[Senate Report 107-317]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 734
107th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 107-317
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 734
THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION DOUBLING ACT
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 2817
DATE deg.October 16, 2002.--Ordered to be printed
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred seventh congress
second session
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska
Virginia CONRAD BURNS, Montana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
RON WYDEN, Oregon SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MAX CLELAND, Georgia GORDON SMITH, Oregon
BARBARA BOXER, California PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida
Kevin D. Kayes, Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Chief Counsel
Gregg Elias, General Counsel
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Ann Begeman, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Robert W. Chamberlin, Republican Chief Counsel
(ii)
Calendar No. 734
107th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 107-317
======================================================================
THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION DOUBLING ACT
_______
October 16, 2002.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hollings, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2817]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 2817) TITLE deg. to
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005,
2006, and 2007 for the National Science Foundation, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill (as
amended) do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The National Science Foundation Doubling Act, S. 2817, would
authorize a doubling of funding for the National Science
Foundation (NSF) over the next 5 years.
Background and Needs
Federal investment in science and technology over the last 50
years have yielded enormous benefits to the economy, national
security, and quality of life in the United States. It has been
estimated that technological advances are responsible for about
one-half of the nation's economic growth. Nearly every Federal
agency conducts research and development (R&D) in order to
further its missions, as well as to investigate basic
scientific questions and explore technologies that the private
sector cannot justify funding in the short term. Federal
funding of R&D is closely linked to market products: 70 percent
of all patent applications recognize non-profit or Federally-
funded research as a core component of the innovation being
patented.
Established in 1950, the NSF is the Federal agency designated
to support academic research in the United States across the
full range of scientific and engineering disciplines. To
fulfill this responsibility, it supports grants for university
and college research, and for science, engineering, and
mathematics education, including K-12 and university education.
The NSF provides grants for these purposes. It does not operate
any research laboratories of its own.
The NSF is responsible for key national initiatives that will
push the frontiers of scientific understanding like
nanotechnology, biocomplexity, information technology research,
mathematics research, and social and behavioral sciences.
Nanotechnology, the next industrial revolution, has been
identified as a national priority by many of the United States'
strategic competitors such as European countries and Japan.
Without appropriate funding, we risk falling behind other
nations in this revolutionary research.
Over the past few years, Congress has invested heavily in
biomedical science funded by the National Institutes of Health
(NIH). Nonetheless, recent advances in biomedical science have
relied on advances in fields that are not traditionally funded
by NIH, but rather fields that are funded by the NSF, such as
computer science, physics, and chemistry. For example, the
sequencing of the human genome was enabled by powerful
computers networked in innovative ways. For this reason,
increased funding for NSF would complement the already
substantial Federal investment in NIH.
One example of a field where more investment is needed is
ocean science. The National Ocean Research Leadership Council,
which is currently chaired by the NSF Director, recently
released a report entitled, ``Charting the Future for the
Academic Research Fleet.'' That report proposed a plan for the
staged replacement and modernization of the academic research
fleet, which is essential for cutting edge ocean sciences
research. The NSF should work with the United States Navy to
make the necessary investments to implement this plan.
In addition, the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security
and former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt
Gingrich, have warned that our failure to invest in science and
the need to reform math and science education is the second
biggest threat to our national security. The NSF is well
positioned to address this threat with its support for
scientific research and efforts to improve math and science
Grant Size. The average NSF grant in fiscal year 2000 was
$93,000 and had a duration of just under three years. By
comparison, the average NIH grant in fiscal year 2000 was
$283,000 over four years. Increasing the size and duration of
grants will enable researchers to concentrate on discovery,
rather than grant proposals. Dr. Alan I. Leshner, Chief
Executive Officer of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, testified before the Committee that
``the NSF grossly underfunds every single grant that it makes,
because it's trying to maximize the number of grants. So you
could actually, tomorrow, double the size of every grant, and
double the budget instantly and consume all the money in an
extremely productive way.''
Grant Selection. The NSF has been commended by the Bush
Administration for its rigorous grant review process based on
merit selection and peer review. Nonetheless, according to the
Coalition for National Science Funding, each year the NSF can
only fund 20 to 30 percent of the most highly rated proposals
it receives. This means that the nation is forgoing investment
in excellent research, not because the research is not
important or of high quality, but simply because of a lack of
funding.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS
S. 2817 would provide for a doubling of NSF research funding
over the next five years. As reported, the bill would authorize
$5.5 billion for fiscal year (FY) 2003, $6.4 billion for FY
2004, $7.4 billion for FY 2005, $8.5 billion for FY 2006, and
$9.8 billion for FY 2007 (for further details, see table
included in the section-by-section analysis below). The FY 2003
figure is approximately $500 million (15.5%) higher than the
Administration's requested level.
Support for academic research, through the Research and
Related Activities account, is NSF's largest activity. Most of
this support is provided through NSF's six research
directorates: Biological Sciences; Computer and Information
Science and Engineering; Engineering; Geosciences; Mathematical
and Physical Sciences; and Social, Behavioral, and Economic
Sciences. In addition, NSF's Polar Research Programs Office
supports scientific research in the Arctic and Antarctic. The
NSF also supports K-12 and higher education in science,
engineering, and mathematics through its Education and Human
Resources account. The NSF's Office of Integrative Activities
supports emerging cross-disciplinary research and education
efforts, including funding for major research instrumentation,
several university-based centers, and the Science and
Technology Policy Institute.
The Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction
(MREFC) account provides funding for the construction of
research facilities that provide unique capabilities at the
cutting edge of science and engineering. These projects are
intended to expand the boundaries of technology and offer
significant new research opportunities. For FY 2003, funding
would be authorized for seven projects: construction of the
Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA); the Large Hadron
Collider; the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation;
the South Pole Station Modernization Project; Terascale
Computing Systems; Earthscope; and the National Ecological
Observatory Network (NEON) Phase I.
S. 2817 would not address the transfer of 3 programs
requested by the Administration to be moved to NSF from other
agencies: the National Sea Grant program from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the Department
of Commerce; the hydrologic science program from the Department
of the Interior; and environmental education from the
Environmental Protection Agency. The Committee has opposed
these transfers and, in particular, on June 27, 2002, reported
a bill (S. 2428) to reauthorize the Sea Grant program within
NOAA.
The bill, as reported, would authorize NSF to continue 10
important initiatives: (1) Information Technology Research; (2)
Nanoscale Science and Engineering; (3) Plant Genome Research;
(4) Innovation Partnerships; (5) Mathematics and Science
Partnerships; (6) Robert Noyce Scholarships; (7) the Science,
Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Talent Expansion
Program; (8) Secondary School Systemic Initiative; (9) the
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
(EPSCoR); and (10) activities under the Science and Engineering
Equal Opportunities Act.
The NSF's Information Technology Research is part of a larger
interagency program to stimulate research in computing and
network engineering. NSF's program in cybersecurity research is
within this area. Improving cybersecurity is increasingly
important to our national and homeland security. The Committee
has addressed research in this field with the Cybersecurity
Research and Development Act, S. 2182, reported on August 1,
2002.
NSF's Nanoscale Science and Engineering is also a part of a
larger interagency research program. Considered as the next
industrial revolution, nanotechnology has the potential to
radically alter science and society, similar to how
breakthroughs in atomic physics, space exploration, and
computers have changed the way we live and enjoy life. The
Committee also addressed this issue by ordering the 21st
Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, S. 2945,
to be reported on September 19, 2002.
Plant Genome Research is an example of NSF's continued
support for fundamental biology. While funding for biomedical
research has dramatically increased over the past five years,
that funding has not supported important work in fundamental
biology, such as plant biology research.
According to ``Clusters of Innovation: Regional Foundations
of U.S. Competitiveness,'' a two-year study sponsored by the
Council on Competitiveness, creating and strengthening regional
competitiveness and innovation is the key to succeeding in the
global marketplace and raising the U.S. standard of living.
NSF's Innovation Partnerships Program would foster partnerships
involving States, local, and regional governmental entities and
industry, academia, and other organizations to stimulate
innovation.
The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, in
reporting S. 2817, significantly changed the provision relating
to the Math and Science Partnerships, a program intended to
improve math and science education in schools. Members of the
Commerce Committee have expressed concerns about the
introduction of formula grants at NSF. One of the strengths of
NSF has been its merit-reviewed, competitive system for
awarding grants. This system is a model for government programs
and should not be altered in favor of formula grants.
To ensure that successful programs reach the maximum number
of students, the NSF should give consideration to the benefits
of awarding Math and Science Partnership grants to existing
partnerships between institutions of higher education and
secondary schools that have successfully developed curricula to
expand educational opportunities for students in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology in multiple school
districts. The institutions of higher education and secondary
schools do not have to be located in the same State. Such
partnerships may include developing curricula, teaching
curricula and new developments in these fields to teachers, and
implementing curricula in multiple school districts.
The Robert Noyce Scholarships program addresses the nation's
growing need for science and math educators by providing
scholarships for students who commit to a teaching career.
The number of undergraduate and graduate students entering
and receiving a degree in the fields of science, mathematics,
and engineering has been declining over the past 15 years. At
the same time, many of the nation's working scientists and
engineers are reaching retirement age. The National Science
Board recently reported that more than half of workers with
science and engineering degrees will be of retirement age
within 20 years. Within the Federal government, one third of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's work force
will become eligible for retirement in the next three to five
years and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) has roughly one quarter (over 800 employees) of its
3,300 employees eligible for retirement this year. The nation's
Federal and non-Federal technical workers are responsible for
much of the scientific innovation that occurs within government
and industry, spurring growth in the nation's economy. The
Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Talent
Expansion Program encourages undergraduates to pursue degrees
in these important fields. The Secondary School Systemic
Initiative also is designed to prepare high school graduates
for technical employment or undergraduate studies.
The bill would continue the successful EPSCoR, a Federal-
State partnership to build research capacity and
competitiveness in States needing to strengthen their research
programs. The program has an impressive record of supporting
individual researchers, developing research clusters, and
enhancing State efforts. Recently, NSF implemented a new
approach to provide infrastructure support to these States, to
integrate these States into NSF activities through co-funding,
and to provide centers with development support. These efforts
are essential to the competitiveness of the EPSCoR States and
to ensuring a truly national science and technology community.
Over the past year, the Science, Technology, and Space
Subcommittee has examined the involvement of minority serving
institutions and of women in science and engineering. The
Subcommittee has found that too many girls have not taken the
courses that would prepare them to study science when they
enter college. Therefore, the bill would encourage the NSF to
continue its efforts under the Science and Engineering Equal
Opportunities Act in order to encourage women, minorities, and
persons with disabilities to pursue degrees and careers in
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology related
fields.
The bill also would address some criticisms of the management
of NSF's MREFC account. The bill would require that MREFC
projects be prioritized in a list approved by the National
Science Board. The current system--in which MREFC projects are
approved but not prioritized--has left several important areas
underfunded or unaddressed.
Legislative History
On Wednesday, May 22, 2002, the Subcommittee on Science,
Technology, and Space held a hearing to examine the FY 2003
budget request for research & development, with a particular
focus on the NSF. The Subcommittee received testimony from two
panels of witnesses. The first panel included the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Director, Dr. John H.
Marburger, and the NSF Director, Dr. Rita Colwell, who offered
the Administration's perspective. The second panel featured
advocates of increased spending on scientific research.
Representative Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House
of Representatives, and Mr. John Podesta, former White House
Chief of Staff, discussed the importance of NSF funding in a
broad context. Dr. Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, offered an
independent analysis of the Administration's R&D budget.
Representatives from two universities who receive NSF and other
Federal R&D funding, Dr. Marsha R. Torr, Vice President for
Research of Virginia Commonwealth University and Dr. Tom McCoy,
Vice President for Research at Montana State University,
offered the academic communities' perspective on the NSF budget
and several NSF activities.
In the Senate, both the Commerce, Science, and Transportation
and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP)
Committees have an interest in NSF. Under the terms of a 1988
unanimous consent agreement, the two committees share
authorizing jurisdiction over NSF. Upon being reported by the
HELP Committee, all portions of any NSF legislation--except
science and engineering education--are referred sequentially to
the Commerce Committee for 30 days. Science and engineering
education remains solely within the jurisdiction of the HELP
Committee. In this regard, S. 2817 was first referred to the
HELP Committee, which ordered the bill to be reported on
September 6, 2002.
On September 19, 2002, the Commerce Committee met in
executive session and ordered the bill reported, as amended.
Estimated Costs
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, September 26, 2002.
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2817, the National
Science Foundation Doubling Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kathleen
Gramp.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
S. 2817--National Science Foundation Doubling Act
Summary: S. 2817 would authorize the appropriation of $37.7
billion over the 2003-2007 period for the activities of the
National Science Foundation (NSF). Assuming implementation of
the bill, NSF's appropriation would roughly double over the
five-year period, increasing from $4.8 billion in 2002 to $9.8
billion in 2007. S. 2817 also would establish guidelines for
allocating NSF funding and require the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) to prepare reports on issues related
to research instrumentation and program duplication. Finally,
the bill would outline new procedures for protecting the
confidentiality of certain information collected by NSF and
impose civil penalties for violations of those procedures.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing this bill would cost a total of
$26.1 billion over the 2003-2007 period. Provisions imposing
new civil penalties could increase governmental receipts (i.e.,
revenues), but CBO estimates that any amounts collected would
be insignificant. Because S. 2817 could affect receipts, pay-
as-you-go procedures would apply.
S. 2817 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
The bill would make grants available to state and local
educational agencies and institutions of higher education to
support improvements in educational programs for science and
mathematics. Any costs to the educational institutions would be
incurred voluntarily.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 2817 is shown in the following table.
For this estimate, CBO assumes that the authorized amounts will
be appropriated near the start ofeach fiscal year and that
spending will occur at rates similar to those for existing NSF
programs. Based on information from OSTP, CBO estimates that the office
would incur no significant costs to implement this bill. The costs of
this legislation fall within budget function 250 (general science,
space, and technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
NSF Spending Under Current Law:
Budget Authority \1\........................................ 4,802 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays........................................... 4,037 3,229 1,124 328 124 45
Proposed Changes:
Authorization Level......................................... 0 5,536 6,391 7,378 8,520 9,839
Estimated Outlays........................................... 0 1,384 4,135 5,717 6,845 8,005
NSF Spending Under S. 2817:
Authorization Level \1\..................................... 4,802 5,536 6,391 7,378 8,520 9,839
Estimated Outlays........................................... 4,037 4,613 5,259 6,045 6,969 8,050
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2002 level is the amount appropriated for that year for NSF plus the $13 million appropriated for
Mathematics and Science Partnerships at the Department of Education, which would be transferred to NSF under
this bill.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you go procedures
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. Although
S. 2817 could affect receipts by increasing amounts collected
from civil penalties, CBO estimates that any such effects would
be insignificant.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 2817
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. The bill would make grants available to state
and local educational agencies and institutions of higher
education to support improvements in educational programs for
science and mathematics. Any costs to the educational
institutions would be incurred voluntarily.
Previous CBO estimates: On September 17, 2002, CBO
transmitted a cost estimate for S. 2817 as ordered reported by
the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
on September 5, 2002. The differences between the two versions
would not affect the cost of the legislation.
On May 31, 2002, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R.
4664, the Investing in America's Future Act of 2002, as ordered
reported by the House Committee on Science on May 22, 2002.
That bill would cover a shorter period of time, but the amounts
authorized for fiscal years 2003 through 2005 are similar to
the levels in S. 2817. H.R. 4664 does not include provisions
regarding the confidentiality of information and therefore
would not affect governmental receipts. Other differences
between the two bills would not affect their cost.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Kathleen Gramp; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Susan Sieg Tompkins;
and Impact on the Private Sector: Samuel Kina.
Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact Statement
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED
The Committee believes that the bill would not subject any
individuals or businesses affected by the legislation to any
additional regulation.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
This legislation would not have an adverse economic impact on
the Nation. It would authorize funding for basic research
funding through the NSF and thus should stimulate further
technological innovation and economic growth.
PRIVACY
This legislation would not have a negative impact on the
personal privacy of individuals.
PAPERWORK
This legislation would not increase paperwork requirements
for private individuals or businesses. It does require eight
Federal reports: (1) an annual report by the NSF Director
reviewing duplication in education programs; (2) a report by
the NSF Director describing the impact of increasing average
grant size on minority serving institutions and institutions in
EPSCoR States; (3) a National Science Board report describing
procedures for greater public access to its deliberations; (4)
a report by the NSF Director reviewing and assessing the Major
Research Instrumentation program, including findings and
recommendations; (5) an Office of Science and Technology Policy
report on the need to develop an interagency program for
interagency research and instrumentation development; (6) an
annual report by the NSF Director containing a list of funding
priorities for MREFC; (7) a National Science Board annual
report on the conditions of delegation relating to funds
appropriate for any project in the MREFC account; and (8) a
retrospective report by the NSF Director to be included in the
next edition of the report required under the Science and
Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 USC 1885) examining
efforts to increase science and engineering opportunities for
women, minorities, and persons with disabilities under that
Act.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short Title
Section 1 would cite the short title of the bill as the
``National Science Foundation Doubling Act.''
Section 2. Definitions
Section 2 would define certain terms as follows:
``Board''--the National Science Board established
under Section 2 of the National Science Foundation Act
(42 USC 1861);
``Director''--the Director of the National Science
Foundation;
``Eligible Applicant''--an institution of higher
education or consortium thereof, or a partnership
between an institution of higher education and a
nonprofit organization, government or company with
experience in delivering science, mathematics,
engineering, or technology education;
``Foundation''--the National Science Foundation;
``Institution of Higher Education''--a term which has
the meaning given in section 101(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 USC 1001(a)); and
``National Research Facility''--a research facility
funded by the Foundation which, subject to access
policies, is available for use by all scientists and
engineers affiliated with research institutions in the
United States.
Section 3. Findings
Section 3 would list findings concerning the importance of
the NSF and its research in supporting scientific research,
improving science and math education, and ensuring the global
competitiveness of this nation.
Section 4. Policy Objectives
Section 4 would identify the policy objectives that the NSF
should use in allocating funding authorized by this
legislation. These include: (1) strengthening the United
States' lead in science and technology through strategic
investment in basic research, a balanced research portfolio,
expansion of the number of U.S. scientists and engineers,
modernization of research infrastructure, and international
cooperation; (2) increasing overall workforce skills through
improving math and science education, providing access to
information technology, encouraging the participation of
underrepresented minorities and students from low-income
households in post-secondary science and math education, and
expanding technical training; and (3) strengthening innovation.
Section 5. Authorization of Appropriations
Section 5 would authorize appropriations for the NSF for FY
2003 through FY 2007 as follows:
($ millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY FY FY FY FY
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Related Activities 4,17 4,84 5,61 6,51 7,55
4.8 2.8 7.7 6.5 9.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education 1,00 1,15 1330 1,53 1,75
6.2 7.2 .8 0.4 9.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MREFC 152. 168. 185. 203. 223.
9 2 0 5 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Expenses 194. 214. 235. 259. 285.
7 2 6 1 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspector General 7.7 8.5 9.3 10.2 11.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL ** 5,53 6,39 7,37 8,51 9,83
6.4 0.8 8.3 9.8 9.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Total may not add, due to rounding
Section 6. Specific Program Authorizations
Section 6 would provide specific authorizations for the
following programs to be carried out with funds authorized
under Section 5:
Information Technology--an information
technology research program to support research,
education and infrastructure in cybersecurity,
terascale computing systems, communications and other
areas.
Nanoscale Science and Engineering--a program
designed to support science and engineering research in
emerging areas of nanoscale science and technology,
including research on the societal implications of
advances in nanotechnology.
Plant Genome Research--a program to support
research to advance our understanding of the
organization and function of plant genomes and basic
biological processes in plants, especially economically
important plants such as corn and soybeans.
Innovation Partnerships--a program designed
to stimulate regional innovation through partnerships
involving States, local, and regional governmental
entities and industry, academia, and other
organizations.
Math and Science Partnerships Initiative--a
wide-ranging program to improve math and science
education in schools, particularly in urban and rural
areas, through competitive grants in FY 2003 through FY
2005 and formula grants in FY 2006 and FY 2007.
Noyce Scholarships--a program to support
training for students studying to become mathematics
and science educators.
Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and
Technology Talent Expansion Program--a program for
colleges and universities to support projects designed
to significantly increase the number of undergraduate
degree recipients in science, math, engineering, and
technology.
Secondary School Systemic Initiative--a
program designed to support proposals aimed at reform
initiatives designed to prepare graduating high school
students to comprehend scientific and technical
material, and to heighten college completion rates.
EPSCoR--a program designed to stimulate
competitive research in EPSCoR States (which are
designated under the reported bill as States which, for
the proceeding three years, received not more than one
percent of the total amount of NSF research funding) by
providing for activities which may include research
infrastructure improvement grants, co-funding
initiatives, and outreach initiatives.
The Science and Engineering Equal
Opportunities Act--a comprehensive program designed to
increase the numbers of women, minorities, and persons
with disabilities in science, mathematics, engineering,
and technology related fields.
Section 7. Establishment of Research on Mathematics and Science
Learning and Education Improvement
Section 7 would establish a research program to improve
education and learning in mathematics and science. Competitive
grants would be awarded to investigate the science of learning
and teaching mathematics and to apply the results of those
investigations in low-performing elementary and secondary
schools. The section would provide for the submission and
evaluation of grants. Grantees would be required to include
participation of elementary and secondary school educators and
to submit their results to the Director. The Director would be
required to coordinate with the Secretary of Education.
Section 8. Duplication of Programs
Section 8 would direct the NSF Director to review NSF's
education programs and terminate duplicative programs. In
addition, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) would be required to review NSF's education
programs and submit a report to the Congress on its findings
not later than one year after the enactment of this legislation
and annually thereafter, with the budget submission.
Section 9. Major Research Instrumentation
Section 9 would instruct the NSF Director to conduct a review
of the Major Research Implementation Program designed to
improve the condition of scientific and engineering equipment
for research and research training in our Nation's academic
institutions. Additionally, the OSTP Director would be required
to assess the need for and, if necessary, develop an inter-
agency program to establish fully equipped, state-of-the-art,
university-based centers for interdisciplinary research and
advanced instrumentation development.
Section 10. MREFC Plan
Section 10 would address the prioritization of MREFC
Projects. This provision would instruct the NSF Director to
develop a list prioritizing funding for each MREFC project and
to submit the list to the National Science Board for approval.
This provision is designed to provide greater transparency to
the process through which MREFC projects are evaluated,
prioritized, and selected for funding.
Section 11. Administrative Amendments
Section 11 would provide for several administrative
modifications. Subsection (a) would allow the National Science
Board to adopt procedures governing the conduct of its
meetings. Subsection (b) would address the confidentiality of
certain information regarding human subjects that was
previously protected by the Office of Management and Budget.
That Office has instructed agencies such as NSF to seek this
protection for themselves. Subsection (c) would amend current
law providing for a staff for the National Science Board by
allowing the Board to appoint such staff directly rather than
through the Director. The Committee understands that the
National Science Board would still utilize the personnel
structure and other administrative functions of NSF, but would
report to the National Science Board's Chair.
Section 12. Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act Amendments
Section 12 would amend the findings and goals of the Science
and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 USC 1885) to
include persons with disabilities. While the operative portion
of the Act in Section 1885b of Title 42 provides that the NSF
is authorized to undertake or support programs and activities
to encourage the participation of persons with disabilities in
the science and engineering professions, the findings of the
Act do not mention persons with disabilities.
Section 13. Amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965
Section 13 would repeal part B of Title II of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 USC 6601 et seq.),
which provides Math and Science partnerships such as those
authorized in Section 5 of this bill through the Department of
Education. This provision would take effect beginning on
October 1, 2003.
Section 14. Reports
Section 14 would require two reports, within 6 months of
enactment, on grant size and duration and on public access to
meetings.
Grant Size and Duration. As NSF's budget moves along its
doubling path, proposals for utilizing increased resources have
included increasing the average grant size and duration. This
provision would instruct the Director to submit a report to
Congress describing the impact that such increases would have
on minority serving institutions and institutions located in
EPSCoR States, in an effort to ensure that the gap between
institutions that already receive significant NSF funding and
other institutions will not widen.
Report on Open Meetings. This provision would instruct the
Chair of the National Science Board to submit a report to
Congress describing proposed procedures to ensure greater
public access to National Science Board deliberations.
Section 15. Evaluations
Section 15 would provide for the annual evaluation of the
effectiveness of a random sample of NSF grants and for the
dissemination of such evaluation.
Section 16. Report by Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and
Engineering
Section 16 would provide for a 10-year retrospective report
by the NSF Director on the accomplishments and effectiveness of
the NSF's efforts to expand science, mathematics, and
engineering opportunities for minorities, women, and persons
with disabilities.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that its amendment to
the bill as reported would make no change to existing law.