[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 117 (Tuesday, September 17, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8674-S8684]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 2941. A bill to authorize grants for the establishment of quasi-
judicial
[[Page S8675]]
campus drug courts at colleges and universities modeled after State
drug courts programs; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Campus Classmate
Offenders in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act.''
The Campus Classmate Offenders in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act,
which can also be referred to as the ``Campus CORT Act,'' directs the
Department of Justice to establish a demonstration program to provide
grants and training to help our Nation's universities and colleges
establish new quasi-judicial systems. These systems aim at countering
the serious drug and substance abuse related problems that are taking
such a heavy toll on our institutions of higher learning and the
students who attend them. The demonstration program, which would be
administered by the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs,
would be based on the valuable lessons and successes we have garnered
from our Nation's innovative and expanding drug court system.
Specifically, this demonstration program legislation would authorize
the establishment of up to five Campus CORTs each year for Fiscal Years
2003 through 2006. The bill authorizes the Office of Justice Programs
to provide $2,000,000 in Federal funding during each of those years to
help get five Campus CORTs well trained, soundly established and up and
running. This new program's approach should be similar to how the
Office of Justice Programs currently runs the ongoing drug court grant-
making program, including providing an Internet-based application
process.
There are plenty of good reasons to take the next step and establish
a Campus CORTs program based on the drug court model. Since they first
appeared in 1989, drug courts have rapidly spread all across the
Nation. Rather than simply locking-up nonviolent drug offenders in
prison along side violent criminals, drug courts provide the
alternative of court-supervised treatment. Instead of simply punishing,
drug courts help get people clean.
Drug courts' many successes are underscored both by the bipartisan
support they have received in Congress and by the Bush Administration.
For example, during a national conference hosted this last April by the
National Association of Drug Court Professionals, both Office of
National Drug Control Policy Director John Walters, our Nation's ``Drug
Czar,'' and Drug Enforcement Agency Director Asa Hutchinson gave
speeches in support of drug courts.
According to the latest statistics as reported by the Department of
Justice's Office of Justice Programs, there are nearly 700 Drug Courts
in operation all across the United States. This includes 483 Adult Drug
Courts, 167 Juvenile Drug Courts, and 37 Family Drug Courts. An
additional 400-plus new Drug Courts are in the planning process. The
report goes on to state that approximately 220,000 adults and 9,000
juveniles have been enrolled in the drug court system and of those,
73,000 adults and 1,500 juveniles have graduated.
The merits of the drug court system are well documented. Nationwide,
the drug courts have helped more than 1,000 to be born drug free, more
than 3,500 parents to regain custody of their children, and 4,500
parents to resume making their child-support payments. The retention
rate is over 70 percent, with 73 percent of the participants managing
to keep their jobs or successfully find new work. These are encouraging
successes, and not just for the individuals involved, but for society
as a whole.
These are the kind of successes we should be able to see once the
drug court model is customized and applied through Campus CORTs as we
work together to respond to the alcohol, drug and other substance abuse
challenges facing our Nation's colleges and universities.
Our Nation's drug courts use a carrot and stick approach where
offenders can either live at home and remain free to work under court
supervised treatment or face the very real threat of hard jail time.
Similarly, Campus CORTs will give troubled students the chance to get
supervised treatment and stay clean or get kicked out of school and
watch their futures get squandered away.
Instead of simply booting students with substance abuse problems
directly out of school, as is currently happening at many universities
and colleges all across the country, I believe we should instead help
provide institutions of higher learning with new tools they can use to
help students get and stay clean. Of course, just like it is with the
existing drug courts, there will be some students who simply do not
respond to Campus CORTs. While those students will have to face the
fact that they may well be expelled from school, at least we will have
been able to give them the opportunity to clean-up their act.
Since the new Campus CORTs would be established at colleges and
universities, the legislation calls on the Office of Justice Programs,
or OJP, to establish new ``quasi-judicial standards and procedures for
disciplinary cases'' for institutions of higher learning that wish to
participate in the new Federal program.
Today, I am pleased to highlight that one of the leading institutions
of higher learning in my home State, Colorado State University, CSU,
has already broken new ground as the Nation's first university to apply
the drug court concept in a campus setting. The ``Day IV'' program, as
it is known at CSU, has racked-up a successful record in helping keep
students clean and in school.
Under the pioneering leadership of Cheryl Asmus, the drug court
inspired program helped 26 out of 30 students who would have otherwise
been kicked out of school stay there during the last spring semester
alone. As I understand it, two of the four were dismissed from school
for not meeting the Day IV program's treatment requirements and the
other two left school for other reasons.
In any case, a success rate approaching 90 percent is a wonderful
accomplishment, both for the university and especially for the 26
students who have managed to pull themselves back from potential
disaster.
Our drug court system is making a difference all across our Nation.
In fact, a 2002 report issued by Columbia University's prestigious
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse states that ``drug
courts provide closer, more comprehensive supervision and much more
frequent drug testing and monitoring during the program, than other
forms of community supervision.'' The report underscores that ``drug
use and criminal behavior are substantially reduced while offenders are
participating in drug court'' and that ``criminal behavior is lower
after participation, especially for graduates.''
Far too many of our Nation's college students are falling by the
wayside as they get sidetracked by crippling drug and alcohol abuse
problems. Not only are academic careers being impacted and ended,
entire lives are being thrown into limbo.
Our Nation's drug court system is a good example of a viable and
productive partnership between the Federal Government, our State
governments and local jurisdictions. Their collaboration is making a
positive impact all across our country. I want to take this moment to
thank the people of the OJP, the experts at the National Association of
Drug Court Professionals and the State and local judges, prosecutors,
law enforcement officers and other officials who have done so much to
establish, build upon and continually improve our Nation's drug court
system.
I also want to take a moment to thank Judge Karen Freeman Wilson,
Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of Drug Court
Professionals, Stuart VanMeveren, District Attorney for Colorado's
Eighth Judicial District, and Colorado State University President
Albert Yates for their letters of support for the Campus CORT
legislation I am introducing today. Their support for this bill is
appreciated.
I ask unanimous consent that the three letters of support and the
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2941
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Campus Classmate Offenders
in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act'' or the ``Campus CORT
Act''.
[[Page S8676]]
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF CAMPUS DRUG COURTS.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General, acting through the
Office of Justice Programs, is authorized to make
demonstration grants to accredited universities and colleges
to establish not to exceed 5 campus classmate offenders in
rehabilitation and treatment programs (referred to as
``Campus CORTS'') each fiscal year modeled after the
statewide local drug court programs throughout the United
States.
(b) Campus CORTS.--Campus CORTS shall--
(1) be established at accredited colleges or universities;
(2) have jurisdiction over substance abuse related
disciplinary cases involving students that may or may not be
criminal in nature, including illegal drug use, abuse of
prescription drugs, alcohol abuse, and other issues, but no
student who is deemed to be a danger to the community may be
involved;
(3) pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Attorney
General, establish appropriate quasi-judicial standards and
procedures for disciplinary cases; and
(4) impose as the ultimate sanction expulsion from school.
(c) Consultation.--The Attorney General shall consult with
the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, d.b.a.,
the National Drug Court Institute, universities and colleges,
including the Campus Drug Court program at Colorado State
University, and other experts in establishing quasi-judicial
standards required by this Act.
(d) Assistance.--The Attorney General shall make grants to
qualified universities and colleges, the National Association
of Drug Court Professionals, d.b.a., the National Drug Court
Institute, and other associations and experts to assist in
establishing campus drug courts and provide training and
technical assistance in support of the program.
(e) Grant Making Considerations.--In awarding grants to
qualified colleges or universities, the Office of Justice
Programs should--
(1) endeavor to include colleges and universities of
different sizes across the United States; and
(2) enable colleges and universities to apply for grants
through the Internet site of the Office of Justice Programs.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated $2,000,000 for each
of the fiscal years 2003 through 2006 to carry out this Act.
____
August 23, 2002.
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Campbell: As the representative of the
National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) and
of the drug court professionals throughout the country I am
writing this letter of support for your bill for the ``Campus
Classmate Offenders in Rehabilitation and Treatment Act'' or
the `'Campus CORT Act.'' Modeled after the ``campus drug
court'' at Colorado State University, campus drug courts
nationwide are the exciting next step in the drug court
arena. I truly appreciate your commitment to making them a
reality.
All of the drug court professionals across America laud the
depth of your knowledge about substance abuse and its
concomitant crime and appreciate your steadfast support of
stopping the revolving door of drug addiction and crime in
our criminal justice system. With the alarming news about
drug use and binge drinking on college campuses, the Campus
CORT Act will face the campus drug and alcohol use and abuse
problem head on, preventing accidents and crimes at colleges
and universities throughout the nation.
Taking the drug court concept to this next level, to
college campuses, is the logical way to further the fight
against substance abuse and criminal behavior. As you know,
Columbia University's prestigious National Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) report from 2001 states
that drug courts provide closer, more comprehensive
supervision and much more frequent drug testing and
monitoring during the program, than other forms of community
supervision. In addition, it found that drug use and criminal
behavior are substantially reduced while offenders are
participating in drug court.
Again, thank you for introducing the `'Campus CORT Act''
and for your continuing support of drug courts. I look
forward to continuing to work with you and your staff in the
future.
Very truly yours,
Judge Karen Freeman Wilson (ret.),
Chief Executive Officer.
____
Office of the District Attorney, Eighth Judicial
District, State of Colorado,
Fort Collins, CO, August 28, 2002.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
U.S. Senate,
Fort Collins, CO.
Dear Senator Campbell: I wholeheartedly support your
proposed ``Campus CORT Act.''.
As you know, Colorado State University, through the work of
Dr. Cheryl Asmus and others, has developed a Campus Drug
Court that is now in full operation. Prior to the
implementation of the CSU Campus Drug Court, many bright,
promising college students lost their opportunity to obtain
their college degree because of being dismissed from school
as a result of a drug or alcohol addiction. This new pilot
program provides students who have drug or alcohol problems a
process in which they can address their usage problem while
staying in school. Colorado State University's project has
proven very successful. Very few students in the program have
failed to abide by the program requirements. Most
participants have been able to abstain from usage. This
success is due to the very strong impetus for students to
``stay clean'' by allowing them to continue to have access to
grants and loans, as well as remain at the university so long
as they abide by drug court requirements.
Federal legislation that creates funding to expand the
campus drug court program is an excellent proposal. This
program helps promising young people, who have chosen to
improve their lives through a college education, succeed when
alcohol and drugs may be the one obstacle that stands in
their way. They are given the opportunity to stay in school,
graduate, and become contributing members of society. That
success is insured by addressing a drug or alcohol addiction
problem that very well would have a negative affect on their
families and their ability to succeed professionally.
The availability of federal funds to assist in starting
these programs across the country has the promise of spawning
very successful drug and alcohol programs nationwide. The
traditional Drug Court concept has been very successful. The
Campus CORT Act can provide the resources that will result in
the same success opportunity for students at our colleges and
universities.
We wish you every success in your efforts to pass this
legislation. If there is anything I can do to assist, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Stuart A. Vanmeveren,
District Attorney.
____
Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, CO, September 4, 2002.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington DC.
Dear Senator Campbell: This letter serves as strong support
for the bill you are proposing to introduce to the United
States Senate that will authorize the appropriation of funds
to establish ``drug courts'' at other colleges and
universities. These drug courts will be modeled after the
Drug Courts Program, and the Colorado State University (CSU)
campus drug court. I understand that CSU will play a critical
role as consultant to the Attorney General of the United
States in this effort, and we are committed to working in any
capacity in this effort. As the first, and only university
with a campus drug court to date, we are in a unique position
to provide first-hand experience and advice.
In late 1999, the Family and Youth Institute at Colorado
State University set up several meetings with the CSU Office
of Judicial Affairs and Colorado's Eighth Judicial District
Drug Court. The result of these meetings spawned an effort to
apply for support to establish a ``campus drug court.'' In
mid-2001, the Family and Youth Institute was awarded two
years of support for the drug court from the U.S. Department
of Education. Currently, a cross-disciplinary team meets
weekly to staff the drug court students. After one semester
in operation, all but four (one school dropout, two expelled
from program, one positive breathalyzer) of approximately 20
students remain trouble and AOD free. So far, we have three
drug court graduates and recorded improvements in the other
participants in terms of grades, employment, family
situations, attitudes, and behaviors.
As a Carnegie Class I research institution, CSU is poised
to lead the field in determining what factors of a drug court
influence their success. I am aware of the current debates
across the nation of the true impacts of the 1000 plus drug
courts. I am confident that by introducing the model into the
world of academia, inevitably it will inevitably spur
research that will result in research-based evidence to
concretely address these debates and concerns.
We have found the model to be easily adaptable to our
campus setting and have listed as one of our four goals to
assist other campuses in developing their own campus drug
courts. We are extremely grateful and appreciative you have
decided to assist us in this goal. It is not an accident that
Colorado State University, and Colorado, will lead in this
effort. You have long championed drug courts and, in
particular, the Eighth Judicial District's Juvenile Drug
Court, our mentor.
A key strategy of Colorado State University is civic
education renewal. A part of this strategy is to focus on
initiatives and programs that assist students in developing
into people of integrity and strong values. We are also
dedicated to the ability to graduate students in four years
who are prepared to enter the world as contributing citizens.
Using dismissal or expulsion as a consequence for someone
with a substance abuse problem is a quick fix for our campus,
but not for the individual or the community at large. As a
land-grand institution, valuing service to our society, we
believe the integration of drug court's goal of using
treatment with strong interventions into the disciplinary
system, as an alternative to dismissal or expulsion directly
supports the mission of Colorado State University.
Sincerely,
Albert C. Yates,
President.
[[Page S8677]]
______
By Mr. Crapo (for himself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Specter, Mr. Miller, Mr.
McCain, and Mr. Bunning)
S. 2942. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to
eliminate the five-month waiting period in the disability insurance
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. Crapo. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important
legislation that will correct a serious flaw in the Social Security
Disability Insurance program, which currently forces many Americans who
are diagnosed with a terminal illness to live out their final days in
poverty.
Under current law, any eligible individual applying for SSDI benefits
must wait 5 full months before he or she can begin receiving benefits.
I appreciate the support of Senator Bayh, Senator Specter, Senator
McCain, and Senator Miller for this bill that will eliminate the
waiting period for those individuals with terminal illnesses.
Far too often, I have had terminally ill constituents contact me
through my State offices with horror stories about their personal
experiences. These people are healthy, hard-working members of our
society. Suddenly, they are told by their doctor that they have a
terminal illness and that it would be best if they stop working and go
on disability as soon as possible to maintain their strength. However,
because of the waiting period, before they know it, these people are
several months behind in their bills. Others, unfortunately, do not
even live through the full waiting period.
I am sure that if any of my colleagues were to contact their State
offices and speak to their staff that handle these disability cases,
they would find that their constituents have faced similar difficulties
with this waiting period. Like every other hard-working American, these
terminally ill individuals have all paid into the Social Security
system throughout their working lives, with the expectation that future
benefits would be there to supplement lost income should a disability
or serious illness ensue.
I am please that this legislation has the support of the National
Association for the Terminally Ill. This organization's primary mission
is to assist individuals diagnosed with a terminal illness, whose life
expectancy is two years or less. They have told me of the many
individuals that have come to them for assistance, faced with no
income, while waiting through those 5 months before receiving
disability benefits. Frequently, the association is contacted by people
who are forced to sell furniture, cars, family heirlooms, and even
their homes, just to pay expenses for daily living.
Two years ago, this Congress did the right thing by waiving the 24-
month waiting period for Medicare coverage for individuals diagnosed
with Lou Gehrig's Disease. The time has now come for Congress to take
the appropriate action to relieve part of what is already an
unthinkable burden on all terminally ill individuals.
I invite my colleagues to join us in this effort and I hope the
Senate will proceed expeditiously with this important legislation that
will provide relief for tens of thousands of working Americans. Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2942
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security Act
Improvements for the Terminally Ill Act''.
SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF TITLE II WAITING PERIOD FOR TERMINALLY
ILL INDIVIDUALS.
Section 223(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
423(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``he meets the
requirements of paragraph (3), or'' after ``but only if'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1), an individual meets
the requirements of this paragraph if--
``(i) the impairment underlying a finding that the
individual is under a disability results in his death prior
to the end of the applicable period described in subparagraph
(B), or
``(ii)(I) in the case where such finding is made before the
end of the applicable period, the Commissioner determines
that, at the time such finding is made, such impairment is
expected to result in the individual's death prior to the end
of such period, or
``(II) in the case where such finding is made after the end
of the applicable period, the Commissioner determines that,
at any time during such period, such impairment was expected
to result in the individual's death prior to the end of such
period.
``(B) For the purposes of subparagraph (A), the `applicable
period' is the period of the first six consecutive calendar
months throughout which such individual is under a disability
by reason of such impairment which begins not earlier than
the first day of the period described in subsection
(c)(2)(B).''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall take effect with
respect to applications filed after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Leahy, and Mr. Enzi):
S. 2943. A bill to amend title 9, United States Code, to provide for
greater fairness in the arbitration process relating to livestock and
poultry contracts; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend from Iowa to
introduce legislation to give farmers options in identifying a forum to
resolve disputes with agribusinesses.
This legislation is based on our amendment to the Senate-passed Farm
Bill that was unfortunately stripped in the conference committee. Our
amendment passed by a vote of 64-31, yet it was ultimately taken out
due to objections by large agribusiness companies in the backroom
negotiations.
While our effort then was not successful, I am hopeful that we will
be able to pass this legislation and begin to give farmers a fair shot
in the marketplace.
I am deeply concerned that the concentration of power in the hands of
a few large agribusiness firms, companies that can raise a billion
dollars on Wall Street at the drop of a hat, is forcing farmers and
ranchers to be placed at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.
These large corporations are using their market power to force
independent producers into a position of weakness through unfair
contracts and other uses of market leverage.
In some cases, the domestic marketplace has become almost
noncompetitive for the family farmer. Farmers have fewer buyers and
suppliers than ever before. One indication of this dominance is one-
sided contracts that favor agribusinesses at the expense of farmers and
ranchers.
It is of paramount importance that we help restore competition in
rural America. One way to promote competition is to ensure that farmers
have a choice of forums to resolve disputes with agribusinesses.
While alternative methods of dispute resolution such as arbitration
can serve a useful purpose in resolving disputes between parties, I am
extremely concerned about the increasing trend of stronger parties to a
contract forcing weaker parties to waive their legal rights and agree
to arbitrate any future disputes that may arise.
It recently came to my attention that large agribusiness companies
often present producers with ``take it or leave it'' contracts, which
increasingly include mandatory and binding arbitration clauses. This
practice forces farmers to submit their disputes with packers and
processors to arbitration.
As a result, farmers are required to waive access to judicial or
administrative forums, substantive contract rights, and statutorily
provided protections. In short, this practice violates the farmers'
fundamental due process rights and runs directly counter to basic
principles of fairness.
Arbitration is billed as an inexpensive alternative to civil
lawsuits. The opposite, however, is often the case. Filing fees and
other expenses in arbitration result in much higher costs for the
parties than civil actions. Attorney fees, whether hourly or
contingency, are similar regardless of forum.
For example, in a recent Mississippi case, filing fees for a poultry
grower to begin an arbitration proceeding were $11,000. This is far
more than the $150 to $250 cost of filing in civil court. It makes no
sense for a farmer to seek payment for wrongdoing when he or she has
lost $10,000, when it costs
[[Page S8678]]
$11,000 just to get the case before an arbitrator.
The practical result of these mandatory arbitration clauses is that
farmers have no forum in which to bring their dispute against the
company. Arbitration clauses require farmers to waive their right to a
jury trial and bring a dispute only in a forum that my be cost-
prohibitive. Farmers, who likely have substantial debts due to low
prices and large mortgages on their farms, are often left without any
recourse even in a case where the agribusiness has plainly acted
illegally.
With the litigation option taken away by contract and the arbitration
forum taken away by economics, the grower has no forum in which to
bring his or her dispute against the company. The net result of these
mandatory arbitration clauses is that the farmer always loses.
If poultry farmers lose their farms as a result of a mis-weighed
animal, they should have the right to hold the company accountable.
When farmers are hurt because they have received bad feed, we must
ensure that they are able to choose the forum through which they can
resole their concerns.
If farmers believe they have been provided diseased animals from an
agribusiness, they should at least have a forum in which to voice their
concerns.
In short, we must give farmers a fair choice that both parties to an
agricultural contract may willingly and knowingly select. This
legislation therefore does not prohibit arbitration. It simply ensures
that the decision to arbitrate is truly voluntary and that the rights
and remedies provided for by our judicial system are not waived under
coercion.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this legislation and give farmers
options to resolve disputes in the agriculture marketplace.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered printed in the Record,
as follows:
S. 2943
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Contracts for Growers
Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. ELECTION OF ARBITRATION.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 17. Livestock and poultry contracts
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Livestock.--The term `livestock' has the meaning
given the term in section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards
Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)).
``(2) Livestock or poultry contract.--The term `livestock
or poultry contract' means any growout contract, marketing
agreement, or other arrangement under which a livestock or
poultry grower raises and cares for livestock or poultry.
``(3) Livestock or poultry grower.--The term `livestock or
poultry grower' means any person engaged in the business of
raising and caring for livestock or poultry in accordance
with a livestock or poultry contract, whether the livestock
or poultry is owned by the person or by another person.
``(4) Poultry.--The term `poultry' has the meaning given
the term in section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act,
1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)).
``(b) Consent to Arbitration.--If a livestock or poultry
contract provides for the use of arbitration to resolve a
controversy under the livestock or poultry contract,
arbitration may be used to settle the controversy only if,
after the controversy arises, both parties consent in writing
to use arbitration to settle the controversy.
``(c) Explanation of Basis for Awards.--If arbitration is
elected to settle a dispute under a livestock or poultry
contract, the arbitrator shall provide to the parties to the
contract a written explanation of the factual and legal basis
for the award.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``17. Livestock and poultry contracts.''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to a contract
entered into, amended, altered, modified, renewed, or
extended after the date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Allen, Ms.
Landrieu, and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 2945. To authorize appropriations for nanoscience,
nanoengineering, and nanotechnology research, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Act. This bill would authorize a coordinated interagency
program that will support long-term nanoscale research and development
leading to potential breakthroughs in areas such as materials and
manufacturing, nanoelectronics, medicine and healthcare, environment,
energy, chemicals, biotechnology, agriculture, information technology,
and national and homeland security. Building on the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, the bill would authorize appropriations for
research throughout the government while providing tools for better
cross-agency management and coordination
Nanotechnology is the science and technology of building electronic
circuits and devices from single atoms and molecules on a scale of one
one-billionth of a meter. It will one day change the way Americans
live.
I am convinced that this so-called ``small science'' is the next big
thing'' in technology. The world is on the cusp of a nanotechnology
revolution that will change our lives on a scale equal to, if not
greater than, the computer revolution. The United States could miss
that revolution if our nanotechnology work remains uncoordinated and
scattered across a half-dozen Federal agencies. That would be tragic on
several levels, from scientific to social to economic.
I am determined that the United States will not miss, but will mine
the opportunities of nanotechnology. To do this, I want America to
marshal its various nanotechnology efforts into one driving force to
remain the world's leader in this burgeoning field. And I believe
Federal support is essential to achieving that goal.
The legislation I am pleased to be introducing today with Senator
Lieberman will provide a smart, accelerated, and coordinated approach
to nanotechnology research, development, and education. In my view,
there are three major steps America must take to ensure the highest
success for its nanotechnology efforts.
First, a National Nanotechnology Research Program should be
established to coordinate long-term fundamental nanoscience and
engineering research. The program's goals will be to ensure America's
leadership and economic competitiveness in nanotechnology, and to make
sure ethical and social concerns are taken into account alongside the
development of this discipline.
Second, the Federal Government should support nanoscience through a
program of research grants, and also through the establishment of
nanotechnology research centers. These centers would serve as key
components of a national research infrastructure, bringing together
experts from the various disciplines that must intersect for nanoscale
projects to succeed. As these research efforts take shape, educational
opportunities will be the key to their long-term success. As chairman
of the Commerce Committee's Science, Technology, and Space
Subcommittee, I have already laid out a challenge to triple the number
of people graduating with math, science and technology degrees. Today,
I commit to helping students who would enter the field of
nanotechnology. This discipline requires multiple areas of expertise.
Students with the drive and the talent to tackle physics, chemistry,
and the material sciences simultaneously deserve all the support we can
offer.
Third, the government should create connections across its agencies
to aid in the coordination of nanotechnology efforts. These could
include a national coordination office, and a Presidential
Nanotechnology Advisory Committee, modeled on the President's
Information Technology Advisory Committee.
I also believe that at these organizational support structures are
put into place, rigorous evaluation must take place to ensure the
maximum efficiency of our efforts. The bill would call for an annual
review of America's nanotechnology efforts from the Presidential
Advisory Committee, and a periodic review from the National Academy of
Sciences. In addition to monitoring our own progress, the U.S. should
keep abreast of the world's nanotechnology efforts through a series of
benchmarking studies.
If the Federal Government fails to get behind nanotechnology now with
organized, goal-oriented support, this nation runs the risk of falling
behind others in the world who recognize the
[[Page S8679]]
potential of this discipline. Nanotechnology is already making pants
more stain-resistant, making windows self-washing and making car parts
stronger with tiny particles of clay. What America risks missing is the
next generation of nanotechnology. In the next wave, nanoparticles and
nanodevices will become the building blocks of our health care,
agriculture, manufacturing, environmental cleanup, and even national
security.
America risks missing a revolution in electronics, where a device the
size of a sugar cube could hold all of the information in the Library
of Congress. Today's silicon-based technologies can only shrink so
small. Eventually, nanotechnologies will grow devices from the
molecular level up. Small though they may be, their capabilities and
their impact will be enormous. Spacecraft could be the size of mere
molecules.
America risks missing a revolution in health care. In my home State,
Oregon State University researchers are working on the microscale to
create lapel-pin-sized biosensors that use the color-changing cells of
the Siamese fighting fish to provide instant visual warnings when a
biotoxin is present. An antimicrobial dressing for battlefield wounds
is already available today, containing silver nanocrystals that prevent
infection and reduce inflammation. The health care possibilities for
nanotechnology are limitless. Eventually, nanoscale particles will
travel through human bodies to detect and cure disease. Chemotherapy
could attack individual cancer cells and leave healthy cells intact.
Tiny bulldozers could unclog blocked arteries. Human disease will be
fought cell by cell, molecule by molecule, and nanotechnology will
provide victories over disease that we can't even conceive today.
America risks missing a host of beneficial breakthroughs. American
scientists could be the first to create nanomaterials for manufacturing
and design that are stronger, lighter, harder, self-repairing, and
safest. Nanoscale devices could scrub automobile pollution out of the
air as it is produced. Nanoparticles could cover armor to make American
soldiers almost invisible to enemies and even tend their wounds.
Nanotechnology could grow steel stronger than what's made today, with
little or no waste to pollute the environment.
Moreover--and this is key--America risks missing an economic
revolution based on nanotechnology. With much of nanotechnology
existing in a research milieu, venture capitalists are already
investing $1 billion in American nanotech interests this year alone.
It's estimated that nanotechnology will become a trillion-dollar
industry over the next ten years. As nanotechnology grows, the ranks of
skilled workers needed to discover and apply its capabilities must grow
too. In the nanotechnology revolution, areas of high unemployment could
become magnets for domestic production, engineering and research for
nanotechnology applications--but only if government doesn't miss the
boat.
The Federal Government is already making some efforts with regard to
nanotechnology. The U.S. does have a National Nanotechnology
Initiative. This nation has already committed substantial funds to
nanotechnology research and development in the coming years. But here's
my bottom line. It is essential to build on this foundation of funding
with a framework for sound science over the long term. That is the
reason for the legislation I am issuing today. On the framework it
provides, of national coordination and strategic planning, scientists
will be able to meet the grand challenges of nanotechnology. Over the
long term, with Federal support, they will be able to plumb the depths
of its capability, and scale the heights of its potential.
In 1944 the visionary President Franklin Delano Roosevelt requested a
leading American scientist's opinion on advancing the United States'
scientific efforts to benefit the world. Dr. Vannevar Bush offered his
reply to President Harry S Truman the next year, following FDR's death.
In his report to the President, Dr. Bush wrote, ``The Government should
accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific
knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth. These
responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government, for they
vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national security. It is
in keeping also with basic United States policy that the Government
should foster the opening of new frontiers and this is the modern way
to do it.''
Those principles, so true nearly sixty years ago, are truer still
today. With the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development
Act, I propose that the government now accept new responsibilities in
promoting and developing nanotechnology. I hope that the Senate can act
swiftly on this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2945
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``21st Century Nanotechnology
Research and Development Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The emerging fields of nanoscience and nanoengineering
(collectively, ``nanotechnology''), in which matter is
manipulated at the atomic level (i.e., atom-by- atom or
molecule-by-molecule) in order to build materials, machines,
and devices with novel properties or functions, are leading
to unprecedented scientific and technological opportunities
that will benefit society by changing the way many things are
designed and made.
(2) Long-term nanoscale research and development leading to
potential breakthroughs in areas such as materials and
manufacturing, electronics, medicine and healthcare,
environment, energy, chemicals, biotechnology, agriculture,
information technology, and national security could be as
significant as the combined influences of microelectronics,
biotechnology, and information technology on the 20th
century. Nanotechnology could lead to things such as--
(A) new generations of electronics where the entire
collection of the Library of Congress is stored on devices
the size of a sugar cube;
(B) manufacturing that requires less material, pollutes
less, and is embedded with sophisticated sensors that will
internally detect signs of weakness and automatically respond
by releasing chemicals that will prevent damage;
(C) prosthetic and medical implants whose surfaces are
molecularly designed to interact with the cells of the body;
(D) materials with an unprecedented combination of
strength, toughness, and lightness that will enable land,
sea, air, and space vehicles to become lighter and more fuel
efficient;
(E) selective membranes that can fish out specific toxic or
valuable particles from industrial waste or that can
inexpensively desalinate sea water; and
(F) tiny robotic spacecraft that will cost less, consume
very little power, adapt to unexpected environments, change
its capabilities as needed, and be completely autonomous.
(3) Long-term, high-risk research is necessary to create
breakthroughs in technology. Such research requires
government funding since the benefits are too distant or
uncertain for industry alone to support. Current Federal
investments in nanotechnology research and development are
not grounded in any specifically authorized statutory
foundation. As a result, there is a risk that future funding
for long-term, innovative research will be tentative and
subject to instability which could threaten to hinder future
Untied States technological and economic growth.
(4) The Federal government can play an important role in
the development of nanotechnology, as this science is still
in its infancy, and it will take many years of sustained
investment for this field to achieve maturity.
(5) Many foreign countries, companies and scientists
believe that nanotechnology will be the leading technology of
the 21st century and are investing heavily into its research.
According to a study of international nanotechnology research
efforts sponsored by the National Science and Technology
Council, the United States is at risk of falling behind its
international competitors, including Japan, South Korea, and
Europe if it fails to sustain broad based funding in
nanotechnology. The United States cannot afford to fall
behind our competitors if we want to maintain our economic
strength.
(6) Advances in nanotechnology stemming from Federal
investments in fundamental research and subsequent private
sector development likely will create technologies that
support the work and improve the efficiency of the Federal
government, and contribute significantly to the efforts of
the government's mission agencies.
(7) According to various estimates, including those of the
National Science Foundation, the market for nanotech products
and services in the United States alone could reach over $1
trillion later this century.
[[Page S8680]]
(8) Nanotechnology will evolve from modern advances in
chemical, physical, biological, engineering, medical, and
materials research, and will contribute to cross-disciplinary
training of the 21st century science and technology
workforce.
(9) Mastering nanotechnology will require a unique skill
set for scientists and engineers that combine chemistry,
physics, material science, and information science. Funding
in these critical areas has been flat for many years and as a
result fewer young people are electing to go into these areas
in graduate schools throughout the United States. This will
have to reverse if we hope to develop the next generation of
skilled workers with multi-disciplinary perspectives
necessary for the development of nanotechnology.
(10) Research on nanotechnology creates unprecedented
capabilities to alter ourselves and our environment and will
give rise to a host of novel social, ethical, philosophical,
and legal issues. To appropriately address these issues will
require wide reflection and guidance that are responsive to
the realities of the science, as well as additional research
to predict, understand, and alleviate anticipated problems.
(11) Nanotechnology will provide structures to enable the
revolutionary concept of quantum computing, which uses
quantum mechanical properties to do calculation. Quantum
computing permits a small number of atoms to potentially
store and process enormous amounts of information. Just 300
interacting atoms in a quantum computer could store as much
information as a classical electronic computer that uses all
the particles in the universe, and today's complex encryption
algorithms, which would take today's best super computer 20
billion years, could be cracked in 30 minutes.
(12) The Executive Branch has previously established a
National Nanotechnology Initiative to coordinate Federal
nanotechnology research and development programs. This
initiative has contributed significantly to the development
of nanotechnology. Authorizing legislation can serve to
establish new technology goals and research directions,
improve agency coordination and oversight mechanisms, help
ensure optimal returns to investment, and simplify reporting,
budgeting, and planning processes for the Executive Branch
and the Congress.
(13) The the private sector technology innovations that
grow from fundamental nanotechnology research are dependent
on a haphazard, expensive, and generally inefficient
technology transition path. Strategies for accelerating the
transition of fundamental knowledge and innovations in
commercial products or to support mission agencies should be
explored, developed, and when appropriate, executed.
(14) Existing data on the societal, ethical, educational,
legal, and workforce implications and issues related to
nanotechnology are lacking. To help decision-makers and
affected parties better anticipate issues likely to arise
with the onset and maturation of nanotechnology, research and
studies on these issues must be conducted and disseminated.
SEC. 3. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this Act to authorize a coordinated
inter-agency program that will support long-term nanoscale
research and development leading to potential breakthroughs
in areas such as materials and manufacturing,
nanoelectronics, medicine and healthcare, environment,
energy, chemicals, biotechnology, agriculture, information
technology, and national and homeland security.
SEC. 4. NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH PROGRAM.
(a) National Nanotechnology Research Program.--The
President shall establish a National Nanotechnology Research
Program. Through appropriate agencies, councils, and the
National Coordination Office, the program shall--
(1) establish the goals, priorities, grand challenges, and
metrics for evaluation for Federal nanotechnology research,
development, and other activities;
(2) invest in Federal research and development programs in
nanotechnology and related sciences to achieve those goals;
and
(3) provide for interagency coordination of Federal
nanotechnology research, development, and other activities
undertaken pursuant to the program.
(b) Goals of the National Nanotechnology Research
Program.--The goals of the program are as follows:
(1) The coordination of long-term fundamental nanoscience
and engineering research to build a fundamental understanding
of matter enabling control and manipulation at the nanoscale.
(2) The assurance of continued United States global
leadership in nanotechnology to meet national goals and to
support national economic, health, national security,
educational, and scientific interests.
(3) The advancement of United States productivity and
industrial competitiveness through stable, consistent, and
coordinated investments in long-term scientific and
engineering research in nanotechnology.
(4) The development of a network of shared academic
facilities and technology centers that will play a critical
role in accomplishing the other goals of the program, foster
partnerships, and develop and utilize next generation
scientific tools.
(5) The development of enabling infrastructural
technologies that United States industry can use to
commercialize new discoveries and innovations in nanoscience.
(6) The acceleration of the deployment and transition of
advanced and experimental nanotechnology and concepts into
the private sector.
(7) The establishment of a program designed to provide
effective education and training for the next generation of
researchers and professionals skilled in the multi
disciplinary perspectives necessary for nanotechnology.
(8) To ensure that philosophical, ethical, and other
societial concerns will be considered alongside the
development of nanotechnology.
(c) Research and Development Areas.--Through its
participating agencies, the Nanotechnology Research and
Development Program shall develop, fund, and manage Federal
research programs in the following areas:
(1) Long-term fundamental research.--The program shall
undertake long-term basic nanoscience and engineering
research that focuses on fundamental understanding and
synthesis of nanometer-size building blocks with potential
for breakthroughs in areas such as materials and
manufacturing, nanoelectronics, medicine and healthcare,
environment, energy, chemical and pharmaceuticals industries,
biotechnology and agriculture, computation and information
technology, and national security. Funds made available from
the appropriate agencies under this paragraph shall be used--
(A) to provide awards of less than $1,000,000 each to
single investigators and small groups to provide sustained
support to individual investigators and small groups
conducting fundamental, innovative research; and
(B) to fund fundamental research and the development of
university-industry-laboratory and interagency partnerships.
(2) Grand challenges.--The program shall support grand
challenges that are essential for the advancement of the
field and interdisciplinary research and education teams,
including multidisciplinary nanotechnology research centers,
that work on major long-term objectives. This funding area
will fund, through participatig agencies, interdisciplinary
research and education teams that aim to achieve major, long-
term objectives, such as the following:
(A) Nanomaterials by design which are stronger, lighter,
harder, self-repairing, and safer.
(B) Nanoelectronics, optoelectronics, and magnetics.
(C) Healthcare applications.
(D) Nanoscale processes and environment.
(E) Energy and energy conservation.
(F) Microspacecraft.
(G) Bio-nanodevices for detection and mitigation of
biothreats to humans.
(H) Economical, efficient, and safe transportation.
(I) National security.
(J) Other appropriate challenges.
(3) Interdisciplinary nanotechnology research centers.--The
appropriate agencies shall fund 10 new centers in the range
of $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 per year each for 5 years. A
grant under this paragraph to a center may be renewed for 1
5-year term on the basis of that center's performance,
determined after a review. The program, through its
participating agencies, shall encourage research networking
among centers and researchers and require access to
facilities to both academia and industry. The centers shall
assist in reaching other initiative priorities, including
fundamental research, grand challenges, education,
development and utilization of specific research tools, and
promoting partnerships with industry. To the greatest extent
possible, agencies participating in the program shall
establish geographically diverse centers including at least
one center in a State participating in the National Science
Foundation's (NSF) Experimental Program, to Stimulate
Competitive Research (EPSCoR), established under section 113
of the NSF Authorization Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 1862(g)).
(4) Research infrastructure.--The program, through its
participating agencies, shall ensure adequate research
infrastructure and equipment for rapid progress on program
goals, including the employment of underutilized
manufacturing facilities in areas of high unemployment as
production engineering and research testbeds for micron-scale
technologies. Major research equipment and instrumentation
shall be an eligible funding purpose under the program.
(5) Societal, ethical, educational, legal, and workforce
issues related to nanotechnology.--The Director of the
National Science Foundation shall establish a new Center for
Ethical, Societal, Educational, Legal, and Workforce Issues
Related to Nanotechnology at $5,000,000 per year to
encourage, conduct, coordinate, commission, collect, and
disseminate research on the societal, ethical, educational,
legal, and workforce issues related to nanotechnology. The
Center shall also conduct studies and provide input and
assistance to the Director of the National Science Foundation
in completing the annual report required under paragraph
7(b)(3) of this Act.
(6) Transition of technology.--The program, through its
participating agencies, shall ensure cooperation and
collaboration with United States industry in all relevant
research efforts and develop mechanisms to assure prompt
technology transition.
[[Page S8681]]
SEC. 5. PROGRAM COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT.
(a) In General.--The National Science and Technology
Council shall oversee the planning, management, and
coordination of the Federal nanotechnology research and
development program. The Council, itself or through an
appropriate subgroup it designates or establishes, shall--
(1) establish a set of broad applications of nanotechnology
research and development, or grand challenges, to be met by
the results and activities of the program, based on national
needs;
(2) submit to the Congress through the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the House of
Representatives Committee on Science, an annual report, along
with the President's annual budget request, describing the
implementation of the program under section 4;
(3) provide for interagency coordination of the program,
including with the Department of Defense;
(4) coordinate the budget requests of each of the agencies
involved in the program with the Office of Management and
Budget to ensure that a balanced research portfolio is
maintained in order to ensure the appropriate level of
research effort;
(5) provide guidance each year to the participating
departments and agencies concerning the preparation of
appropriations requests for activities related to the
program;
(6) consult with academic, industry, State and local
government, and other appropriate groups conducting research
on and using nanotechnology;
(7) establish an Information Services and Applications
Council to promote access to and early application of the
technologies, innovations, and expertise derived from
nanotechnology research and development program activities to
agency missions and systems across the Federal government,
and to United States industry;
(8) in cooperation with the Advisory Panel established
under subsection (b), develop and apply measurements using
appropriate metrics for evaluating program performance and
progress toward goals; and
(9) identify research areas which are not being adequately
addressed by the agencies' current research programs.
(b) President's Nanotechnology Advisory Panel.--
(1) Establishment.--The President shall establish a
National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel.
(2) Selection procedures.--The President shall establish
procedures for the selection of individuals not employed by
the Federal government who are qualified in the science of
nanotechnology and other appropriate fields and may, pursuant
to such procedures, select up to 20 individuals, one of whom
shall be designated Chairman, to serve on the Advisory Panel.
Selection of individuals for the Advisory Panel shall be
based solely on established records of distinguished
fundamental and applied scientific service, and the panel
shall contain a reasonable cross-section of views and
expertise, including those regarding the societal, ethical,
educational, legal, and workforce issues related to
nanotechnology. In selecting individuals to serve on the
Advisory Panel, the President shall seek and give due
consideration to recommendations from the Congress, industry,
the scientific community (including the National Academy of
Sciences), scientific professional societies, academia, the
defense community, the education community, State and local
governments, and other appropriate organizations.
(3) Meetings.--The Advisory Panel shall meet no less than
twice annually, at such times and places as may be designated
by the Chairman in consultation with the National
Nanotechnology Coordination Office established under
subsection 5(c) of this Act.
(4) Duties.--The Advisory Panel shall advise the President
and the National Science and Technology Council, and inform
the Congress, on matters relating to the National
Nanotechnology Program, including goals, roles, and
objectives within the program, its capabilities and research
needs, guidance on achieving major objectives, and
establishing and measuring performance goals using
appropriate metrics. The Advisory Panel shall issue an annual
report, containing the information required by subsection (d)
of this section, to the President, the Council, the heads of
each agency involved in the program, the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the House of
Representatives Committee on Science, on or before September
30 of each year.
(c) National Nanotechnology Coordination Office.--The
President shall establish a National Nanotechnology
Coordination Office, with full-time staff, to provide day-to-
day technical and administrative support to the Council and
the Advisory Panel, and to be the point of contact on Federal
nanotechnology activities for government organizations,
academia, industry, professional societies, and others to
exchange technical and programmatic information. The Office
shall assure full coordination of research efforts between
agencies, scientific disciplines, and United States industry.
(d) Program Plans and Reports.--
(1) Annual evaluation of nanotechnology research
development program.--The report by the Advisory Panel,
required pursuant to subsection (b)(4), shall include--
(A) a review of the program's technical success in
achieving the stated goals and grand challenges according to
the metrics established by the program and Advisory Panel;
(B) a review of the program's management and coordination;
(C) a review of the funding levels by each agency for the
program's activities and their ability to achieve the
program's stated goals and grand challenges;
(D) a review of the balance in the program's portfolio and
components across agencies and disciplines;
(E) an assessment of the degree of participation in the
program by minority serving institutions and institutions
located in States participating in NSF's EPSCoR program.
(F) a review of policy issues resulting from advancements
in nanotechnology and its effects on the scientific
enterprise, commerce, workforce, competitiveness, national
security, medicine, and government operations;
(G) recommendations for new program goals and grand
challenges;
(H) recommendations for new research areas, partnerships,
coordination and management mechanisms, or programs to be
established to achieve the program's stated goals and grand
challenges;
(I) recommendations for new investments by each
participating agency in each program funding area for the 5-
year period following the delivery of the report;
(J) reviews and recommendations regarding other issues
deemed pertinent or specified by the panel; and
(K) a technology transition study which includes an
evaluation of the Federal nanotechnology research and
development program's success in transitioning its research,
technologies, and concepts into commercial and military
products, including--
(i) examples of successful transition of research,
technologies, and concepts from the Federal nanotechnology
research and development program into commercial and military
products;
(ii) best practices of universities, government, and
industry in promoting efficient and rapid technology
transition in the nanotechnology sector;
(iii) barriers to efficient technology transition in the
nanotechnology sector, including, but not limited to,
standards, pace of technological change, qualification and
testing of research products, intellectual property issues,
and Federal funding; and
(iv) recommendations for government sponsored activities to
promote rapid technology transition in the nanotechnology
sector.
(2) Office of management and budget report.--
(A) Budget request report.--Each Federal agency and
department participating in the program shall, as part of its
annual request for appropriations, submit a report to the
Office of Management and Budget which--
(i) identifies each element of its nanotechnology research
and development activities that contributes directly to the
program or benefits from the program;
(ii) states the portion of its request for appropriations
that is allocated to each such element; and
(iii) states the portion of its request for appropriations
that is allocated to each program funding area.
(B) OMB review and allocation statement.--The Office of
Management and Budget shall review each report in light of
the goals, priorities, grand challenges, and agency and
departmental responsibilities set forth in the annual report
of the Council under paragraph (3), and shall include in the
President's annual budget estimate, a statement delineating
the amount and portion of each appropriate agency's or
department's annual budget estimate relating to its
activities undertaken pursuant to the program.
(3) Annual nstc report to congress on the nanotechnology
research development program.--The National Science and
Technology Council shall submit an annual report to the
Congress that--
(A) includes a detailed description of the goals, grand
challenges, and program funding areas established by the
President for the program;
(B) sets forth the relevant programs and activities, for
the fiscal year with respect to which the budget submission
applies, of each Federal agency and department, participating
in the program, as well as such other agencies and
departments as the President or the Director considers
appropriate;
(C) describes the levels of Federal funding for the fiscal
year during which such report is submitted, and the levels
proposed for the fiscal year with respect to which the budget
submission applies, for each of the program funding areas of
the program;
(D) describes the levels of Federal funding for each agency
and department participating in the program and each program
funding area for the fiscal year during which such report is
submitted, and the levels proposed for the fiscal year with
respect to which the budget submission applies, and compare
these levels to the most recent recommendations of the
Advisory Panel and the external review of the program;
(E) describes coordination and partnership activities with
State, local, international, and private sector efforts in
nanotechnology research and development, and how they support
the goals of the program;
(F) describes mechanisms and efforts used by the program to
assist in the transition of innovative concepts and
technologies from
[[Page S8682]]
Federally funded programs into the commercial sector, and
successes in these transition activities;
(G) describes coordination between the military and
civilian portions, as well as the life science and non-life
science portions, of the program in technology development,
supporting the goals of the program, and supporting the
mission needs of the departments and agencies involved;
(H) analyzes the progress made toward achieving the goals,
priorities, and grand challenges designated for the program
according the metrics established by the program and the
Advisory Panel; and
(I) recommends new mechanisms of coordination, program
funding areas, partnerships, or activities necessary to
achieve the goals, priorities and, grand challenges
established for the program.
(4) Triennial external review of nanotechnology research
and development program.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Science
Foundation shall enter into an arrangement with the National
Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to
conduct a triennial evaluation of the Federal nanotechnology
research and development program, including--
(i) a review of the technical success of the program in
achieving the stated goals and grand challenges under the
metrics established by the program and the nanotechnology
Advisory Panel, and under other appropriate measurements;
(ii) a review of the program's management and coordination
across agencies and disciplines;
(iii) a review of the funding levels by each agency for the
program's activities and their ability with such funding to
achieve the program's stated goals and grand challenges;
(iv) recommendations for new or revised program goals and
grand challenges;
(v) recommendations for new research areas, partnerships,
coordination and management mechanisms, or programs to be
established to achieve the program's stated goals and grand
challenges;
(vi) recommendations for investment levels in light of
goals by each participating agency in each program funding
area for the 5-year period following the delivery of the
report;
(vii) recommendations on policy, program, and budget
changes with respect to nanotechnology research and
development activities;
(viii) recommendations for improved metrics to evaluate the
success of the program in accomplishing its stated goals; and
(ix) a review the performance of the Information Services
and Applications Council and its efforts to promote access to
and early application of the technologies, innovations, and
expertise derived from program activities to agency missions
and systems across the Federal government and to United
States industry.
(B) Evaluation to be transmitted to Congress.--The Director
of the National Science Foundation shall transmit the results
of any evaluation for which it made arrangements under
subparagraph (A) to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Science upon receipt. The first such evaluation
shall be transmitted no later than 12 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, with subsequent evaluations
transmitted to the Committees every 3 years thereafter.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) National Science Foundation.--
(1) General authorization.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Director of the National Science
Foundation to carry out the Director's responsibilities under
this Act--
(A) $221,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
(B) $254,150,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(2) Specific allocations.--
(A) Interdisciplinary nanotechnology research centers.--Of
the amounts described in paragraph (1), $40,000,000 for
fiscal year 2003, $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, shall be
available for grants of up to $5,000,000 each for
multidisciplinary nanotechnology research centers.
(B) Center for societal, ethical, educational, legal, and
workforce issues related to nanotechnology.--Of the sums
authorized for the National Science Foundation each fiscal
year, $5,000,000 shall be used to establish a university-
based Center for Societal, Ethical, Educational, Legal, and
Workforce Issues Related to Nanotechnology.
(C) National nanotechnology coordination office.--Of the
sums authorized for the National Science Foundation each
fiscal year, $5,000,000 shall be used for the activities of
the Nanotechnology Coordination Office.
(D) Gap funding through the science and technology policy
institute.--Of the sums authorized for the National Science
Foundation each fiscal year, $5 million shall be for the
Science and Technology Policy Institute, in consultation with
the Office of Science and Technology Policy, for use in
competitive grants to address research areas identified by
the council under section 5(a)(9) of this Act. Such grants
may be made to government or non-government awardees.
(b) Department of Energy.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Energy to carry out the
Secretary's responsibilities under this Act--
(1) $139,300,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
(2) $160,195,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(c) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.--There
are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration to carry out
the Administrator's responsibilities under this Act--
(1) $22,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
(2) $25,300,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(d) National Institutes of Health.--There are authorized to
be appropriated to the Director of the National Institutes to
carry out the Director's responsibilities under this Act--
(1) $43,200,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
(2) $49,680,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(e) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--There
are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology to carry out
the Director's responsibilities under this Act--
(1) $44,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
(2) $50,600,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(f) Environmental Protection Agency.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to carry out the Administrator's
responsibilities under this Act--
(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
(2) $5,750,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(g) Department of Justice.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Director of the National Institute of
Justice to carry out the Director's responsibilities under
this Act--
(1) $1,400,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
(2) $1,610,000 for fiscal year 2004.
SEC. 7. ADDITIONAL REPORTS, STUDIES, AND PLANS.
(a) International Benchmarking Studies.--
(1) United States standing to be monitored.--In order to
maintain world leadership in nanotechnology, the program
established under section 4(a) shall monitor the United
States' standing in the key research fields that support
technological innovation.
(2) Biennial nstc study of relative united states
position.--Not later than 3 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President, through the Council,
shall enter into an arrangement with the National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a
biennial study of the relative position of United States
compared to other nations with respect to nanotechnology
research and development.
(3) Issues to be addressed.--The study required by
paragraph (2) shall address, among other issues--
(A) the current and likely future relative position of
United States private sector, academic, and government
research in nanotechnology relative to other nations;
(B) niche nanotechnology research areas where the United
States is trailing other nations;
(C) critical research areas where the United States should
be the world leader to best achieve the goals of the Federal
nanotechnology research and development program;
(D) key factors influencing relative United States
performance in this field; and
(E) institutional, funding, and human-resource factors that
are critical to maintaining leadership status in this field.
(4) Action plan.--Not less than 6 months after receipt of
each study, the Council shall develop a plan for addressing
the issues raised in the study. The plan shall include--
(A) investment strategies for addressing the issues raised
in the report;
(B) strategies for promoting international research
cooperation to leverage international niches of excellence
identified by the report; and
(C) institutional and human-resource changes to be made to
achieve or maintain leadership status in this field.
(5) Transmittal to congress.--The Council shall submit the
study required by paragraph (2) and the plan required by
paragraph (4) to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee
on Science, not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act and every 2 years thereafter.
(b) Societal, Ethical, Education, Legal, and Workforce
Issues Related to Nanotechnology.--
(1) Studies.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation shall encourage, conduct, coordinate, commission,
collect, and disseminate studies on the societal, ethical,
educational, and workforce implications of nanotechnology
through the Center for Societal, Ethical, Educational, and
Workforce Issues established under section 4(c)(5). The
studies shall identify anticipated issues and problems, as
well as provide recommendations for preventing or addressing
such issues and problems.
(2) Data collection.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation shall collect data on the size of the anticipated
nanotechnology workforce need by detailed occupation,
industry, and firm characteristics, and assess the adequacy
of the trained talent pool in the United States to fill such
workforce needs.
(3) Annual report.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation shall compile the studies required by paragraph
(2) and, with the assistance of the Center for Ethical,
Societal, Educational, Legal,and Workforce
[[Page S8683]]
Issues Related to Nanotechnology established by paragraph
4(c)(5) if this Act, shall complete a report that includes a
description of the Center's activities, which shall be
submitted to the President, the Council, the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the House of
Representatives Committee on Science not later than 18 months
after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Advisory panel.--The term ``Advisory Panel'' means the
President's National Nanotechnology Panel.
(2) Fundamental research.--The term ``fundamental
research'' means research that builds a fundamental
understanding and leads to discoveries of the phenomena,
processes, and tools necessary to control and manipulate
matter at the nanoscale.
(3) Grand challenge.--The term ``grand challenge'' means a
fundamental problem in science or engineering, with broad
economic and scientific impact, whose solution will require
the application of nanotechnology.
(4) Interdisciplinary Nanotechnology Research Center.--The
term ``interdisciplinary nanotechnology research center''
means a group of 6 or more researchers collaborating across
scientific and engineering disciplines on large-scale long-
term research projects that will significantly advance the
science supporting the development of nanotechnology or the
use of nanotechnology in addressing scientific issues of
national importance, consistent with the goals set forth in
section 4(b).
(5) Nanotechnology.--The term ``nanotechnology'' means the
ability to work at the molecular level, atom-by-atom, to
create large structures with fundamentally new molecular
organization.
(6) Program.--The term ``program'' means the national
nanotechnology research program established under section 4.
(7) Research infrastructure.--The term ``research
infrastructure'' means the measurement science,
instrumentation, modeling and simulation, and user facilities
needed to develop a flexible and enabling infrastructure so
that United States industry can rapidly commercialize new
discoveries in nanotechnology.
____
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, our Nation has long prided itself on
being the world's premier innovator of new ideas. Over the last two and
a half centuries, the uniquely American willingness to experiment with
novel concepts and to chart bold directions has placed us at the
forefront of scientific and technological progress. Our ability to
engage in scientific exploration and to marry research findings with
the development of practical applications has, in turn, enabled us to
set the benchmark on virtually every indicator of human progress, from
longer lifespans, to higher standards of living, to unparalleled
economic productivity.
However, while past accomplishments may confer a present competitive
advantage, it does not guarantee future success. We cannot afford to
rest on our laurels in a world that is becoming increasingly
characterized by the speed with which scientific paradigms shift and
technological revolutions occur. In a global economy in which ideas and
technology are the new currency, every new breakthrough represents an
opportunity to claim, or, in our case, lose, global leadership.
The emerging field of nanotechnology constitutes such an opportunity.
It is not just any opportunity, however, but one whose magnitude and
significance locates it on the scale of harnessing electricity,
creating antibiotics, building computers, or wiring up the Internet. It
is, in short, a new frontier in science and technology that has the
potential to transform every aspect of our lives. Nanotechnology, in
fact, may have even greater potential to affect the way we live since
it has such broad prospective applications in so many different areas,
from medicine, to electronics, to energy. Nanotechnology is what
scientists and technologists often call an ``enabling'' technology, a
tool that opens the door to new possibilities constrained only by
physics and the limits of our imaginations.
Yet, despite the enormous potential that nanotechnology offers, it is
not an area in which we have assumed uncontested leadership. From an
international prospective, the United States faces the danger of
falling behind its Asian and European counterparts in supporting the
pace of nanotechnological innovation. Other nations have grasped the
fact that the first players to fully capitalize on the promise of
nanotechnology have the potential to leap frog in productivity and
precipitate a reshuffling in the economic, and perhaps aspects of the
military, pecking order. Accordingly, they have undertaken substantial
efforts to invest in nanotechnology research, and to accelerate
technology transfer and commercialization. While our Nation certainly
possesses the raw resources and talent to lead the world in developing
this technology, it is also clear that a long-term focus and sustained
commitment, as well as new collaborations between government, academia,
and industry, will be needed to ensure our place at the head of the
nanotechnological universe.
This is why I am so proud today to join my colleague, Senator Ron
Wyden of Oregon, in introducing the 21st Century Nanotechnology
Research and Development Act. This Act will build on the efforts of the
National Nanotechnology Initiative, NNI, which was started under
President Clinton and has received continued support under President
Bush, to establish a comprehensive, intelligently coordinated program
for addressing the full spectrum of challenges confronting a successful
national science and technology effort, including those related to
funding, coordination, infrastructure development, technology
transition, and social issues.
I feel it is appropriate at this point to give credit to President
Clinton for having the prescience and initiative of creating the NNI,
and to applaud President Bush for expanding support for nanotechnology
R&D from $270 million in FY 2000 to the $710 million targeted in his
budget request for FY 2003. The NNI has been a key driver of
nanotechnology in this country by bringing coherence and organization
to what had previously been a scattered set of research programs within
the federal government. It has, in no small part through the efforts of
its spokespersons. Dr. Mike Roco and Dr. Jim Murday, achieved a higher
profile for nanotechnology both within and outside the government, and
gathered national attention to the importance of this field.
The time is now ripe to elevate the U.S. nanotechnology efforts
beyond the level of an Executive initiative. Funding for nanotechnology
will soon reach $1 billion a year, and the NNI currently attempts to
coordinate programs across a wide range of Federal agencies and
departments. This level of funding and the coordination challenges that
arise with so many diverse participants strongly recommend having a
program based in statute, provided with greater support and
coordination mechanisms, afforded a higher profile, and subjected to
constructive Congressional oversight and support.
Our bill closely tracks the recommendations of the National Research
Council, NRC, which completed a thorough review of the NNI this past
June. The NRC report stated how impressed the reviewers were with the
leadership and multi-agency involvement of the NNI. Specifically, it
commended the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology, NSET,
subcommittee, which is the primary coordinating mechanisms of the NNI,
as playing a key role in establishing research priorities, identifying
Grand Challenges, and involving the U.S. scientific community in the
NNI. To improve the NNI above its current level of success, the NRC
made a number of recommendations. These recommendations have largely
been incorporated into our bill, including establishing an independent
advisory panel; emphasizing long-term goals; striking a balance between
long-term and short-term research; supporting the development of
research facilities, equipment, and instrumentation; creating special
funding to support research that falls in the breach between agency
missions and programs; promoting interdisciplinary research and
research groups; facilitating technology transition and outreach to
industry; conducting studies on the societal implications of
nanotechnology, including those related to ethical, educational, legal,
and workforce issues; and the development of metrics for measuring
progress toward program goals. This legislation will also complement
the provision that I authored in this year's Senate defense
authorization bill, S. 2514, establishing a nanotechnology research and
development program in the Department of Defense. If this provision is
supported in conference, we will have matching pieces of legislation
that will encompass and coordinate both civilian and defense
nanotechnology programs, establishing a truly nationwide effort
[[Page S8684]]
that leverages the expertise residing in every corner of our
government.
If history teaches us anything, it is that once the wheels of
innovation have stopped and stagnation has set in, mediocrity will soon
follow. Nowhere in the world are those wheels of innovation spinning
more rapidly than in the area of nanotechnology. This legislation
provides a strong foundation and comprehensive framework that elicits
contributions from all three sectors of our society in pushing
nanotechnology research and development to the next level. I look
forward to supporting Senator Wyden in getting this important bill
through the Congress, and encourage my colleagues to join us in setting
the stage for U.S. economic growth over the next century.
____________________