Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act: Selected Policy Provisions, Funding, and Implementation Issues

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act: Selected Policy Provisions, Funding, and Implementation Issues

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES
Act: Selected Policy Provisions, Funding, and
Implementation Issues
Heather B. Gonzalez
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
May 11, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41819
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

Summary
On January 4, 2011, President Barack Obama signed P.L. 111-358, the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010. The new law responds to concerns about national competiveness by
authorizing $45.6 billion in funding for, among other things, research and development (R&D) in
the physical sciences and engineering and in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) education. P.L. 111-358 reauthorizes selected provisions from the 2007 America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69).
America COMPETES 2010 retains the central policy thrust of the 2007 act: a commitment to
increased funding for R&D in the physical sciences and engineering and to certain federal STEM
education programs. New programs established by the reauthorization include the Regional
Innovation Program, Loan Guarantees for Innovative Technologies in Manufacturing, and the
STEM-Training Grant Program. The 2010 reauthorization also repeals certain STEM education
programs—such as the Math Now program—and makes other changes. Among these changes are
provisions directing the National Science Foundation to maintain its minority-serving institutions
programs as distinct programs.
Funding provisions are some of the most closely watched parts of the 2007 and 2010 America
COMPETES acts. In particular, some analysts focus on so-called “doubling path” provisions for
R&D funding at the National Science Foundation, National Institute of Standards and Technology
laboratories, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. The 2007 law authorized a
funding growth rate for these accounts that is consistent with a seven-year doubling path. The
2010 law’s growth rate is consistent with approximately an 11-year doubling path. Given the
FY2011 and FY2012 debates about the federal budget, actual appropriations for America
COMPETES 2010 funding provisions may be difficult to realize.
Funding may become a central implementation issue for the new law. In general, unfunded
provisions of the original America COMPETES Act were not implemented. In addition to funding
questions, other implementation and oversight issues for the new law center on the
commercialization and diffusion of research; coordination and duplication in the federal STEM
education effort; (opportunity) cost and broadening participation; and competitiveness and
evaluation. With 10 titles and 77 provisions, implementation and oversight issues are likely to be
numerous.
This report reviews major policy arguments raised in the congressional debate about the 2007
America COMPETES Act and 2010 reauthorization, examines and analyzes selected policy and
funding provisions in these laws, and identifies some potential implementation and oversight
issues for Congress.

Congressional Research Service

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
The Debate ................................................................................................................................. 2
The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358) ....................................... 3
Selected R&D Provisions ...................................................................................................... 4
Selected STEM Education Provisions.................................................................................... 5
Selected Broadening Participation Provisions ........................................................................ 6
Selected Other Provisions ..................................................................................................... 7
Funding Provisions in P.L. 111-358 ............................................................................................. 7
Doubling Path....................................................................................................................... 7
Funding for New Programs ................................................................................................... 8
Funding in P.L. 110-69 and P.L. 111-358 ............................................................................... 8
Discussion: Implementation and Oversight Issues ....................................................................... 9
Cost and Funding .................................................................................................................. 9
Commercialization and Diffusion of Research..................................................................... 10
Coordination and Duplication in STEM Education .............................................................. 11
(Opportunity) Cost and Broadening Participation ................................................................ 12
Competitiveness and Evaluation.......................................................................................... 13

Figures
Figure B-1. Doubling of Research Funding ............................................................................... 17

Tables
Table A-1. Specified Funding Authorizations in P.L. 111-358: FY2011-FY2013 ........................ 15
Table C-1. Comparison of Specified Funding Authorizations in America COMPETES
2007 and 2010 ....................................................................................................................... 18

Appendixes
Appendix A. Table A-1.............................................................................................................. 15
Appendix B. Figure B-1 ............................................................................................................ 17
Appendix C. Table C-1.............................................................................................................. 18

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 19

Congressional Research Service

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

Introduction
Federal policymakers have focused on scientific and technological advancement since the
Founding. Policies designed to advance science and technology were debated at the
Constitutional Convention and have been a recurring subject of congressional attention ever
since.1 Major post-World War II legislation in this area includes the National Science Foundation
Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-507); the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
480); and the 2007 America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in
Technology, Education, and Science (COMPETES) Act (P.L. 110-69). Congress passed, and the
President later signed, a three-year reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act in December
2010.2
The contemporary federal conversation about scientific and technological advancement generally
centers on concerns about prosperity and security.3 The possibility that the United States has or
could lose its historic strengths in scientific and technological advancement—and therefore has or
could lose the prosperity and security attributed to that advancement—has become the central
rationale for a portfolio of otherwise disparate federal programs, policies, and activities.
Sometimes identified as “innovation” or “competitiveness” policy, these programs, policies, and
activities address education, tax, patent, immigration, economic development, research and
development, telecommunications, and other issues—either alone or in combination—that
policymakers perceive as critical to the U.S. scientific and technological enterprise.
The 2007 America COMPETES Act is an example of this type of policymaking. Designed to
“invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of
the United States,” the law authorized $33.6 billion in appropriations between FY2008 and
FY2010 for federal programs and activities in research and development (R&D) in the physical
sciences and engineering and in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
education, among other things. Within these policy areas, the 2007 law established new programs,
such as the Math Now program, and reauthorized existing programs, such as the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership program. The law also increased funding levels for certain programs and
activities, the largest of which were for the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institute
of Standards and Technologies (NIST) laboratories, and the Department of Energy (DOE), Office
of Science. America COMPETES 2007 was not fully funded.4

1 Arguably, the most well known example of early federal efforts to promote science is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of
the U.S. Constitution, commonly known as the “copyright and patent clause.” However, other options to support
science (e.g., national universities) were discussed at the Constitutional Convention and in subsequent Congresses. See
A. Hunter Dupree, Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities to 1940 (Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1957), pp. 1-19.
2 This report refers to the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 as “America COMPETES 2010” or
“America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010,” and to the America COMPETES Act as “America COMPETES
2007” or the “2007 America COMPETES Act.”
3 Historic debate also addressed the contributions of science to the American political system. For example, in the first
State of the Union Address in 1790, President George Washington appealed to Congress to patronize science on the
grounds that scientific knowledge in the electorate was essential for a democratic republic. See President George
Washington, “First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union,” The American Presidency Project Website,
January 8, 1790, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29431#axzz1IIvN0cSi.
4 Some of the law’s authorized programs and activities received no appropriated funding. Others received funding
below authorized levels. Some programs and activities that did not receive regular appropriations, or that received
funding below authorized levels, were funded through supplemental appropriations. For more information, see CRS
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 reaffirms the central policy thrust of the
2007 America COMPETES Act, including provisions designed to increase R&D funding at the
NSF, NIST laboratories, and DOE Office of Science. It adds new provisions authorizing
inducement prizes at federal agencies, establishing a loan guarantee program for manufacturers,
and establishing a Regional Innovation Program, among other things. America COMPETES 2010
also repeals certain programs included in the 2007 law. Primary among these are STEM
education programs that went unfunded during the original authorization period, such as the Math
Now program.
Both the 2007 and 2010 America COMPETES acts are statutory authorization measures. This
means they give affected agencies permission to run certain programs, and to spend funds, as
directed by the acts. However, these measures do not provide actual funding. Actual funding must
come from annual Congressional appropriations and budget activities.
The 2007 America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69, H.R. 2272) passed both chambers with
bipartisan support. In final form, H.R. 2272 passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and by a
vote of 367-57 in the House. Although the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010
(P.L. 111-358, H.R. 5116) also passed the Senate by unanimous consent, legislative opposition
was pronounced in the House. The final vote on H.R. 5116 was 228 to 130.
This report reviews major policy arguments raised in the Congressional debate about both the
2007 and 2010 America COMPETES acts, analyzes selected policy provisions of these laws,
examines funding issues, and identifies some potential implementation and oversight issues for
Congress.
The Debate
Although America COMPETES 2010 changes some of the policies and programs established by
the 2007 America COMPETES Act, the new law retains the central policy thrust of the original
law: a commitment to increasing funding for R&D in the physical sciences and engineering and
to certain federal STEM education programs. As such, Congressional debate about these
measures was substantively similar.
America COMPETES 2007 and 2010 advocates argued that the laws’ support for R&D in the
physical sciences and STEM education would lead to innovation and long-term U.S.
competitiveness.5 They noted that innovation, particularly technological innovation, is widely
recognized as a driving force behind U.S. economic growth. As such, many observers consider
innovation a crucial national asset.
Proponents asserted that the United States is at risk of losing our innovation advantage. They
argued that a combination of external pressures and internal weaknesses threatens the U.S. global
position. For example, changes in the industrial bases and educational attainment rates of rapidly

(...continued)
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.
5 Representative Bart Gordon, “America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010,” remarks in the House,
Congressional Record, daily edition, Vol. 156 (December 21, 2010), pp. H8841-H8842.
Congressional Research Service
2

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

developing countries like China and India have led many analysts to conclude that these countries
will be able to compete for a growing percentage of the world’s high-value jobs and industry.
Signs of potential domestic weakness in areas that have long been U.S. strengths appear to
accompany these global changes. In particular, America COMPETES act proponents have raised
concerns about perceived weaknesses in U.S. physical sciences and engineering research
funding;6 and in the domestic development of scientists, engineers, and technicians.7
Opposition to both America COMPETES 2007 and 2010 tended to fall into three broad
categories: (1) questions about fundamental assumptions, (2) preferences for alternatives policies
or approaches, and (3) cost. For example, some analysts disputed fundamental assumptions
driving provisions designed to increase the number of STEM graduates, arguing that there is no
evidence of across-the-board workforce shortages and that the bigger challenge is a dearth of
attractive employment opportunities in university research.8 Other analysts preferred to use
regulatory and tax policy tools to achieve the acts’ objectives, arguing that direct federal
investment in R&D in the physical sciences and engineering and in STEM education would
distort markets.9 Finally, opponents raised concerns about costs, arguing that proposed funding
increases were too expensive in light of the federal fiscal condition, deficit, and debt.10
The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of
2010 (P.L. 111-358)
Like America COMPETES 2007, America COMPETES 2010 is designed to “invest in innovation
through research and development, to improve the competitiveness of the United States, and for
other purposes.” In total, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 authorized
approximately $45.6 billion in appropriations between FY2010 and FY2013 for federal R&D in
the physical sciences and engineering and STEM education, among other things.11 It has 10 titles

6 This case is laid out more fully in National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of
Medicine, Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for America Science and
Technology, and Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Rising Above the Gathering Storm:
Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, National Academies Press, 2007,
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html.
7 Provisions in the 2007 America COMPETES Act can also be traced to a George W. Bush Administration proposal,
the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). The ACI proposed programs and policies—such as Math Now and
increased funding for basic research—that became part of P.L. 110-69. See U.S. President (G.W. Bush), “Address
before a Joint Session of Congress on the State of the Union,” The America Presidency Project Website, January 31,
2006, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=65090#axzz1IZD3cJnu.
8 Testimony of Alfred F. Sloan Foundation Vice President Michael S. Teitelbaum, in U.S. Congress, House Committee
on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, The Globalization of R&D and Innovation,
Part 4, hearings, 110th Cong., 1st sess., November 7, 2007, http://democrats.science.house.gov/publications/
Testimony.aspx?TID=9735.
9 Testimony of Competitive Enterprise Institute Vice President for Policy/Director of Technology Studies, House
Committee on Science and Technology, The Future of Manufacturing: What Is the Role of the Federal Government in
Supporting Innovation by U.S. Manufacturers?, hearings, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., March 17, 2010,
http://gop.science.house.gov/Media/hearings/full10/mar17/Crews.pdf.
10 For example, see House debate, “Conference Report on H.R. 2272, America COMPETES Act,” Congressional
Record, daily edition, vol. 153 (August 2, 2007), pp. H9592-H9604.
11 Approximation based on CRS analysis of selected appropriations in P.L. 111-358. Number is rounded. May not
include all appropriations authorizations. See Table A-1 for data.
Congressional Research Service
3

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

and 77 sections directing specific programs and policies at the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Commerce (DOC), Department of Energy
(DOE), and Department of Education (ED).
America COMPETES 2010 increases funding at the NSF, NIST laboratories, and the DOE Office
of Science and authorizes new technology transfer and commercialization activities at certain
federal agencies. With respect to STEM education, America COMPETES 2010 seeks to provide
greater coordination of federal STEM education programs, authorizes support for academic
programs that provide concurrent teacher certification with a bachelors degree in a STEM field,
and repeals certain unfunded STEM education programs authorized by the 2007 America
COMPETES Act, among other things.
Selected R&D Provisions
A central pillar of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 is funding for R&D in
the physical sciences and engineering. However, the new law also makes some policy changes to
existing research activities at selected federal science agencies and adds new programs. Many of
the new law’s research provisions provide for research in specific STEM fields or authorize
efforts to stimulate innovation and commercialization.
The provisions in America COMPETES 2010 that provide for research in specific STEM fields
include the Green Manufacturing and Construction initiative provisions, which require NIST to
develop (1) sustainability metrics for use in manufacturing and (2) standards and validated
measurement data for high performance green buildings.12 Other specific areas of research
authorized by the new law include Green Chemistry Basic Research13 and fundamental research
in transformative advances in manufacturing technologies programs at NSF.14
Commercialization and innovation provisions in America COMPETES 2010 typically amend
existing research programs in ways that are designed to stimulate technology transfer or the
commercialization of products developed from federal research. The new law also contains new
programs and activities designed for similar purposes. By agency, such provisions include but are
not limited to the following:
• National Science Foundation—Partnerships for Innovation,15 and Academic
Technology Transfer and Commercialization of University Research.16

12 Title IV, Sec. 408.
13 Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 509.
14 Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 506.
15 Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 508.
16 Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 520.
Congressional Research Service
4

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

• Department of Commerce—Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship,17 Federal
Loan Guarantees for Innovative Technologies in Manufacturing,18 and NIST
Green Jobs.19
• Department of Energy—Advanced Research Project Agency—Energy.20
In addition, America COMPETES 2010 struck language in the National Aeronautics and Space
Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-568, as amended) requiring that NASA innovation prizes conform only to
authorizing provisions in that act. The law also repealed the Commerce, Science, and Technology
Fellowship Program at the Department of Commerce.21
Selected STEM Education Provisions
Among America COMPETES 2010’s STEM education provisions are those that seek to increase
coordination and reduce duplication in the federal STEM education effort,22 to improve the non-
STEM skills of STEM graduate students (e.g., communication and teaching skills),23 and that
seek to replicate the widely lauded UTeach program.24 The law also allows students in specialized
STEM high schools to participate in certain National Science Foundation data collection efforts,25
and allows grants to colleges to provide academic support for private sector or professional
association STEM student internships.26
America COMPETES 2010 also reauthorizes, and makes changes to, existing STEM education
programs at the NSF, DOE, and ED. For some programs, the law only adds new annual funding
authorizations for FY2011-FY2013; for others, the law changes programs and policy in
substantive ways. For example, the law provides funding authorizations for the DOE Summer
Institutes and Nuclear Science Talent programs, but makes no major substantive policy changes.27
On the other hand, the new law makes substantive policy changes to both the NSF’s Robert
Noyce Teacher Scholarship (Noyce) program and to ED’s Advanced Placement and International
Baccalaureate (AP/IB) program. In particular, the law reduces certain nonfederal matching
requirements for both the Noyce 28 and for AP/IB29 programs.

17 Title VI, Sec. 601.
18 Title VI, Sec. 602.
19 Title VII, Sec. 703.
20 Title IX, Sec. 904.
21 Title IV, Sec. 407.
22 Title I, Sec. 101.
23 Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 527.
24 Title V, Subtitle B. UTeach is a University of Texas at Austin academic program granting baccalaureate degrees in
STEM fields with concurrent teacher certification. For more information, see http://commerce.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=b2497358-490b-4d85-998e-49974057c48d&ContentType_id=
77eb43da-aa94-497d-a73f-5c951ff72372&Group_id=59da2fee-2988-4fe9-b1dd-ee3219b6f868.
25 Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 513.
26 Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 515.
27 Title IX, Sec. 901.
28 For fellowship track grants of less than $1.5 million. Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 511.
29 Title X, Sec. 1003.
Congressional Research Service
5

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

America COMPETES 2010 also repeals several STEM education programs authorized by the
2007 law. Many of these programs did not receive funding during the original authorization
period. Repealed STEM education programs include
• Department of Energy—Pilot Program of Grants to Specialty Schools for Science
and Mathematics, Experiential-Based Learning Opportunities, and National
Energy Education Development.30
• Department of Education—Promising Practices in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Teaching, Math Now for Elementary School and
Middle School Students Program, Summer Term Education Programs, Math
Skills for Secondary School Students, Foreign Language Partnership Program,
and Mathematics and Science Partnership Bonus Grants.31

Finally, America COMPETES 2010 neither repeals nor specifically reauthorizes funding for
certain expiring STEM education provisions from America COMPETES 2007.32 The new law is
silent on, among other things, reauthorization of the Discovery Science and Engineering
Innovation Institutes program (P.L. 110-69, Sec. 5008) and on Hydrocarbon Systems Science
Competitiveness Grants (but not Expansion Grants) for Institutions of Higher Education (P.L.
111-69, Sec. 5005) at the DOE.33
Selected Broadening Participation Provisions
America COMPETES 2010 includes several provisions designed to increase the participation of
underrepresented populations (e.g., racial and ethnic minorities, women, persons from rural
communities, etc.) in STEM education and employment. Also known as “broadening
participation” policies, these provisions generally fall into two categories: (1) those that authorize
or establish broadening participation as a program goal, and (2) those that relate to Minority-
Serving Institutions (MSI) of higher education.
In different ways and through various programs, America COMPETES 2010 directs NASA,
NOAA, the NSF, and NIST to include the goal of promoting or increasing the participation of
underrepresented populations in STEM education and federal research. NASA34 and NOAA35
provisions include this goal in agency education programs. NSF36 and NIST37 provisions
incorporate it into certain research-related activities, such as the review process (NSF) and
fellowships (NIST).

30 Title IX, Sec. 901.
31 Title X, Sec. 1002.
32 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Unauthorized Appropriations and Expiring Authorizations, January 2011, p. 17,
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12044/01-14-UAEA_Approps.pdf.
33 However, P.L. 111-358 does specifically fund Hydrocarbon Systems Science Program Expansion Grants (emphasis
added) for Institutions of Higher Education.
34 Title II, Sec. 202. NASA provisions are included in “Sense of Congress” language are nonbinding.
35 Title III, Sec. 302.
36 Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 526.
37 Title IV, Sec. 406.
Congressional Research Service
6

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

Among other MSI-related provisions in America COMPETES 2010, section 512 directs the NSF
to continue supporting the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program,
the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation program, the Tribal Colleges and
Universities Program, and Hispanic-serving institutions programs as separate programs.38 NSF
had previously proposed merging these programs as part of its FY2011 budget submission to
Congress.
Selected Other Provisions
In addition to the STEM research and education provisions in the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010, P.L. 111-358 contains other provisions that seek to improve U.S.
competitiveness and innovation. Among these are provisions authorizing inducement prizes and
research competitions at federal agencies,39 directing the Department of Commerce to complete a
comprehensive study of U.S. competitiveness and innovation,40 and establishing regional
economic development programs.41 The new law also changes the NIST director’s title to
“Undersecretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology.”42
Funding Provisions in P.L. 111-35843
America COMPETES 2010 authorizes approximately $45.6 billion in specific funding for R&D
in the physical sciences and engineering and STEM education related activities at the
Departments of Commerce, Education, and Energy, and at the National Science Foundation.44
Table A-1 (see Appendix A) includes a list of specific America COMPETES 2010 funding
provisions by program and authorized fiscal year.
Doubling Path
Like America COMPETES 2007, America COMPETES 2010 pursues a “doubling path” for
funding at the NSF, NIST laboratories,45 and the DOE Office of Science—albeit at a reduced rate
of growth and over a longer period. The new growth rate and time frame in America COMPETES
2010 are consistent with actual appropriations for America COMPETES 2007 during the
FY2008-FY2010 authorization period. However, given the FY2011 and FY2012 debates about
the federal fiscal condition, achieving the authorization levels in America COMPETES 2010 may
prove difficult.

38 Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 512.
39 Title I, Sec. 105.
40 Title VI, Sec. 604.
41 Title VI, Sec. 603.
42 Title IV, Sec. 403.
43 This report uses the term “specific” to describe authorizations of appropriations that include a specific dollar amount
(e.g., $30 million) and the term “indefinite” to describe authorizations of appropriations that do not include a specific
dollar amount (e.g., “such sums as may be necessary” or general appropriations).
44 Number is rounded and based on CRS analysis of selected specified appropriations authorizations in P.L. 111-358.
45 The NIST accounts targeted for doubling include Scientific and Technical Research Services and Construction of
Research Facilities.
Congressional Research Service
7

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

America COMPETES 2007 authorized appropriations over a three-year period. These funding
authorizations set a seven-year doubling pace at an annual growth rate of about 10.3% for
aggregate funding in the targeted accounts. America COMPETES 2010 authorizes a 6.3% annual
growth rate, which is closer to the 6.4% growth rate in actual appropriations during the FY2008-
FY2010 authorization period. If future appropriations align with funding authorizations, the 6.3%
growth rate would double combined funding for the targeted accounts in a little over 11 years
(from the 2006 baseline).46 See Figure B-1, Appendix B.
Funding for New Programs
New programs—as compared to America COMPETES 2007—with specific funding provisions in
America COMPETES 2010 include the following.
• National Science Foundation—$10.0 million per year for the STEM-Training
Grant Program.47
• Department of Commerce—$20.0 million per year for Federal Loan Guarantees
for Innovative Technologies in Manufacturing;48 $100.0 million per year for the
Regional Innovation Program;49 and $7.0 million per year for Loan Guarantees
for Science Park Infrastructure.50
• National Institute of Standards and Technology—$7.0 million per year for the
National Institute of Standards and Technology Competitive Grant Program
(NIST GREEN JOBS Act of 2010).51
Funding in P.L. 110-69 and P.L. 111-358
As presented in Table C-1 (see Appendix C), a comparison of major funding provisions in
America COMPETES 2007 and 2010 shows that reauthorization funding generally falls short of
the growth rate established by the original law.52 Funding drops for some accounts (e.g., NSF and
DOE Office of Science) between FY2010 and FY2011. It comes back up after FY2011, but at a
slower pace than originally authorized in 2007. By FY2013, most major accounts appear to return
to, or exceed, FY2010 authorization levels. 53

46 Based on CRS analysis. Data available upon request.
47 Title V, Subtitle B, Sec. 556.
48 Title VI, Sec. 602.
49 Title IV, Sec. 603. The President’s FY2012 budget request for DOC’s Economic Development Administration
includes a $40.0 million request to establish this program.
50 Title VI, Sec. 603.
51 Title VII, Sec. 703.
52 For the purpose of this section and Table 2, “major provisions” and “major accounts” are specified appropriations
authorizations worth at least $100 million in any given fiscal year between FY2008 and FY2013.
53 Based on CRS analysis of selected specified appropriations authorizations in P.L. 110-69 and P.L. 111-358.
Additional data available upon request.
Congressional Research Service
8

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

Discussion: Implementation and Oversight Issues
With 10 titles and 77 provisions, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 has the
potential to generate a variety of implementation and oversight issues over its three-year
authorization period (FY2011-FY2013). These include cost and funding; commercialization and
diffusion of research and innovation; coordination and duplication in the federal STEM education
effort; (opportunity) cost and broadening participation; and competitiveness and evaluation.
Cost and Funding
A frequent criticism of America COMPETES 2007 is that actual appropriations fell short of
authorized funding levels. Given the debate about the FY2011 and FY2012 federal budgets,
supporters of the new law may find the America COMPETES 2010-authorized funding levels
difficult to achieve. America COMPETES 2010 provides for increases in federal expenditures at a
time when many policymakers are looking to reduce federal spending. Cost was central to the
debate in the House54 and since then legislators have proposed measures to reduce funding or
repeal programs included in the new law.55 Some observers have raised questions about whether
agencies targeted for research funding increases—in particular, the NSF—have the capacity to
manage additional funding if Congress provides it.56 Finally, the Obama Administration’s time
frame for the doubling effort is now indefinite.57
Part of the reason that it may be difficult to provide full funding for America COMPETES 2010 is
that analysts disagree about how to stimulate innovation.58 Some analysts argue that underfunding
federal R&D in the physical sciences and engineering and STEM education threatens the
fundamental underpinnings of the economy and therefore justifies increasing national investment
in these areas even in an era of fiscal constraint.59 Others see the national deficit and debt as

54 See House debate, “America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010,” Congressional Record, daily edition, Vol.
156 (December 21, 2010), pp. H8841-H8842.
55 For example, see H.R. 408, the Spending Reduction Act of 2011, and S. 178. These measures would reduce overall
federal spending to 2008 levels—including America COMPETES Act programs—and would repeal the Teachers for a
Competitive Tomorrow Program, which was established by the 2007 America COMPETES Act and reauthorized in
2010.
56 Testimony of NSF Inspector General Allison C. Lerner, in U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Oversight of the National Science Foundation
and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, hearings, 112th Cong., 1st sess., February 10, 2011,
http://appropriations.house.gov/_files/NSFIGAppshearingFeb102011FinalTestimony.pdf.
57 In FY2010, the President’s Plan for Science and Innovation (PPSI) indicated that the doubling period was from
FY2006 to FY2016 (10 years). In FY2011, the PPSI indicated that the doubling would occur between FY2006 and
FY2017 (11 years). The FY2012 PPSI does not include an end-date and Office of Management and Budget-published
historical tables for the FY2012 budget estimate that NSF funding would only increase by 38% by FY2016. See, CRS
Report R41706, Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2012, coordinated by John F. Sargent Jr.
58 On February 7, 2011, the Information Technology & Innovation Forum (ITIF) hosted a debate between policy
analysts who hold these disparate views. Robert Atkinson, president of ITIF, and Fred Block, senior fellow,
Breakthrough Institute, argued for increased federal direct investment in research. Jerry Taylor, senior fellow, Cato
Institute, and David Kreutzer, research fellow, Heritage Foundation, argued for deficit reduction and reduced federal
spending. A webcast of the debate is accessible at http://www.itif.org/events/cut-or-invest-what%E2%80%99s-best-
way-grow-our-economy.
59 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.
Congressional Research Service
9

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

greater threats to economic growth and assert that the current U.S. fiscal condition makes cuts
necessary.60
Commercialization and Diffusion of Research
R&D’s historic contribution to economic growth is well established. However, for R&D to
produce economic growth and jobs, R&D activities must result in goods, services, or processes—
a process known as commercialization. Further, commercialization has an important partner in
driving growth, the diffusion of innovation throughout the economy.61 America COMPETES 2010
includes provisions that seek to foster commercialization and diffusion, but their effectiveness
and impact will depend—in part—on implementation.
Observers point to a wide variety of perceived problems in the commercialization and diffusion
of federally funded research. These include concerns about the “valley of death”62 (i.e., the gap
between proof-of-concept and mass production) and industry-university research collaborations.63
Persistent disagreement about the role of the federal government in these processes has led to an
incremental policy approach and relatively frequent attempts at reform.64 Some analysts prefer
increased federal attention to commercialization and diffusion as a way to address perceived
market failures.65 Others argue that federal programs are unnecessary corporate subsidies66 or that
they distort the market by favoring a particular technology, company, or industry.67 Still others see
federal commercialization and diffusion activities as an appropriate response to structural changes
in the economy—arguing that

60 Brian M. Riedl, How to Cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget, Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder no. 2483,
October 28, 2010, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/how-to-cut-343-billion-from-the-federal-budget.
61 Alan Hughes, Innovation Policy as Cargo Cult: Myth and Reality in Knowledge-Led Productivity Growth, Centre for
Business Research, University of Cambridge, Working Paper No. 348 (June 2007), p. 5.
62 For example, see T. Randolph Beard, et al., “A Valley of Death in the Innovation Sequence: An Economic
Investigation,” Research Evaluation, vol. 18, no. 5 (December 2009), pp. 343-356.
63 Robert Litan, et al., “Commercializing University Innovations: Alternative Approaches,” Innovation Policy and the
Economy, vol. 8, no. 1 (April 2008), pp. 31-58, http://www.nber.org/chapters/c5301.pdf.
64 Historically, the federal government played a more limited role in the commercialization process. The private sector
was expected to take products to market. This arrangement was based on assumptions of a linear relationship between
discrete stages of R&D where basic research investments at one end were expected to result in a concomitant level of
commercial activity at the other. Many analysts now see greater complexity in this relationship. They note that research
stages are not necessarily discrete and that commercial activity develops within a complex private-public ecosystem.
See Gregory Tassey, The Technology Imperative (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2007), p. 106.
CRS Report RL33528, Industrial Competitiveness and Technological Advancement: Debate Over Government Policy,
by Wendy H. Schacht
65 Testimony of Information Technology and Innovation Foundation President Robert D. Atkinson, in U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Supporting Innovation in
the 21st Century Economy, hearings, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., March 24, 2010, http://sciencedems.house.gov/publications/
Testimony.aspx?TID=15394.
66 Testimony of Heritage Foundation Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs Brian M. Riedl, in U.S.
Congress, Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Federal Financial
Management, Government Information, and International Security, An Assessment of Federal Funding for Private
Research and Development, hearings, 109th Cong., 1st sess., S. Hrg. 109–349, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-
109shrg21826/pdf/CHRG-109shrg21826.pdf.
67 Tad Dehaven and Chris Edwards, “Business Subsidies,” Downsizing the Federal Government Website, Cato
Institute, February 2009, http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/commerce/subsidies.
Congressional Research Service
10

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

To renew unemployment and stimulate demand, government action has to extend beyond
saving existing industries into creating new industries that rely more heavily on a knowledge
base.68
Coordination and Duplication in STEM Education
Estimates of the number, nature, and quality of federal STEM education programs vary. 69
Accordingly, some policymakers have criticized the federal effort as uncoordinated and
potentially duplicative. Congress responded to these concerns by including a provision in
America COMPETES 2010 that directs the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) to
establish a committee to inventory, coordinate, and review federal STEM education programs.
The provision also directs the NSTC committee to specify and prioritize annual and long-term
objectives for STEM education, and to ensure that federal efforts do not duplicate each other,
among other things. The new law directs the NSTC to report to Congress annually on its activities
and findings.70 Policymakers have also separately directed the Government Accountability Office
to undertake related research on the federal STEM education effort.
On March 4, 2011, the NSTC Committee on STEM Education met for the first time. The
Committee established working groups to inventory federal STEM education programs and to
coordinate the federal effort. The Committee charter, however, does not include identifying
duplication as a committee function.71 According to the White House, the Committee will focus
its efforts on “producing highly effective teachers and motivated students along with ongoing,
measurable improvements in capabilities throughout the educational system.”72 These goals are
consistent with the September 2010 recommendations of the President’s Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology.73 America COMPETES 2010 directs the Committee to report to
Congress annually on progress and findings.

68 Henry Etzkowitz and Marina Ranga, “A Trans-Keynesian Vision of Innovation for the Contemporary Economic
Crisis: ‘Picking Winners’ Revisited,” Science and Public Policy, vol. 36., no. 10 (December 2009), pp. 799-808.
69 Several reports have highlighted an information gap in our general understanding of the federal STEM education
effort. See U.S. Department of Education, Academic Competitiveness Council, Report of the Academic
Competitiveness Council, May 2007, http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitiveness/acc-mathscience/report.pdf;
and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics Programs and Related Trends, GAO-06-114, October 2005, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06114.pdf.
70 Title I, Sec. 101.
71 Executive office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education, Charter of the Committee on Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) Education, February 1, 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
CoSTEM%20Charter%20signed%2001-31-11.pdf.
72 Greg Gershuny, “New Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Committee Launched,” Office of Science
and Technology Policy blog, The White House, March 4, 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/04/new-
science-technology-engineering-and-math-education-committee-launched.
73 Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the
President: Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) for America’s
Future, prepublication version, September 2010, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-
stemed-report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
11

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

(Opportunity) Cost and Broadening Participation
One longer-term implementation issue for America COMPETES 2010’s broadening participation
provisions—particularly those provisions that seek to address racial, ethnic, and gender gaps in
educational achievement through school policy—may be opportunity cost. Some researchers
suggest that exclusive attention to schools (as opposed to nonschool factors, such as poverty or
dysfunctional families)74 is a limitation of typical achievement gap policies.75 Others, finding
similarly, conclude that enhancing early life parenting resources would be a more cost-effective
response to gaps than later-life remediation.76
However, the desire to broaden participation in STEM occupations, and well-known disparities in
the STEM education pipeline in particular, may make close attention to school-based factors the
best policy response in this case, according to recent National Academies reports.77 Researchers
have identified several school-based issues specific to STEM education achievement gaps—such
as concerns about the quality and quantity of STEM teachers in minority schools78 and about
relatively low STEM college degree attainment rates among underrepresented populations.79
Further, although policy analysts disagree about how to respond to concerns about STEM
teachers and degree attainment rates, these issues are well documented and widely believed to be
problematic.
A shorter-term broadening participation oversight issue for both America COMPETES 2007 and
2010 centers on provisions authorizing a program to support Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs)
at the National Science Foundation. Section 7033 of America COMPETES 2007 directed the NSF
to establish a program for HSIs. Section 512 of America COMPETES 2010 directs the NSF to
maintain its HSI program separately from other minority-serving institution programs at the
Foundation. However, the Foundation has not established an HSI program as directed by either
law.

74 For an historic analysis of the black-white achievement gap and the factors believed to contribute to it, see Paul E.
Barton and Richard J. Coley, Policy Information Report: The Black-White Achievement Gap: When Progress Stopped,
Educational Testing Service, Policy Evaluation and Research Center, Policy Information Center, July 2010,
http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICBWGAP.pdf.
75 Tamara Wilder, et al., “Narrowing the Achievement Gap for Low-Income Children: A 19-year Life Cycle
Approach,” paper prepared for the 2008 Equity Symposium of the Campaign for Educational Equity, Comprehensive
Educational Equity: Overcoming the Socioeconomic Barriers to School Success, Teachers College, Columbia
University, November 17-18, 2008, p. 3, http://epi.3cdn.net/07bc530ac6dfe6ec1d_jkm6bhwro.pdf.
76 James J. Heckman, The American Family in Black and White: A Post-Racial Strategy for Improving Skills to
Promote Equality, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper no. 16841, March 2011,
http://www.nber.org/papers/w16841.
77 This was the recommendation of a recent National Academies report. See Committee on Underrepresented Groups
and the Expansion of Science and Engineering Workforce Pipeline; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public
Policy; Policy and Global Affairs; National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of
Medicine, Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent at the
Crossroads, prepublication copy, National Academies Press, September 30, 2010, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?
record_id=12984.
78 Alfinio Flores, “Examining Disparities in Mathematics Education: Achievement Gap or Opportunity Gap?,” The
High School Journal, vol. 91, no. 1 (October/November 2007), pp. 29-42.
79 Hollie Young, “Secondary Education Systemic Issues: Addressing Possible Contributors to a Leak in the Science
Education Pipeline and Potential Solutions,” Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 14, no. 2 ( June 2005),
pp. 205-216.
Congressional Research Service
12

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

Competitiveness and Evaluation
Fundamental assumptions about U.S. competitiveness shape both America COMPETES 2007 and
2010. Some analysts and academics disagree about some of these assumptions—such as the
notion that nations compete,80 the types of policies that make a nation competitive,81 and the
relative competitive position of the United States.82 Further, ambiguities deriving from the term
“competitiveness,” for which there is no definition in either the 2007 or 2010 law, may make
oversight, implementation, and evaluation a challenge.
Evaluation of America COMPETES 2007 has proven to be a particularly difficult implementation
challenge and may be an issue for America COMPETES 2010 as well. A Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report on the 2007 law’s effectiveness noted that evaluation issues
significantly limited its assessment and findings. Among these challenges were some that are
inherent (e.g., research is unpredictable and results may take a long time) and some that may be
able to be addressed by decision makers, such as linking individual program results more clearly
with agency or government goals. Although GAO was not able to evaluate the overall
effectiveness of the law, it concluded: (1) that agencies have made progress collecting data that
will pave the way for future evaluations, but that (2) they have not consistently reported to
Congress about their high-risk, high reward activities as required under the 2007 law.83
Provisions in America COMPETES 2010 directed the GAO to undertake a similar analysis of the
2010 law.84 This analysis may be hindered by the same limitations as the first. However, efforts to
improve evaluation tools for federal investments in R&D are underway. For example, the STAR
METRICS project seeks to develop an empirical framework to measure the outcomes of science
investments and demonstrate the benefits of scientific investments to the public.85
Finally, there is a larger question: What happens to U.S. R&D and education when federal
policies are justified primarily as a way to improve U.S. global economic competitiveness? The
United States has historically funded R&D and education in the pursuit of a variety of goals:
winning the Cold War, fighting disease, protecting the environment, strengthening democracy,
and increasing social equity, among others. Today, many analysts cite global economic
competitiveness concerns as a primary rationale for increased support for R&D and education. A

80 For an example of the debate about whether nations compete, see Paul Krugman, “The Competition Myth,” New
York Times, January 23, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/opinion/24krugman.html; and a direct response
from Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) Senior Analyst Stephen Ezell, “Krugman Flat Wrong
that Competitiveness Is a Myth,” ITIF Innovation Policy Blog, January 25, 2011, http://www.innovationpolicy.org/
krugman-dead-wrong-that-competitiveness-is-a. Two classic papers on this topic include Michael E. Porter, “The
Competitive Advantage of Nations,” Harvard Business Review, March-April 1990, pp. 73-93; and Paul Krugman,
“Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession,” Foreign Affairs vol. 73, no. 2 (March/April 1994), pp.28-44.
81 For example, see Lawrence Mishal and Richard Rothstein, “Schools as Scapegoats,” The American Prospect,
October 2007, vol. 18, no. 10, p. 44.
82 For example, see Gary P. Pisano and Willy C. Shih, “Restoring American Competitiveness,” Harvard Business
Review, July 1, 2009; and a direct response from R.A., “Falling Behind,” The Economist: Free Exchange (blog), from
September 30, 2010, http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/competitiveness.
83 U.S. Government Accountability Office, America COMPETES Act: It is Too Early to Evaluate Programs Long-Term
Effectiveness, but Agencies Could Improve Reporting of High-Risk, High-Reward Research Priorities, GAO-11-127R,
October 7, 2010, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-127R.
84 Title VIII, Sec. 801.
85 For more information about the STAR METRICS program, go to http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/fdp/
PGA_057189.
Congressional Research Service
13

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

few warn, however, that tying R&D and education so closely to the important, but relatively
narrow goal of producing tangible economic returns could diminish the importance of
noneconomic national priorities.86 The long-term impact of the shift to a “competitiveness
rationale” on U.S. R&D and education remains to be seen.

86 For example, in a piece reminiscent of Jonathan Swift’s essay, A Modest Proposal, one education scholar satirically
writes, “Indeed, we have already made great strides in shifting the conversation about education to what will prove
useful in workplaces rather than wasting time discussing what might support ‘democracy’ (an 18th-century notion, isn’t
it?) or what might promote self-development as an intrinsic good (a concept that goes back thousands of years and is
therefore antiquated by definition).” Alfie Kohn, “When 21st-Century Schooling Just Isn’t Good Enough: A Modest
Proposal,” District Administration, February 2009, p. 38. See also, Alfie Kohn, “Against ‘Competitiveness,’”
Education Week, September 19, 2007, p. 32.
Congressional Research Service
14

Appendix A. Table A-1
Table A-1. Specified Funding Authorizations in P.L. 111-358: FY2011-FY2013
(in millions of dollars, rounded)
Section Department/Agency
Program
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
402 DOC/NIST
Total
$918.9
$970.8
$1,039.7

—Scientific & Technical Research and Services
$584.5 $661.1 $676.7
(STRS)

—Construction & Maintenance
$124.8
$84.9
$121.3

—Industrial Technology Services (ITS)
$209.6
$224.8
$241.7

—Manufacturing Extension Partnership
$141.1
$155.1
$165.1

—Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
$10.0
$10.3
$10.6
703
DOC/NIST
NIST GREEN JOBS Act of 2010
$7.0
$7.0
$7.0
503 NSF
Total
$7,424.4
$7,800.0
$8,300.0

—Research & Related Activities
$5,974.8
$6,234.3
$6,637.8

—Education & Human Resources
$937.9
$979.0
$1,041.8

—Major Research Equipment and Facilities
$164.7 $225.5 $236.8
Construction

—Agency Operations & Award Management
$327.5
$341.7
$363.7

—National Science Board
$4.8
$4.8
$4.9

—Office of the Inspector General
$14.7
$14.7
$15.0
556
NSF
STEM-Training Grant Program
$10.0
$10.0
$10.0
602
DOC
Federal Loan Guarantees for Innovative
$20.0 $20.0 $20.0
Technologies in Manufacturing
603 DOC/EDA
Regional
Innovation
Program
$100.0
$100.0
$100.0
603
DOC
Loan Guarantees for Science Park Infrastructure
$7.0
$7.0
$7.0
901
DOE/Office of Science
Summer Institutes
$25.0
$25.0
$25.0
902
DOE
Nuclear Science Program Expansion Grants for
$9.8 $10.1 $10.4
Institutions of Higher Education
CRS-15

Section Department/Agency
Program
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
902
DOE
Nuclear Science Competitiveness Grants for
$8.2 $8.5 $8.8
Institutions of Higher Education
902
DOE
Hydrocarbon Systems Science Talent Program
$9.8
$10.0
$10.4
902
DOE/Office of Science
Early Career Awards
$25.0
$25.0
$25.0
902
DOE/Office of Science
Protecting America’s Competitive Edge (PACE)
$20.6 $21.2 $21.9
Graduate Fel owship Program
902
DOE
Distinguished Scientist Program
$31.0
$32.0
$33.0
903
DOE/Office of Science
Basic Research
$5,247.0
$5,614.0
$6,007.0
904
DOE/ARPA-E
Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy
$300.0 $306.0 $312.0
(ARPA-E)
1003
ED
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow
$4.0
$4.0
$4.0
1003
ED
Advanced Placement and International
$75.0 $75.0 $75.0
Baccalaureate Programs
1003
ED
Alignment of Education Programs
$120.0
$120.0
$120.0
Source: Based on CRS analysis of selected specific appropriations authorizations in P.L. 111-358. May not account for al authorized appropriations.
Notes: The ITS account total in Table A-1includes the amounts specifical y authorized for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award. Specified funds for these sub-accounts are in italics.
CRS-16

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

Appendix B. Figure B-1
Figure B-1. Doubling of Research Funding
Appropriations/Request vs. Selected Rates
200%
D O U B L E
175%
g
ng)
in
undi
oubl
D
2006 F
rd
Y
a
F
150%
w
of
g
in
America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act
oubl
ess To
D
America COMPETES Act
=
rogr
P
Obama OMB Projections
(200%
Obama Requests
125%
Actual Appropriations
Bush Requests
100%
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016

Source: John F. Sargent Jr., Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, CRS.
a. “Obama OMB Projections” represent the future year projections (FY2013-FY2016) for the targeted
accounts made by the Office of Management and Budget and included as supplemental information in
President Obama’s FY2012 budget request.
b. In 2009 Congress provided additional funding for the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) through the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5). Figure B-1 does not include ARRA funds.
Congressional Research Service
17

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

Appendix C. Table C-1
Table C-1. Comparison of Specified Funding Authorizations in America COMPETES
2007 and 2010
Selected Major Provisions (in millions of dollars, rounded)
America COMPETES Reauthorization
America COMPETES Act
Act of 2010
Agency
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013
NIST

Total not
specified
not
not
$918.9 $970.8
$1,039.7
specified
specified
—Scientific &
$502.1 $541.9 $584.8 $584.5 $661.1 $676.7
Technical Research
and Services
—Construction &
$150.9 $86.4 $49.7 $124.8 $84.9 $121.3
Maintenance
—Industrial
$210.0 $253.5 $272.3 $209.6 $224.8 $241.7
Technology Services
Other DOC

Regional Innovation
not included not included not included
$100.0
$100.0
$100.0
Program
NSF

Total
$6,600.0 $7,326.0 $8,132.0 $7,424.4 $7,800.0 $8,300.0
—Research &
$5,156.0 $5,742.3 $6,401.0 $5,974.8 $6,234.3 $6,637.8
Related Activities
—Education &
$896.0 $995.0
$1,104.0 $937.9 $979.0
$1,041.8
Human Resources
—Major Research
$245.0 $262.0 $280.0 $164.7 $226.0 $236.8
Equipment and
Facilities
Construction
—Agency
$285.6 $309.8 $329.5 $327.5 $341.7 $363.7
Operations & Award
Management
DOE

Basic
Research
$4,586.0 $5,200.0 $5,814.0 $5,247.0 $5,614.0 $6,007.0
Advanced Research
$300.0 such
sums such sums
$300.0 $306.0 $312.0
Projects Agency-
as are
as are
Energy (ARPA-E)
necessary
necessary
ED

Alignment of
$120.0 such
sums such sums
$120.0 $120.0 $120.0
Education Programs
as may be
as may be
necessary
necessary
Congressional Research Service
18

Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act

America COMPETES Reauthorization
America COMPETES Act
Act of 2010
Agency
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013
Teachers for a
$151.2 such
sums such sums
$2.0 $2.0 $2.0
Competitive
as may be
as may be
Tomorrow:
necessary
necessary
Baccalaureate
Degrees
Teachers for a
$125.0 such
sums such sums
$2.0 $2.0 $2.0
Competitive
as may be
as may be
Tomorrow: Master’s
necessary
necessary
Degrees
Source: CRS analysis of P.L. 110-69 and P.L. 111-358.
a. Appropriations Authorizations for basic research at the Department of Energy in 2008 and 2009 are as
authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, not the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69).
b. For the purpose of Table 2, “Major Provisions” and “major accounts” are selected specified appropriations
authorizations worth at least $100 million in any given fiscal year between FY2008 and FY2013.
c. Funding authorizations for the Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow program in P.L. 111-358 (FY2011-
FY2013) are relatively consistent with actual appropriations for the program during the P.L. 110-69
authorization period (FY2008-FY2010).

Author Contact Information

Heather B. Gonzalez

Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
hgonzalez@crs.loc.gov, 7-1895

Congressional Research Service
19