIP.
Establishes within NIST a TIP Advisory Board. Requires such Board to provide to
the Director: (1) advice on programs, plans, and policies of TIP; (2) reviews of Tip’s
efforts to accelerate the R&D of challenging, high-risk, high-reward technologies in
areas of critical national need; (3) reports on the general health of the program and
its effectiveness in achieving its legislatively mandated mission; and (4) guidance on
investment areas that are appropriate for TIP funding.
Requires such Board to transmit annual reports to the Secretary for transmittal to
Congress not later than 30 days after the submission to Congress of the President’s
annual budget request which shall address the status of TIP and comment on the
relevant sections of the programmatic planning document and updates thereto
transmitted to Congress by the Director.
Defines “high-risk, high-reward research” to mean research that (1) has the potential
for yielding transformational results with far-ranging or wide-ranging implications;
(2) addresses critical national needs within NIST’s areas of technical competence;
and (3) is too novel or spans too diverse a range of disciplines to fare well in the
traditional peer review process.
CRS-64
Requires the NIST Director to carry out ATP as it was in effect before the enactment
of this act with respect to applications for grants under ATP submitted before such
date, until the earlier of: (1) the date that the Director promulgates the regulations
required by this act for the operation of TIP required under this act; or (2) December
31, 2007.
(Sec. 3013) Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to: (1)
increase funding for research fellowships and other financial assistance to students
at institutions of higher education within the United States and to U.S. citizens for
research and technical activities on NIST programs; (2) add as a function of the
Secretary and NIST, the authority to enter into contracts which include grants and
cooperative agreements to further the purposes of NIST; (3) repeal the act of July 21,
1950 (relating to the legal units of electrical and photometric measurement in the
United States and relating to the establishment of the values of the primary electric
and photometric units in absolute measure and the legal values for these units); and
(4) repeal the non-energy inventions program.
(Sec. 3014) Authorizes the Director to retain all building use and depreciation
surcharge fees collected pursuant to OMB Circular A-25 (relating to fees assessed for
government services and for sale or use of government goods or resources). Requires
such fees to be collected and credited to the construction of research facilities
appropriation account for use in maintenance and repair of NIST’s existing facilities.
(Sec. 3015) Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to
double the number of fellows per fiscal year to be included in the postdoctoral
fellowship program.
Title IV: Ocean and Atmospheric Programs
(Sec. 4001) Directs the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to establish a program of ocean, coastal, Great Lakes, and
atmospheric R&D, in collaboration with academic institutions and other
nongovernmental entities, to focus on the development of advanced technologies and
methods to promote U.S. leadership in ocean and atmospheric science as well as
competitiveness in applied uses of such R&D.
(Sec. 4002) Requires the NOAA Administrator to: (1) conduct, develop, support,
promote, and coordinate educational activities to enhance public awareness and
understanding of ocean, coastal, Great Lakes, and atmospheric science and
stewardship by the general public and other coastal stakeholders; and (2) develop a
20-year ocean, coastal, and atmospheric science education plan.
(Sec. 4003) Requires that NOAA be a full participant in any interagency effort to
promote innovation and economic competitiveness through basic scientific R&D and
the promotion of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education.
CRS-65
Title V: Department of Energy - Protecting America’s
Competitive Edge Through Energy Act, or the PACE-Energy
Act
(Sec. 5003) Amends the Department of Energy Science Education Enhancement Act
(Act) to require the Secretary of Energy (Secretary in this title), acting through the
Under Secretary for Science, to: (1) appoint a Director of Science, Engineering, and
Mathematics Education (Director) to administer science, engineering, and
mathematics education programs across all functions of the Department of Energy
(DOE); and (2) offer to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to
assess the performance of such programs.
Directs the Secretary to establish a Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education
Fund.
Requires the Secretary, acting through the Director, to: (1) award competitive grants
to states in a pilot program to assist them in establishing or expanding public,
statewide specialty secondary schools that provide comprehensive science and
mathematics; and (2) establish a summer internship program for middle school and
secondary school students to provide experiential-based learning opportunities at the
National Laboratories.
Directs the Secretary to establish at each of the National Laboratories: (1) a program
to support a Center of Excellence in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics in at least one high-need public secondary school; (2) programs of
summer institutes to provide additional training to strengthen the science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics teaching skills of teachers employed at public schools
for kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12); and (3) a program to coordinate and make
available to teachers and students web-based kindergarten through high school
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education resources relating to the
DOE science and energy mission.
Instructs the Director to establish a recruiting and mentoring program for women and
underrepresented minorities to pursue careers in science, engineering, and
mathematics.
Directs the Secretary to award each fiscal year to institutions of higher education: (1)
up to three competitive grants for new academic degree programs in nuclear science;
(2) up to five competitive grants for existing academic degree programs that produce
graduates in nuclear science; (3) up to three competitive grants for new academic
degree programs in hydrocarbon systems science; (4) up to five competitive grants
for existing academic degree programs that produce graduates in hydrocarbon
systems science. Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2010.
(Sec. 5006) Instructs the Director of the DOE Office of Science to: (1) award grants
to scientists and engineers at an early career stage at certain institutions of higher
education, organizations, or National Laboratories to conduct research in fields
relevant to the DOE mission; and (2) report to certain congressional committees on
CRS-66
the Director’s efforts to recruit and retain young scientists and engineers at early
career stages at the National Laboratories.
(Sec. 5007) Amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to authorize FY2010
appropriations for research, development, demonstration, and commercial application
activities of the Office of Science.
(Sec. 5008) Directs the Secretary to establish: (1) distributed, multidisciplinary
institutes centered at National Laboratories to apply fundamental scientific and
engineering discoveries to technological innovations relating to the DOE mission and
the global competitiveness of the United States; and (2) a Protecting America’s
Competitive Edge (PACE) graduate fellowship program for students pursuing a
doctoral degree in a DOE mission area. Authorizes appropriations for
FY2008-FY2010.
(Sec. 5010) Expresses the sense of Congress that (1) DOE should implement the
recommendations contained in the report of the Government Accountability Office
numbered 04-639; and (2) the Secretary should conduct annual reviews in accordance
with title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 of at least two DOE grant
recipients.
(Sec. 5011) Instructs the Secretary to establish a program to support the joint
appointment of distinguished scientists by institutions of higher education and by the
National Laboratories. Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2010.
(Sec. 5012) Establishes within DOE the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy
(ARPA-E) to overcome long-term and high-risk technological barriers in the
development of energy technologies.
Directs the Secretary after four years to offer to contract with the NAS to evaluate
how well ARPA-E is achieving its goals and mission.
Establishes in the Treasury the Energy Transformation Acceleration Fund to
implement the ARPA-E program.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2010.
Title VI: Education
Subtitle A: Teacher Assistance.
Part I: Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow - (Sec. 6113) Authorizes the Secretary
of Education (Secretary, for purposes of this Title) to award competitive matching
grants to enable educational partnerships to develop and implement programs to
provide courses of study in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or critical
foreign languages that (1) are integrated with teacher education; and (2) lead to a
baccalaureate degree with concurrent teacher certification.
(Sec. 6114) Authorizes the Secretary to award competitive matching grants to
educational partnerships to develop and implement: (1) two- or three-year part-time
CRS-67
master’s degree programs in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or
critical foreign language education for teachers in order to enhance the teachers’
content knowledge and teaching skills; or (2) programs for professionals in science,
technology, engineering, mathematics, or a critical foreign language that lead to a
one-year master’s degree in teaching that results in teacher certification.
(Sec. 6115) Directs the Secretary to award each of the above grants for up to five
years. Requires 50% nonfederal matching funds.
(Sec. 6116) Authorizes appropriations.
Part II: Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Programs - (Sec. 6123)
Authorizes the Secretary to award competitive matching grants for up to five-year
periods to enable educational agencies or partnerships to carry out activities designed
to increase the number of: (1) qualified teachers serving high-need (low-income or
rural area) schools who are teaching advanced placement or international
baccalaureate courses in mathematics, science, or critical foreign languages; and (2)
students attending such schools who enroll in and pass the examinations for such
courses.
Requires 200% nonfederal matching funds, but requires no more than 100% from
high-need local educational agencies (LEAs). Permits the Secretary to waive the
match for educational agencies if it would cause them serious hardship or prevent
them from carrying out the program.
Part III: Promising Practices in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Teaching - (Sec. 6131) Requires the Secretary to contract with the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) to convene an expert panel to identify promising practices for, and
synthesize the scientific evidence pertaining to, improving the teaching and learning
of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in kindergarten through grade
12. Requires the dissemination of the panel’s findings and recommendations to the
public and state and local educational agencies. Authorizes appropriations.
Subtitle B: Mathematics.
(Sec. 6201) Authorizes the Secretary to award competitive three-year matching grants
to states and, through them, subgrants to high-need LEAs to: (1) implement
mathematics programs or initiatives that are research-based; (2) provide professional
development and instructional leadership activities for teachers and administrators
on the implementation of mathematics initiatives; and (3) conduct student
mathematics progress monitoring and identify areas in which students need help in
learning mathematics. Applies the program to students and teachers in kindergarten
through grade 9. Requires state grantees to contribute 50% of program costs.
Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 6202) Directs the Secretary to carry out a demonstration program under which
the Secretary awards up to five grants each fiscal year to states for the provision of
summer learning grants to disadvantaged students. Requires the summer programs
to emphasize mathematics, technology, engineering, and problem-solving through
CRS-68
experiential learning opportunities. Limits to 50% the federal share of such grants.
Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 6203) Requires the Secretary to establish a program that provides competitive
three-year matching grants to states and, through them, subgrants to eligible LEAs
to establish new services and activities to improve the overall mathematics
performance of secondary school students. Provides: (1) a minimum grant amount
of $500,000; and (2) a state matching funds requirement of 50% of program costs.
Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 6204) Directs the Secretary to establish peer review panels to review state
applications for the mathematics grant programs, excluding the demonstration grant
program.
Subtitle C: Foreign Language Partnership Program.
(Sec. 6303) Authorizes the Secretary to award grants to enable partnerships of
institutions of higher education and LEAs to establish programs of study in critical
foreign languages that will enable students to advance successfully from elementary
school through postsecondary education and achieve higher levels of proficiency in
such languages. Makes such grants for five-year periods, authorizing the Secretary
to renew them for up to two additional five-year periods. Outlines matching funds
requirements.
(Sec. 6304) Authorizes appropriations.
Subtitle D: Alignment of Education Programs.
(Sec. 6401) Authorizes the Secretary to award competitive grants to enable states to
work with statewide partnerships to: (1) promote better alignment of content
knowledge requirements of secondary school graduation with the knowledge and
skills needed to succeed in postsecondary education, the 21st century workforce, or
the Armed Forces; or (2) establish or improve statewide P-16 (preschool through
baccalaureate degree) education data systems. Requires each state to match grant
fund amounts. Authorizes appropriations.
Subtitle E: Mathematics and Science Partnership Bonus Grants.
(Sec. 6501) Directs the Secretary to award grants, during school years 2007-2008
through 2010-2011, to each of the three elementary and three secondary schools with
a high concentration of low-income students in each state whose students
demonstrate the most improvement in mathematics and science, respectively.
(Sec. 6502) Authorizes appropriations.
Title VII: National Science Foundation
(Sec. 7002) Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2010 to the National Science
Foundation (NSF) for: (1) research and related activities; (2) education and human
resources; (3) major research equipment and facilities construction; (4) agency
CRS-69
operations and award management; (5) the Office of the National Science Board; and
(6) the Office of Inspector General.
(Sec. 7003) Prohibits anything in this title or title I from being construed to alter or
modify the NSF merit-review system or peer-review process.
(Sec. 7004) Expresses the sense of Congress that the Director of the NSF and the
Secretary of Education should have ongoing collaboration to ensure that their
respective mathematics and science partnership programs continue to work in concert
(and not duplicatively) for the benefit of states and local practitioners.
(Sec. 7005) Prohibits anything in this title from being construed to limit the authority
of state governments or local school boards to determine the curricula of their
students.
(Sec. 7006) Requires the continuation of the program of Centers for Research on
Learning and Education Improvement as established in section 11 of the National
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (relating to the establishment of such
Centers).
Amends the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 to provide for
the awarding of grants to eligible nonprofit organizations and their consortia to
establish such Centers.
(Sec. 7007) Directs the National Science Board to evaluate: (1) the role of NSF in
supporting interdisciplinary research, including through the Major Research
Instrumentation program, the effectiveness of NSF’s efforts in providing information
to the scientific community about opportunities for funding of interdisciplinary
research proposals, and the process through which interdisciplinary proposals are
selected for support; and (2) the effectiveness of NSF’s efforts to engage
undergraduate students in research experiences in interdisciplinary settings, including
through the Research in Undergraduate Institutions program and the Research
Experiences for Undergraduates program. Requires the Board to provide the results
of its evaluation, including a recommendation for the proportion of the NSF’s
research and related activities funding that should be allocated for interdisciplinary
research.
(Sec. 7008) Instructs the Director to: (1) require that all grant applications that
include funding to support postdoctoral researchers include a description of
mentoring activities; and (2) ensure that this part of the application is evaluated under
NSF’s broader impacts merit review criterion. Instructs the Director to require that
annual reports and the final report for research grants that include funding to support
postdoctoral researchers include a description of the mentoring activities provided
to such researchers.
(Sec. 7009) Instructs the Director to require that each institution that applies for
financial assistance from NSF for science and engineering research or education
describe in its grant proposal a plan to provide appropriate training and oversight in
the responsible and ethical conduct of research to participating undergraduate
students, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers.
CRS-70
(Sec. 7010) Instructs the Director to ensure that all final project reports and citations
of published research documents resulting from research funded, in whole or in part,
by the NSF are made available to the public in a timely manner and through NSF’s
website.
(Sec. 7011) Makes an investigator supported under a NSF award, whom the Director
determines has failed to comply with the provisions of section 734 (concerning the
dissemination and sharing of research results) of the Foundation Grant Policy
Manual, ineligible for a future award under any NSF supported program or activity.
Allows the Director to restore the eligibility of such an investigator on the basis of
the investigator’s subsequent compliance with such provisions and with such other
terms and conditions as the Director may impose.
(Sec. 7012) Requires the Director to annually evaluate all NSF’s grants that are
scheduled to expire within one year and that primarily: (1) meet the objectives of the
Science and Engineering Equal Opportunity Act; or (2) provide teacher professional
development. Allows the Director, for grants that are identified and that are deemed
by the Director to be successful in meeting the objectives of the initial grant
solicitation, to extend those grants for not more than three additional years beyond
their scheduled expiration without the requirement for a recompetition. Requires the
Director to annually submit a report that (1) lists the grants extended; and (2)
provides recommendations regarding the extension of such authority to programs
other than those specified in this section.
(Sec. 7013) Requires the National Science Board to: (1) evaluate certain impacts of
its policy to eliminate cost sharing for research grants and cooperative agreements for
existing and new programs involving industry participation; and (2) report the results
of such evaluation.
(Sec. 7014) Requires the National Science Board to evaluate the appropriateness of:
(1) the requirement that funding for detailed design work and other preconstruction
activities for major research equipment and facilities come exclusively from the
sponsoring research division rather than being available from the Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction account; and (2) NSF’s policies for allocation
of costs for, and oversight of, maintenance and operation of major research
equipment and facilities.
Requires the Board to report on the results of such evaluations and on any
recommendations for modifying the current policies related to allocation of funding
for such equipment and facilities. Requires that plans for proposed construction,
repair, and upgrades to national research facilities include estimates of the total
project cost and the source of funds for major upgrades of facilities in support of
Antarctic research programs.
Requires the Director to transmit: (1) a specified report cataloging all elementary and
secondary school, informal, and undergraduate educational programs and activities
supported through appropriations for research and related activities; and (2) as part
of the President’s FY2011 budget submission, a report listing the funding success
rates and distribution of awards for the Research in Undergraduate Institutions
program.
CRS-71
Requires the Director, not later than 60 days after enactment of legislation providing
for the annual appropriation of funds for NSF, to submit a plan for the allocation of
education and human resources funds authorized by this title for the corresponding
fiscal year, including any funds from within the research and related activities
account used to support activities that primarily improve education or broaden
participation.
(Sec. 7015) Amends the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 to
require: (1) the Inspector General of NSF to conduct triennial audits (currently,
annual audits) of the compliance by the National Science Board with the
requirements specified under the act for open meetings; (2) the Board to maintain the
General Counsel’s certificate, the presiding officer’s statement, and a transcript or
recording of any closed meeting for at least three years after such meeting; and (3)
appointment of technical and professional personnel on leave of absence from
academic, industrial, or research institutions for a limited term and such operations
and support staff members (currently, such clerical staff members) as may be
necessary.
Amends the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1976 to limit the
number of Alan T. Waterman Awards that may be made in any one fiscal year to not
more than three (under current law, to no more than one).
(Sec. 7016) Requires rendering of National Science Board reports to the President
and Congress (under current law, rendered to the President for submission to
Congress).
(Sec. 7017) Amends the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 to include the
NSF as an authority with respect to the provisions of such Act relating to
administrative remedies for false claims and statements.
(Sec. 7018) Requires the NSF Director to: (1) consider the degree to which
NSF-eligible awards and research activities may assist in meeting critical national
needs in innovation, competitiveness, safety and security, the physical and natural
sciences, technology, engineering, social sciences, and mathematics; and (2) give
priority in the selection of NSF awards, research resources, and grants to entities that
can be expected to make contributions in physical or natural science, technology,
engineering, social sciences, or mathematics, or that enhance competitiveness,
innovation, or safety and security.
(Sec. 7019) Permits the NSF, in carrying out its research programs on science policy
and on the science of learning, to support research on the process of innovation and
the teaching of inventiveness.
(Sec. 7020) Requires the NSF Director to develop and publish a plan describing the
current status for broadband access for scientific research purposes at institutions in
EPSCoR (Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research) eligible states,
at institutions in rural areas, and at minority serving institutions and outlines actions
to ensure that such connections are available to participate in NSF programs that rely
heavily on high-speed networking and collaborations across institutions and regions.
CRS-72
(Sec. 7021) Requires the NSF Director to carry out a pilot program to award one-year
grants to individuals to assist them in improving research proposals that were
previously submitted to NSF but not selected for funding. Requires that such grants
be used to enable individuals to resubmit updated research proposals for review by
NSF through NSF’s competitive merit review process.
Requires the Director to make awards under this section based on the advice of
program officers of the NSF.
Permits using funds made available under this section for the generation of new data
and the performance of additional analysis.
Allows the Director to carry out this section through the Small Grants for Exploratory
Research program.
Directs the National Science Board to conduct a review and assessment of the pilot
program.
(Sec. 7022) States that, among the types of activities that the NSF shall consider as
appropriate for meeting the requirements of its broader impacts criterion for the
evaluation of research proposals are partnerships between academic researchers and
industrial scientists and engineers that address research areas identified as having
high importance for future national economic competitiveness, such as
nanotechnology. Requires the Director to report on the impact of the broader impacts
grant criterion used by NSF.
(Sec. 7023) Amends the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 to permit NSF to
receive and use funds donated to NSF for specific prize competitions for “basic
research” as defined in the Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-11
(Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget).
(Sec. 7024) Amends the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 to revise
program requirements for the National High-Performance Computing Program.
Requires the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to: (1) establish
the goals and priorities for federal high-performance computing research,
development, networking, and other activities; (2) establish Program Component
Areas that implement such goals and identify the Grand Challenges (i.e., fundamental
problems in science or engineering, with broad economic and scientific impact,
whose solutions will require the application of high-performance computing
resources and, as amended by this section, multidisciplinary teams of researchers)
that the Program should address; and (3) develop and maintain a research,
development, and deployment road map covering all states and regions for the
provision of high-performance computing and networking systems.
Revises requirements for annual reports by requiring that such reports: (1) describe
Program Component Areas, including any changes in the definition of or activities
under such Areas and the reasons for such changes, and describe Grand Challenges
supported under the Program; (2) describe the levels of federal funding and the levels
proposed for each Program Component Area; (3) describe the levels of federal
CRS-73
funding for each agency and department participating in the Program for each such
Area; and (4) include an analysis of the extent to which the Program incorporates the
recommendations of the advisory committee on high-performance computing.
Eliminates the requirement for inclusion of reports on Department of Energy
activities taken to carry out the National High-Performance Computing Program.
Requires the advisory committee on high-performance computing to conduct periodic
evaluations of the funding, management, coordination, implementation, and activities
of the Program, and to report at least once every two fiscal years to specified
congressional committees. Prohibits applying provisions for the termination, renewal,
and continuation of federal advisory committees under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act to such advisory committee.
Instructs the NSF, as part of the Program, to support basic research related to
advanced information and communications technologies that will contribute to
enhancing or facilitating the availability and affordability of advanced
communications services for all people of the United States. Requires the NSF
Director to award multiyear grants to institutions of higher education, nonprofit
research institutions affiliated with such institutions, or their consortia to establish
multidisciplinary Centers for Communications Research. Increases funding for the
basic research activities described in this section, including support for such Centers.
Requires the NSF Director to transmit to Congress, as part of the President’s annual
budget submission, reports on the amounts allocated for support of research under
this section.
(Sec. 7025) Revises the Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Talent
Expansion program to require the Director to issue grants to institutions of higher
education for the creation of not more than five centers to increase the number of
students completing undergraduate courses in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics and to improve student academic achievement in such courses.
Requires the NSF Director to strive to increase the representation of students from
public secondary schools that serve students from families with incomes below the
poverty line or are designated with a school locale code of 41, 42, or 43, as
determined by the Secretary of Education when providing grants under the Talent
Expansion program to increase the number of students studying and completing
associate’s or bachelor’s degrees, concentrations, or certificates in science,
technology, engineering, or mathematics by giving priority to programs that heavily
recruit female, minority, and disabled students who are from such schools.
(Sec. 7026) Requires the NSF Director to establish a Partnerships for Access to
Laboratory Science research pilot program for awarding grants to partnerships to
improve laboratories and provide instrumentation as part of a comprehensive
program to enhance the quality of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
instruction in secondary schools. Requires such partnerships to include significant
teacher preparation, unless such preparation is addressed through other means.
Limits the federal share of partnership costs to 40%.
CRS-74
Requires the Director to report to specified congressional committees not later than
five years regarding the program’s effect on student achievement.
Sunsets the provisions of this section on the last day of FY2010.
Authorizes appropriations for the program for FY2008-FY2010.
(Sec. 7027) Requires the NSF Director to report to Congress not later than two years
on the extent to which institutions of higher education and private entities are
donating used laboratory equipment to elementary and secondary schools.
(Sec. 7028) Revises requirements for the Mathematics and Science Education
Partnership program (Partnership program), which provides grants to institutions of
higher education or nonprofit organizations for the improvement of elementary and
secondary mathematics and science instruction.
Includes the department, college, or program of education at an institution of higher
education, in addition to LEAs, state educational agencies, and businesses, among the
entities with which institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations may
partner.
Adds to the list of grant fund uses: (1) professional development activities to prepare
mathematics and science teachers to teach challenging mathematics, science, and
technology college-preparatory courses; (2) laboratory training and support for
teachers; (3) induction programs (as defined by in section 6113 of this act) for
teachers in their first two years of teaching; (4) technology and engineering, in
addition to mathematics and science, in the student enrichment programs which are
to include after-school programs and summer programs for female, minority, and
disabled students; and (5) the development and dissemination of curriculum tools that
foster inventiveness and innovation. Requires grantees providing challenging college
preparatory courses to encourage companies employing scientists, technologists,
engineers, or mathematicians to provide mentors to teachers and students.
Requires the Director to transmit to Congress not later than four years of this act’s
enactment, a summary of partnership evaluations that describes recommended
changes to the program.
(Sec. 7029) Amends the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 to
provide additional Program requirements for the NSF Teacher Institutes for the 21st
Century.
(Sec. 7030) Amends the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002
concerning the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program to: (1) rename such Program the
Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program and rewrite Program requirements,
including by allowing participation in the Program by an institution of higher
education that receives grant funds on behalf of a consortium of institutions of higher
education; and (2) require the NSF Director to establish a separate program to award
grants to eligible entities to enable them to administer NSF Teaching Fellowships and
Master Teaching Fellowships according to this section. Requires that grants be used
by participating partnerships to develop and implement a program to recruit and
CRS-75
prepare mathematics, science, or engineering professionals to become NSF Teaching
Fellows, and to recruit existing teachers to become NSF Master Teaching Fellows.
Requires Teaching Fellows and Master Teacher Fellows to serve as a mathematics
or science teacher for four years and five years, respectively, in an elementary or
secondary school served by a high-need LEA. Requires a 50% matching funds
requirement from non-federal sources.
Increases Program scholarship amounts and sets stipend amounts.
Requires the Director: (1) to transmit to specified congressional committees a report
on the effectiveness of the programs carried out under this section; and (2) in
consultation with the Secretary of Education, to evaluate whether the scholarships,
stipends, and fellowships authorized under this section have been effective in
increasing the numbers of high-quality mathematics, and science teachers teaching
in high-need LEAs and whether there continue to exist significant shortages of such
teachers in such LEAs.
(Sec. 7031) Amends the Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 to require
the establishment of innovative partnership arrangements under the national
advanced scientific and technical education program that encourage the participation
of female, minority, and disabled students.
Requires the NSF Director to: (1) establish a program to encourage and make grants
available to institutions of higher education that award associate degrees to recruit
and train individuals from the fields of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics to mentor female, minority, and disabled students in order to assist such
students in identifying, qualifying for, and entering higher-paying technical jobs in
those fields; (2) make grants available to associate-degree-granting colleges to carry
out such program; and (3) establish metrics to evaluate programs established by NSF
for encouraging female, minority, and disabled students to study and prepare for
careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and report annually to
Congress on evaluation results.
(Sec. 7032) Directs the NSF Director to arrange with the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) for a report to Congress about barriers to increasing the number of
underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
fields and to identify strategies for bringing more underrepresented minorities into
the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce.
(Sec. 7033) Authorizes the NSF Director to establish a new program to award grants
on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis to Hispanic-serving institutions to enhance
the quality of undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education at such institutions and to increase the retention and graduation rates of
students pursuing associate’s or baccalaureate degrees in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics.
Specifies that the grants awarded shall support: (1) activities to improve courses and
curriculum in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; (2) faculty
development; (3) stipends for undergraduate students participating in research; and
CRS-76
(4) other activities consistent with the grant program authorized by this section, as
determined by the Director.
States that funding for instrumentation is an allowed use of grants awarded under this
section.
(Sec. 7034) Requires the NSF Director to establish a clearinghouse, in collaboration
with four-year institutions of higher education, industries, and federal agencies that
employ science-trained personnel, to share program elements used in successful
professional science master’s degree programs and other advanced degree programs
related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Requires the Director
to award grants to institutions of higher education to facilitate their creation or
improvement of professional science master’s degree programs that may include
linkages between institutions of higher education and industries that employ
science-trained personnel, with an emphasis on practical training and preparation for
the workforce in high-need fields. Allows the Director to award up to 200 of such
grants, which shall be for a three-year period, with one authorized renewal for an
additional two-year period. Requires the Director to evaluate the programs and report
evaluation results to Congress.
(Sec. 7035) Expresses the sense of Congress that institutions of higher education
receiving awards under the NSF Integrative Graduate Education and Research
Traineeship program should, among the activities supported under these awards, train
graduate students in the communication of the substance and importance of their
research to nonscientist audiences. Requires the NSF Director to transmit a report
describing . such training programs provided to graduate students who participated
in the program. Requires that such report include data on the number of graduate
students trained and a description of the types of activities funded.
(Sec. 7036) Sets minimum and maximum amounts of awards under the Major
Research Instrumentation program.
Permits, in addition to the acquisition of instrumentation and equipment, funds made
available by awards under the Major Research Instrumentation program to be used
to support the operations and maintenance of such instrumentation and equipment.
Requires an institution of higher education receiving an award under such program
to provide at least 30% of the cost from private or non-federal sources. Exempts
institutions of higher education that are not Ph.D.-granting institutions from such cost
sharing requirement and allows the NSF Director to reduce or waive such
requirement for: (1) certain institutions that are not ranked among the top 100
institutions receiving federal R&D funding; and (2) consortia of institutions of higher
education that include at least one institution that is not a Ph.D.-granting institution.
(Sec. 7037) Revises the selection process for awards that require the submission of
preproposals and that also limit the number of preproposals. Requires the National
Science Board to: (1) assess the effects on institutions of higher education of NSF
policies regarding the imposition of limitations on the number of proposals that may
be submitted by a single institution for programs supported by NSF; (2) determine
whether current policies are well justified and appropriate for the types of programs
CRS-77
that limit the number of proposal submissions; and (3) summarize in a report the
Board’s findings and any recommendations regarding changes to the current policy
on the restriction of proposal submissions.
Title VIII: General Provisions
(Sec. 8001) Directs the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Director of the
Bureau of Economic Analysis, not later than January 31, 2008, to report to Congress
on the feasibility, annual cost, and potential benefits of a program to collect and study
data relating to the export and import of services.
(Sec. 8002) Expresses the sense of the Senate that the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board should
complete promulgation of the final rules implementing section 404 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (concerning auditing standards and their effect on small
and mid-sized businesses).
(Sec. 8003) Directs the Comptroller General, not later than three years after
enactment of this act, to submit a report to Congress that (1) assesses a representative
sample of the new or expanded programs and activities required to be carried out
under this act; and (2) includes recommendations as the Comptroller General
determines are appropriate to ensure effectiveness of, or improvements to, the
programs and activities, including termination of programs or activities.
(Sec. 8004) Expresses the sense of the Senate that federal funds should not be
provided to any organization or entity that advocates against a U.S. tax policy that is
internationally competitive.
(Sec. 8005) Directs the Secretary of Education to arrange with the NAS to conduct
a study and provide a report to such Secretary, the Secretary of Commerce, and
Congress which shall consider: (1) the mechanisms and supports needed for an
institution of higher education or nonprofit to develop and maintain a program to
provide free access to online educational content as part of a degree program,
especially in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or foreign languages,
without using federal funds, including funds provided under title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965; and (2) whether such a program could be developed and
managed by such institution or nonprofit and sustained through private funding.
Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 8006) Expresses the sense of the Senate that (1) government policies of the
U.S. government relating to deemed exports should safeguard US national security
and protect fundamental research; (2) the Department of Commerce has established
the Deemed Export Advisory Committee to develop recommendations for improving
current controls on deemed exports; and (3) the President and Congress should
consider the Committee’s recommendations in the development and implementation
of export control policies.
(Sec. 8007) Expresses the sense of the Senate that (1) Congress, the President,
regulators, industry leaders, and other stakeholders should take necessary steps to
reclaim the preeminent U.S. position in the global financial services marketplace; (2)
CRS-78
federal and state financial regulatory agencies should take certain steps to avoid
adverse consequences on innovation with respect to financial products and services,
and regulatory costs that are disproportionate to their benefits; and (3) Congress
should exercise vigorous oversight over federal regulatory and statutory requirements
affecting the financial services industry and consumers.
(Sec. 8008) Prohibits a grant or contract funded by amounts authorized by this act
from being used for defraying the costs of a banquet or conference that is not directly
and programmatically related to the purpose for which the grant or contract was
awarded. Requires: (1) reporting to the appropriate department, administration, or
foundation of the records of total costs related to, and justification for, all banquets
and conferences; and (2) such department, administration, or foundation to make
such records available to the public not later than 60 days after their receipt.
Requires any person awarded a grant or contract funded by such amounts to submit
a statement to the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of
Education, the Administrator, or the Director, as appropriate, certifying that no funds
derived from the grant or contract will be made available through a subcontract or in
any other manner to another person who has a financial interest or other conflict of
interest in the person awarded the grant or contract, unless such conflict is previously
disclosed and approved in the process of entering into a contract or awarding a grant.
Provides for the appropriate Secretary, Administrator, or Director to make all
documents received that relate to the certification available to the public.
Makes such amendments effective 360 days after enactment of this act. Bars such
amendments from being applicable to grants or contracts authorized under sections
6201 and 6203 of this act.