.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of
2010 (H.R. 5116) and the America COMPETES
Act (P.L. 110-69): Selected Policy Issues
Heather B. Gonzalez, Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
John F. Sargent Jr.
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Patricia Moloney Figliola
Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy
May 13, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41231
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008
.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and the America COMPETES Act
Summary
On August 9, 2007, President George W. Bush signed the America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (COMPETES) Act
(P.L. 110-69) into law. The law responded to concerns about long-term U.S. economic
competitiveness and innovative capacity by authorizing increased investments in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and federal research in the physical
sciences and engineering. Statutory authorities for certain America COMPETES Act provisions
expire in 2010 and work on reauthorization has begun in both chambers of Congress. On May 12
and 13, 2010, the House debated the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R.
5116), voted on a series of amendments, and voted to recommit the bill to committee. Further
House action on the measure was postponed immediately after the motion to recommit passed
and the bill was eventually pulled from consideration. Similar legislation has not been introduced
in the Senate yet.
H.R. 5116 builds upon, and differs from, P.L. 110-69. Among H.R. 5116’s many provisions and
titles, it augments and amends P.L. 110-69’s provisions in STEM education and federal research
in the physical sciences and engineering. H.R. 5116 includes new provisions that seek to increase
coordination among federal STEM education programs and that seek to improve STEM teaching
and learning in higher education. It would also increase authorizations for the National Science
Foundation, National Institute of Standards and Technology laboratories, and Department of
Energy Office of Science for a period of five years; and would make program changes that seek
to provide for high-risk, high-reward research, and increased collaboration and
commercialization.
H.R. 5116 would also expand provisions of P.L. 110-69 that sought to increase the participation
of underrepresented populations in STEM education and employment, and would reauthorize the
National Nanotechnology Initiative and Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development program, two federal multi-agency R&D initiatives.
In both the debate about H.R. 5116 and evaluation of P.L. 110-69 critics have raised concerns
about appropriations. They argue the bill is fiscally unsustainable in the current economic and
budgetary environment. Supporters contend existing weaknesses in STEM education and federal
research in the physical sciences and engineering threaten the fundamental underpinnings of the
economy and therefore justify national investment even in an era of fiscal constraint.
This report provides background information on P.L. 110-69 and H.R. 5116 and analyzes four
policy issues addressed by both measures: (1) STEM Education, (2) Federal Research Programs
and Activities, (3) Broadening Participation, and (4) Funding. It also discusses selected policy
concerns identified in the debate about U.S. competitiveness and describes how H.R. 5116
responds to those concerns. It contains a description of federal multi-agency research and
development initiatives that are included in H.R. 5116 but not found in P.L. 110-69. This report
does not attempt to address all provisions of H.R. 5116 or to project likely outcomes from its
provisions.
Congressional Research Service
.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and the America COMPETES Act
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
The America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) ............................................................................... 2
The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 5116)........................................... 3
Selected Policy Issues ................................................................................................................. 3
STEM Education................................................................................................................... 4
STEM Education Policy Issues and H.R. 5116 ................................................................ 5
Federal Research Programs and Activities ............................................................................. 5
Federal Research Programs and Activities Policy Issues and H.R. 5116........................... 6
Broadening Participation.......................................................................................................7
Broadening Participation Policy Issues and H.R. 5116..................................................... 8
Funding ................................................................................................................................ 9
Funding Policy Issues and H.R. 5116 ............................................................................ 10
Federal Multi-Agency Research and Development Initiatives .................................................... 11
National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2010 ............................................. 12
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program ................... 13
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 14
Congressional Research Service
.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and the America COMPETES Act
Introduction
On August 9, 2007, President George W. Bush signed the America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (COMPETES) Act
(P.L. 110-69) into law. The act primarily responded to concerns about long-term U.S. economic
competitiveness and innovative capacity by, among other things, authorizing increased
investments in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and in
federal research in the physical sciences and engineering.
Statutory authorities for certain America COMPETES Act provisions expire in 2010. Committees
in the House and Senate have begun the process of re-examining the policy rationale behind the
law and determining whether to continue, alter, add to, or terminate its various provisions. The
Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, Representative Bart Gordon, has
announced his intention to bring a reauthorization measure “through the House before the
Memorial Day district work period.”1 To that end, he introduced legislation reauthorizing the law
on April 22, 2010. The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 5116) was
referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology, from which it was ordered reported
as amended by a vote of 29-8 on April 28, 2010.
On Tuesday, May 8, 2010, the House Committee on Rules met and reported H.Res. 1344, which
provided a structured rule for, and amendments to, H.R. 5116. The bill was put on the floor
calendar for further consideration. On Wednesday, May 12, 2010, H.R. 5116 was brought to the
floor and a series of amendments were voted on during that day and the following morning. On
Thursday, May 13, 2010, the House dispensed with amendments, after which members voted to
recommit the measure to the House Committee on Science and Technology with instructions.
During debate about the motion to recommit, opponents of the bill raised concerns about the cost
of the bill, the addition of new programs, and the length of the authorization period. Additional
concerns were raised about the misuse of federal computers for pornographic purposes by
executive branch employees, military recruitment on college campuses, and the bill’s disabled
veterans provisions. The House postponed further action on H.R. 5116 immediately after the
motion to recommit passed. Representative Gordon had the measure pulled from consideration on
May 13, 2010.
This report provides background information on P.L. 110-69 and H.R. 5116 and analyzes four
policy issues addressed by both measures: (1) STEM Education, (2) Federal Research Programs
and Activities, (3) Broadening Participation, and (4) Funding. It also discusses selected policy
concerns identified in the debate about U.S. competitiveness and describes how H.R. 5116
responds to those concerns. It contains a description of federal multi-agency research and
development initiatives that are included in H.R. 5116 but not found in P.L. 110-69. This report
does not attempt to address all provisions of H.R. 5116 or to project likely outcomes from its
provisions.
1 House Committee on Science and Technology, “Chairman Gordon Introduces COMPETES,” Press Release, April 22,
2010, http://science.house.gov/press/prarticle.aspx?newsid=2806.
Congressional Research Service
1
.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and the America COMPETES Act
The America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69)
At the time the America COMPETES Act was passed and signed into law, many analysts believed
additional federal investment in basic research and STEM education would help counter
perceived threats to long-term U.S. economic competitiveness. In the two years leading up to the
bill’s introduction, at least six major reports were published asserting this position in whole or
part. A broad consensus developed among research, industry, and education stakeholders in
support of a national response.2 In August 2007 Congress passed the America COMPETES Act
and President George W. Bush signed the measure, which became P.L. 110-69.
P.L. 110-69 was designed to “invest in innovation through research and development, and to
improve the competitiveness of the United States.”3 In total, the America COMPETES Act
authorized $33.6 billion in appropriations between FY2008 and FY2010 for federal programs and
activities. It has eight titles containing more than 100 sections that direct specific programs and
policies at seven federal offices and agencies: (1) Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP), (2) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), (3) National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), (4) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), (5) Department of Energy (DOE), (6) Department of Education (ED), and (7) National
Science Foundation (NSF).
The law primarily addressed two broad policy areas: federal programs in STEM education and
federal research activities in the physical sciences and engineering. Within these policy areas the
law established new programs, such as the Math Now program at ED, and reauthorized existing
programs, such as the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program at NIST. The law also
increased the appropriations authorizations of certain programs and activities. The law’s largest
authorizations of appropriations were for NSF, NIST laboratories, and the DOE Office of Science.
Since its inception, P.L. 110-69 has not been fully funded. Some of the law’s authorized programs
and activities received no appropriated funding during the authorization period. Other programs
and activities funded through the regular appropriations process received funding below
authorized levels. Some programs and activities that did not receive funding during the regular
appropriations process, or that received funding below authorized levels, were subsequently
funded through supplemental appropriations legislation.4
2 For more information, see The Education Commission of the States, Keeping America Competitive: Five Strategies
To Improve Mathematics and Science Education, July 2005; The Association of American Universities, National
Defense Education and Innovation Initiative, Meeting America’s Economic and Security Challenges in the 21st
Century, January 2006; The National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy,
Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, February
2006; The National Summit on Competitiveness, Statement of the National Summit on Competitiveness: Investing in
U.S. Innovation, December 2005; The Business Roundtable, Tapping America’s Potential: The Education for
Innovation Initiative, July 2005; and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Waiting for Sputnik, 2005.
3 America COMPETES Act, P.L. 110-69, Purpose.
4 For more information, see CRS Report R40519, America COMPETES Act and the FY2010 Budget, by John F.
Sargent Jr.; and CRS Report RL34328, America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected Issues, by
Deborah D. Stine.
Congressional Research Service
2
.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and the America COMPETES Act
The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of
2010 (H.R. 5116)
The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 5116) is a bill designed to “invest
in innovation through research and development, improve the competitiveness of the United
States, and for other purposes.”5 It has seven titles, three of which organize programs and
activities by agency (NSF, NIST, DOE) and four that organize programs and activities by policy
area (“Science and Technology Policy,” “STEM Education,” “Innovation,” and “Miscellaneous”).
Together these titles seek to address many of the same broad challenges in STEM education and
federal research in the physical sciences and engineering as the 2007 America COMPETES Act.
H.R. 5116’s STEM education provisions, among other things, would create new programs and
amend existing programs designed to increase collaboration between existing federal STEM
education programs, improve STEM teaching and learning in higher education, and provide for
STEM education research. H.R. 5116’s science and engineering research provisions, among other
things, would continue previously established commitments to doubling the combined budgets of
NSF, NIST laboratories, and DOE Office of Science. It would seek to encourage increased
research collaboration and commercialization and to invest in high-risk, high-reward research.
H.R. 5116 also contains provisions intended to broaden the STEM participation of
underrepresented populations and would enact a variety of policy responses to identified
achievement gaps in STEM education and STEM occupations.
H.R. 5116 also builds upon P.L. 110-69’s STEM education and research provisions by addressing
new policy issues and approaches. These changes include the establishment of individual
programs, such as the Federal Loan Guarantees for Innovative Technologies in Manufacturing
program,6 and coordination of federal multi-agency research and development initiatives, like the
National Nanotechnology Initiative and Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development program.7
Selected Policy Issues
The following sections provide an analysis of selected provisions of P.L. 110-69 and H.R. 5116,
organized by policy area. Policy areas covered in this report include STEM Education; Federal
Research Programs and Activities; Broadening Participation; and Funding. These policy areas
were selected because of their relevance to current and past congressional debate about the
America COMPETES Act.
5 America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, H.R. 5116, Purpose.
6 H.R. 5116, Title V, Section 502.
7 For more information, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview,
Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by John F. Sargent Jr.; and CRS Report RL33586, The Federal
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program: Funding Issues and Activities, by
Patricia Moloney Figliola.
Congressional Research Service
3
.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and the America COMPETES Act
STEM Education
The America COMPETES Act provided new authorities, as well as reauthorized existing
authorities, for federal STEM education programs, policies, and activities. New programs
established by P.L. 110-69 included the Experiential-Based Learning Opportunities, Math Now,
and Math Skills for Secondary Students programs.8 The law also authorized appropriations for
existing federal activities including the Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) program.
H.R. 5116 would amend some of P.L. 110-69’s STEM education provisions to make operational
changes to existing programs. For example, H.R. 5116 would repeal specific DOE STEM
education programs and replace them with a general agency directive to conduct STEM
education.9 Other provisions would amend graduate student support programs at NSF to provide
for “equal treatment” of the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT)
and the GRF programs by linking changes in their funding rates.10
H.R. 5116 would also establish new programs, policies, and activities designed to increase
collaboration in federal STEM education. Therefore, H.R. 5116 includes provisions that would
attempt to improve enterprise-wide coordination of federal STEM education11 and direct NSF,
ED, and the National Institutes of Health to work together to identify grand challenges in
education research.12
In addition to encouraging increased collaboration in federal STEM education programs, H.R.
5116 builds upon P.L. 110-69’s STEM education provisions by amending and establishing new
general statutory authorities for higher education programs. For example, H.R. 5116 would
amend the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-6) to
authorize the “development, implementation, and assessment of innovative, research-based
approaches to transforming the teaching and learning of disciplinary or interdisciplinary STEM at
the undergraduate level”13 and makes similar provisions for master’s and doctoral-level STEM
education.14 Another provision would create a postdoctoral fellowship program in STEM
education research at NSF.15
H.R. 5116 does not address or support all of the STEM education provisions found in P.L. 110-
69. For example, the bill does not reauthorize ED programs authorized by P.L. 110-69. H.R. 5116
also generally authorizes appropriations for NSF activities at the major account level (e.g.,
Research and Related Activities), rather that at the program level (e.g., IGERT and GRF) as
8 Some of the new STEM education programs established by P.L. 110-69 were not funded, including the Experiential-
Based Learning Opportunities, Math Now, and Math Skills for Secondary Students programs. In contrast, the Teachers
for a Competitive Tomorrow program at ED received appropriations every year during the law’s authorization period.
9 H.R. 5116, Title III, Section 303.
10 H.R. 5116, Title II, Subtitle C, Section 241.
11 H.R. 5116, Title III, Section 301.
12 H.R. 5116, Title II, Subtitle C, Section 251.
13 H.R. 5116, Title II, Subtitle C, Section 248.
14 H.R. 5116, Title II, Subtitle C, Section 249.
15 H.R. 5116, Title II, Subtitle C, Section 242.
Congressional Research Service
4
.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and the America COMPETES Act
authorized by P.L. 110-69.16 H.R. 5116 would also repeal some programs authorized by P.L. 110-
69, such as the Professional Science Master’s program.17
STEM Education Policy Issues and H.R. 5116
STEM education advocates have argued that perceived problems in student achievement means
the United States may lose a critical comparative advantage in the global competition for high-
wage, high-tech jobs: our STEM labor supply.18 Critics of this assertion claim little evidence
exists of an overall shortage in the U.S. STEM workforce and that demand-side factors, such as
the undesirability of certain STEM jobs, create the perception of shortages.19 Nevertheless, many
advocates remain concerned about the impact of global shifts in education attainment and
demographic changes in the composition of the U.S. workforce on the U.S. economy over the
long term.20
General concerns about U.S. student mathematics and science performance have fueled specific
policy debates in Congress.21 Questions have been raised about the best way to ensure high-
quality STEM teaching and learning across all education segments, about governance of federal
STEM education programs, about the health and functioning of the high-technology economy and
demand for STEM workers, about the lack of definitive research on key STEM education
questions, and about the nation’s ability to replicate and scale promising practices.
H.R. 5116 responds to these concerns in two primary ways. It creates new programs or amends
existing programs designed to increase collaboration between existing federal STEM education
programs, and improve STEM teaching and learning in higher education. It also provides for
increased research on STEM education, among other things.
Federal Research Programs and Activities
P.L. 110-69 both authorized and established new federal research and development activities and
programs, including the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, Technology
Innovation Program (TIP), and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). H.R.
5116 would make operational, programmatic, or appropriations authorizations changes to these
three programs. The MEP provisions, in part, would allow MEP centers to assist small-and
medium-sized manufacturers with energy efficiency and waste reduction.22 The TIP provisions
would reauthorize the TIP Advisory Board.23 The ARPA-E provisions would provide FY2011-
16 H.R. 5116, Title II, Subtitle A, Section 212.
17 H.R. 5116, Title II, Subtitle C, Section 249(e).
18 For example, see Association for Career and Technical Education, Issue Brief: CTE’s Role in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Math, June 2009, http://www.acteonline.org/uploadedFiles/Publications_and_Online_Media/files/
STEM_Issue_Brief.pdf.
19 For example, see Beryl Lieff Benderly, “Does the U.S. Produce Too Many Scientists?” Scientific American,
February 22, 2010, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-us-produce-too-m.
20 For example, see Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Testimony before the House
Committee on Science and Technology, January 20, 2010.
21 For more information, see CRS Report 98-871, Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Status and
Issues, by Christine M. Matthews.
22 H.R. 5116, Title IV, Section 406.
23 H.R. 5116, Title IV, Section 409.
Congressional Research Service
5
.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and the America COMPETES Act
FY2015 appropriations authorization for the program and would make program changes. These
changes are designed to allow for a more commercial and applied focus in research, establish a
permanent staff, and create a fellowship program for early-career and senior scientists.24
In addition to these changes, H.R. 5116 includes provisions to encourage collaboration between
research entities, promote commercialization, and support high-risk, high-reward research.
Examples of these types of provisions include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Collaboration—H.R. 5116 would provide statutory authority for two existing
DOE initiatives: (1) Energy Frontier Research Centers25 and (2) Energy
Innovation Hubs,26 both of which provide for collaborative energy research. The
bill also seeks to encourage regional economic collaboration through the
Regional Innovation Program.27
• Commercialization—H.R. 5116 directs the Department of Commerce to establish
an Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship to foster innovation and
commercialization of new technologies,28 and instructs NSF to award grants to
institutions of higher education to establish and expand partnerships with private-
sector entities to promote innovation and increase the economic and social
impact of research.29
• High-Risk, High-Reward Research—H.R. 5116 establishes a policy requiring
NSF to “use at least 5 percent of its research budget to fund high-risk, high-
reward basic research proposals.”30
Federal Research Programs and Activities Policy Issues and H.R. 5116
In its 2006 publication, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America
for a Brighter Economic Future, the National Academies called for a 10% annual increase in
federal support of long-term basic research over seven years.31 These investments were necessary,
the National Academies argued, because federal funding of basic research in the physical sciences
and engineering had stagnated for many years. Additionally, they asserted that in a stagnating
budgetary environment high-risk, high-reward research tended to be overlooked. Although some
critics have argued that the private-sector does fund basic research, and that it funds more
commercially-viable research,32 many advocates remain concerned that U.S. competitiveness will
be negatively affected if the federal government does not increase investments in basic research.33
24 H.R. 5116, Title VI, Subtitle B, Section 622.
25 H.R. 5116, Title VI, Subtitle A, Section 604. Energy Frontier Research Centers are to conduct fundamental research
focusing on grand challenges identified in DOE and National Academy of Engineering reports.
26 H.R. 5116, Title VI, Subtitle C, Section 632. Energy Innovation Hubs provide for geographically clustered, multi-
party, multi-disciplinary, collaborative research in fields not served by the private sector.
27 H.R. 5116, Title V, Section 503.
28 H.R. 5116, Title V, Section 501.
29 H.R. 5116, Title II, Subtitle C, Section 227.
30 H.R. 5116, Title II, Subtitle C, Section 221.
31 The National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Rising Above the
Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, Washington, DC: National
Academies Press, February 2006.
32 For example, see Terence Kealey, “End Government Science Funding,” Cato.org, April 11, 1997,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6
.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and the America COMPETES Act
Congress faces a variety of policy issues related to research funding. These include (1) whether to
increase, decrease, or maintain federal spending on research; (2) whether to increase, decrease, or
maintain federal spending in specific areas, such as energy, nanotechnology, or manufacturing;
(3) whether to invest directly in research at federal agencies or subsidize research in industry,
academia, or the non-profit sector; (4) whether to increase, decrease, or maintain agency research
budgets within the current federal portfolio; (5) whether and how to balance relative federal
investment in basic and applied research; and (6) what goals, if any, Congress has for the products
of research.
H.R. 5116 would address some of these questions by authorizing increased appropriations for
federal spending on research in the physical sciences and engineering, and by encouraging
increased collaboration, commercialization, and high-risk, high-reward research. It would make
investments primarily in research funding at federal agencies, but would support research
conducted by government, universities, and
industry. H.R. 5116 would target funds to
Proposed Changes to HBCU-UP, Stokes,
primarily three agencies within the federal
and TCUP in H.R. 511635
portfolio: NSF, NIST, and DOE. Although the
The Obama Administration’s proposed FY2011 budget
bill would provide mostly for basic research, it
would consolidate several NSF undergraduate
also incorporates new provisions for
programs, including the Historically Black Colleges and
Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP), the
commercialization and applied research not
Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation
present in P.L. 110-69.
Program (Stokes), and the Tribal Colleges and
Universities Program (TCUP). H.R. 5116 would
maintain these as separate programs through
Broadening Participation
September 30, 2011, and direct NSF to undertake a
number of planning and assessment activities before
P.L. 110-69 was intended to broaden
consolidation could occur.
participation and increase the participation rates
of underrepresented populations in STEM education and achievement through direct and indirect
means. One example of a direct approach to broadening participation is the Teachers for a
Competitive Tomorrow program, which includes provisions that require institutional applicants to
describe how their proposals will encourage participation by underrepresented groups. An
example of an indirect approach to broadening participation is the program changes P.L. 110-69
makes to Advanced Placement (AP) programs, including expanding the statute to include
International Baccalaureate programs.34
(...continued)
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6168.
33 For example, see John Engler, president and CEO, National Association of Manufacturers, Testimony before the
House Committee on Science and Technology, January 20, 2010.
34 Advocacy groups have argued that greater access to AP programs and test fee subsidies increase AP program
participation by underrepresented minorities.
Congressional Research Service
7
.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and the America COMPETES Act
H.R. 5116 would build upon P.L. 110-69 with a number of new provisions that seek to broaden
participation in STEM education and STEM fields by underrepresented populations. Among these
are provisions directing NSF to examine grant proposals for their potential to increase the
participation of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM,36 and directing NSF to train
staff and merit review panelists on effective methods to broaden participation.37 H.R. 5116 would
also strengthen the position of minority-serving institutions in research partnerships with other
institutions by specifying that some portion of research funds must be awarded directly to the
minority-serving institution.38 It would also broaden the definition of minority-serving institutions
to include those that serve large numbers of students with disabilities.39
The bill would also amend some provisions of P.L. 110-69 that sought to increase the
participation of underrepresented populations in STEM. For example, it would replace a more
narrowly drafted provision of the America COMPETES Act that authorized a specific DOE
program designed to encourage underrepresented minorities to pursue STEM careers40 with more
comprehensive language requiring outreach and consideration of students from underrepresented
populations in agency STEM education efforts.41
Broadening Participation Policy Issues and H.R. 5116
Experts who have analyzed education and workforce participation indicators have highlighted
racial, ethnic, and gender gaps in STEM achievement.42 These gaps, in combination with shifts in
the U.S. demographic profile, have led some observers to predict that underachievement in STEM
by historically underrepresented populations could have serious consequences for the future U.S.
workforce, national economy, and competitiveness.43
Most advocates and experts agree that racial, ethnic, and gender achievement gaps exist, and they
have suggested a wide range of causes and solutions for narrowing the gap.44 In recent
congressional hearings on the topic of broadening participation in STEM, one expert testified that
lack of access to Advanced Placement courses, schools with poor facilities and teachers, students
who leave high school without college prerequisites, and a lack of expectations for students are
factors contributing to the gap.45 Another witness summarized recent research on participation
(...continued)
35 H.R. 5116, Title II, Subtitle C, Section 250.
36 H.R. 5116, Title II, Subtitle C, Section 214.
37 H.R. 5116, Title II, Subtitle C, Section 247.
38 H.R. 5116, Title II, Subtitle C, Section 224.
39 H.R. 5116, Title II, Subtitle C, Section 244.
40 P.L. 110-69, Title V, Section 5003 (d).
41 H.R. 5116, Title III, Section 303.
42 For example, see National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators: 2010, Arlington, VA: National
Science Foundation (NSB 10-01).
43 For example, see Ronald J. Burke and Mary C. Mattis, eds., Women and Minorities in Science, Technology and
Engineering: Upping the Numbers, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc, 2007.
44 The following sources in this paragraph provide the viewpoints of the annotated advocates and experts listed below.
It is important to note that the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report examined these issues in broader context.
45 Shirley Malcom, head of education and human resources programs, American Association for the Advancement of
Science, Testimony before the House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education, March 16, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
8
.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and the America COMPETES Act
and concluded “… that racial stigma and discrimination create significant barriers to the
participation of underrepresented racial-ethnic groups in STEM.”46 Other experts have found that
achievement gaps can be attributed at least in part to the effects of peers and school quality and
suggest policies to expand the pool of potential teachers by relaxing licensing requirements for
new teachers, increasing teacher salaries, and improving working conditions.47 Still others
contend that the best way to increase the number of U.S. students who are prepared to enter
STEM fields is to provide for general K-12 education reform, including accountability, school
choice, and performance pay at the state and local level.48
H.R. 5116 adopts a variety of policy responses to attempt to close achievement gaps and broaden
the participation of underrepresented populations in STEM education and STEM fields. For
example, it includes provisions that would require NSF to train staff and merit review panelists in
methods that seek to counter the effects of implicit bias,49 and that would support minority-
serving institutions of higher education.50 It also contains provisions directing OSTP to offer
workshops on ways to minimize the effects of gender bias in the evaluation of federal research
grants, among other things.51
Funding
P.L. 110-69 set a pace for doubling the aggregate combined budgets of NSF, NIST laboratories,
and DOE Office of Science over a period of seven years, and authorized increases in
appropriations for several STEM education programs and activities. The doubling process is
underway, though with a later start and over a longer term than the law originally envisioned.52
However, actual appropriations for P.L. 110-69’s STEM education provisions have not met
authorized levels in some cases.53
H.R. 5116 extends P.L. 110-69’s increased support for federal research in the physical sciences
and engineering. Its appropriations authorizations are in line with a ten-year doubling path for
NSF, NIST laboratories, and the DOE Office of Science.54 It would also reauthorize
46 Alicia C. Dowd, associate professor and co-director, Center for Urban Education, Rossier School of Education,
University of Southern California, Testimony before the House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee
on Research and Science Education, March 16, 2010.
47 For example, see Erik A. Hanushek and Steve G. Rivkin, “Harming the Best: How Schools Affect the Black-White
Achievement Gap,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(3), Summer 2009, pp. 336-393,
http://edpro.stanford.edu/hanushek/files_det.asp?FileId=243.
48 For example, see Dan Lips and Jena Baker McNeill, Backgrounder on Education: A New Approach to Improving
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education, Heritage Foundation, April 15, 2009, http://www.heritage.org/
Research/Reports/2009/04/A-New-Approach-to-Improving-Science-Technology-Engineering-and-Math-Education;
and Dan Lips, EDUCATION NOTEBOOK: Improving Educational Opportunities for Hispanic Children, Heritage
Foundation, March 23, 2009, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education-Notebook/Improving-Educational-
Opportunities-for-Hispanic-Children?renderforprint=1.
49 H.R. 5116, Title II, Subtitle C, Section 247.
50 H.R. 5116, Title II, Subtitle B, Section 224.
51 H.R. 5116, Title I, Subtitle C, Section 124.
52 The Obama Administration’s FY2011 budget is consistent with a 10-year doubling path.
53 CRS Report R40519, America COMPETES Act and the FY2010 Budget, by John F. Sargent Jr.
54 H.R. 5116, Title II, Subtitle A, Section 212; H.R. 5116, Title IV, Section 402; and H.R. 5116, Title VI, Subtitle A,
Section 611; respectively.
Congressional Research Service
9
.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and the America COMPETES Act
appropriations for ARPA-E.55 Authorizations for NSF, NIST, and DOE, as well as those for
ARPA-E, would be provided through FY2015. The original America COMPETES Act provided
authorization of appropriations from FY2008 through FY2010.
H.R. 5116 does not address many of the STEM education programs that were authorized by P.L.
110-69, including and some that received specified appropriations (e.g., Teachers for a
Competitive Tomorrow) and some that did not (e.g., Math Now, Pilot Program of Grants to
Specialty Schools for Science and Mathematics, and Summer Institutes). H.R. 5116 does not
reauthorize Department of Education (ED) STEM education programs in P.L. 110-69.
H.R. 5116 adds new appropriations authorizations for existing and new federal research and
STEM education activities. For example, the existing Energy Innovation Hubs program at DOE
would receive appropriations authorizations.56 The bill would also authorize, among other things,
appropriations for a federal loan guarantee program for small- and mid-sized manufacturers that
produce or use innovative technologies, and appropriations for amended STEM talent expansion
programs at DOE.57
Funding Policy Issues and H.R. 5116
The 2006 National Academies report Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and
Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future asserted that increased federal investment in
STEM education and basic research were necessary for maintaining U.S. competitiveness.58 To
that end, the report recommended increasing federal investment in long-term basic research by
10% annually over seven years and encouraged large federal investments in STEM education,
including funding 5,000 new graduate fellowships each year. Criticism of this approach primarily
comes from those who prefer alternative policies, such as tax and regulatory reforms in support of
the private sector, or who have concerns about federal spending in general.59 Supporters argue
that the private sector has neither the capacity nor the will to fund basic research lacking a clear
commercial benefit, and that investigator-driven basic research has resulted in many important
social and economic benefits.
Funding questions have generated some of the more contentious America COMPETES Act-
related debates. Stakeholders in the education and research communities have criticized the
implementation of P.L. 110-69 both for what was not funded and for what was. Some educators
have called the law’s education provisions “unfulfilled promises” because programs like Math
Now and Math Skills for Secondary Students were never funded.60 On the other hand, some
experts have argued against the way research was funded in P.L. 110-69.61 They contend the
55 H.R. 5116, Title VI, Subtitle B, Section 622.
56 H.R. 5116, Title VI, Subtitle C, Section 632.
57 H.R. 5116, Title V, Section 502 and H.R. 5116, Title III, Section 303.
58 The National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Rising Above the
Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, February 2006.
59 For example, see Wayne Crews, “The Future of Manufacturing: What is the Role of the Federal Government in
Supporting Innovation by U.S. Manufacturers,” Testimony before the House Committee on Science and Technology,
March 17, 2010.
60 Erik Roblelen, “Many Authorized STEM Education Programs Fail to Get Funding,” Education Week, February, 23,
2010, http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/02/24/22stem_ep.h29.html.
61 Brain Kahin and Christopher T. Hill, “United States: The Need for Continuity,” Issues in Science and Technology,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10
.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and the America COMPETES Act
doubling path for increases in research in the physical sciences and engineering contributes to a
boom and bust approach to research expenditures that could have negative consequences for
research. Finally, in both the 2010 reauthorization and 2007 America COMPETES Act debates
some legislators have voiced concerns about these policies in light of their fiscal impact on the
national budget and federal spending.
Supporters of increased funding, on the other hand, argue existing weaknesses in STEM
education and federal research threaten the fundamental underpinnings of the economy and
therefore justify national investment even in an era of fiscal constraint.62 They assert that
approximately half of U.S. long-term economic growth is related to the adoption and
development of new technologies.63 Some supporters also assert education achievement gaps
between the United States and other nations, or innovation gains made by other countries, as
long-term economic challenges requiring serious and sustained national investment and
attention.64
H.R. 5116 responds to various concerns about funding provisions by increasing both
authorizations periods and authorizations levels for many research provisions. It does not renew
authorizations for many of P.L. 110-69’s STEM education programs, and eliminates others.
Federal Multi-Agency Research and Development
Initiatives
Title I of H.R. 5116 contains provisions relating to coordination of federal multi-agency research
and development (R&D) initiatives. While H.R. 5116 addresses several cross-cutting STEM
education and science and engineering research initiatives, the National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) and the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
(NITRD) are two major programs that the bill addresses but were not present in P.L. 110-69.
Further, both pre-date the America COMPETES Act and have distinct legislative histories. As
these two initiatives are new to the penumbra of the America COMPETES Act, the following
sections provide brief background. For more detailed analysis, see CRS Report RL34401, The
National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by
John F. Sargent Jr., and CRS Report RL33586, The Federal Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development Program: Funding Issues and Activities, by Patricia
Moloney Figliola.
(...continued)
Spring 2010, http://www.issues.org/26.3/kahin.html.
62 For example, see Mark Muro, “America COMPETES: Vehicle for Innovating at Innovation,” The New Republic,
April 14, 2010, http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-avenue/america-competes-vehicle-innovating-innovation.
63 For example, see House Committee on Science and Technology, Legislation Advancing Innovation Clears
Committee with Bipartisan Support, Press Release, April 28, 2010, http://science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?
NewsID=2809.
64 For example, see Deborah Wince-Smith, “Testimony before the House Committee on Science and Technology,
Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act,” testimony before the House Committee on Science and
Technology, January 20, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
11
.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and the America COMPETES Act
National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2010
Nanotechnology65 has been an issue of interest to Congress for a number of years. Since the
launch of the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) in FY2001, Congress has
appropriated approximately $12.4 billion for nanotechnology science, engineering, and
technology. The development and application of nanotechnology across a wide array of products
and industries holds the potential for significant economic and societal benefits. Proponents of the
NNI assert that nanotechnology is one of the most important emerging and enabling technologies
and that U.S. competitiveness, technological leadership, national security, and societal interests
require an aggressive approach to the development and commercialization of nanotechnology.
Opponents cite the potential for unanticipated effects as reason to move cautiously in the
development, manufacture, and licensure of nanotechnology-based products.
Although the NNI has yielded scientific and engineering advances, as well as some
nanotechnology products, capturing the anticipated widespread benefits of nanotechnology will
likely require a variety of technical and policy challenges to be addressed. These challenges
include environmental, health, and safety concerns and their implications for workplace,
environmental, food, drug, and other regulations; development of standards and reference
materials; development of new measurement methods and tools; and technology transfer to the
private sector.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 201066 would amend the 21st
Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (P.L. 108-153) which Congress enacted
in 2003 to provide a legislative foundation for some of the activities of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). These provisions are nearly identical to those of H.R. 554, the
National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2009, which passed the House in
February 2009.67 This bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation; no further action has been taken.
In particular, this subtitle seeks to address nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety
concerns by including, among other things, a requirement to designate an associate director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy to serve as Coordinator for Societal Dimensions of
Nanotechnology;68 authorizes funding for a triennial review of the NNI by the National Research
Council; directs broader agency support for the development of nanotechnology standards;
expands efforts focused on technology transfer, including prototyping, collaboration with
industry, and coordination with state nanotechnology initiatives; and emphasizes agency support
for research in areas of national importance and for nanomanufacturing.
65 The National Science and Technology Council defines nanotechnology as “the understanding and control of matter at
dimensions between 1 and 100 nanometers, where unique phenomena enable novel applications…. Unusual physical,
chemical, and biological properties can emerge in materials at the nanoscale. These properties differ in important ways
from the properties of bulk materials and single atoms or molecules.”
66 H.R. 5116, Title I, Subtitle A.
67 H.R. 5116 changes the name of the act from the “National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2009,” to
“National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2010,” and removes the term “interdisciplinary” from a
provision establishing “green nanotechnology” research centers.
68 The Office of Science and Technology Policy is a part of the Executive Office of the President.
Congressional Research Service
12
.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and the America COMPETES Act
Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Program69
In the early 1990s, Congress recognized that several federal agencies had ongoing high-
performance computing programs, but no central coordinating body existed to ensure long-term
coordination and planning. To provide such a framework, Congress created the High-Performance
Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program.70 The HPCC Program has evolved over time
and is now called the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
(NITRD) Program, to better reflect its expanded mission.
The federal government has long played a key role in the country’s information technology (IT)
research and development (R&D) activities. The government’s support of IT R&D began because
of its interest in supporting the development of computers that would be capable of addressing the
complex problems and issues the government needed to solve and study. This complexity requires
there be adequate coordination to ensure the government’s evolving needs (e.g., global
competition, homeland security) will continue to be met in the most effective manner possible.
The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 201071 would
amend the High-Performance Computing and Communications Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5511) to
instruct the participating agencies to conduct regular assessments of the program’s responsiveness
to current needs and give flexibility to the National Coordination Office (NCO) of the NITRD to
restructure the program to respond to those needs. The act specifically states that the participating
agencies “ensure that the Program includes large-scale, long-term, interdisciplinary research and
development activities.”
The act instructs the participating agencies, working through the National Science and
Technology Council and with the assistance of the NCO, to develop a five-year strategic plan to
guide NITRD activities. The plan must specify “near-term and long-term objectives for the
Program, the anticipated time frame for achieving the near-term objectives, and the metrics to be
used for assessing progress toward the objectives.”72
In particular, the strategic plan should include a path forward to fostering the transfer of R&D
results into new technologies and applications for the benefit of society; encouraging and
supporting mechanisms for interdisciplinary R&D in networking and information technology;
addressing long-term challenges of national importance for which solutions require large-scale,
long-term, interdisciplinary research and development; emphasizing innovative and high-risk
projects having the potential for substantial societal returns on the research investment;
strengthening all levels of relevant technology education; and attracting more women and
underrepresented minorities to pursue postsecondary degrees in networking and information
technology. The plan is to be submitted to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
69 This subtitle may be cited as the ‘Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 2010.’
70 The High-Performance Computing and Communications Program Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194). In conjunction with
the passage of the act, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released Grand Challenges:
High-Performance Computing and Communications. That document outlined a research and development (R&D)
strategy for high-performance computing and a framework for a multiagency program—the HPCC Program.
71 H.R. 5116, Title I, Subtitle B.
72 H.R. 5116, Title I, Subtitle B, Section 102.
Congressional Research Service
13
.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and the America COMPETES Act
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of
Representatives.
Finally, the act requires that the Director of the NCO convene a task force composed of
participants from institutions of higher education, federal laboratories, and industry, to explore
mechanisms for developing cyber-physical systems.73 Cyber-physical systems are expected to be
the backbone of many important functions and services in the future, such as autonomous
collision avoidance systems; robotic surgery; autonomous systems for search and rescue,
firefighting, and exploration; automated traffic control; zero-net energy buildings; assistive
technologies; and ubiquitous healthcare monitoring and delivery. The task force is directed to
submit a report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and
the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives within one year.
Author Contact Information
Heather B. Gonzalez, Coordinator
Patricia Moloney Figliola
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications
hgonzalez@crs.loc.gov, 7-1895
Policy
pfigliola@crs.loc.gov, 7-2508
John F. Sargent Jr.
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
jsargent@crs.loc.gov, 7-9147
73 The term “cyber-physical systems” refers to the tight conjoining of and coordination between computational and
physical resources.
Congressional Research Service
14