[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 147 (Thursday, November 14, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11155-S11159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2002
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the HELP Committee be discharged
from further consideration of H.R. 4664 and the Senate proceed to its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4664) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 2003, 2004, and 2005 for the National Science
Foundation, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I am pleased the Senate will consider
and pass today, the National Science Foundation Doubling Act. This bill
is the product of extensive bipaprtisan, bicameral negotiations among
the House of Representatives Committee on Science, the Senate Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation. It is based on S. 2817, which I
introduced with Senator Hollings, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Bond. I
commend them, together with Senator Gregg, Senator McCain, House
Science Committee Chairman Boehlert, Congressman Nick Smith, and
Congressman Ralph Hall for their leadership in crafting this important
legislation.
NSF performs two key functions for the federal governmnet and the
broader research community. It supports basic research and development
in math, science, engineering, and technology, and it promotes math and
science learning at every level, from K-12 through post-graduate
education.
Few people realize how influential NSF has been to their daily lives.
NSF has funded basic research leading to the creation of doppler
weather radar, retail bar codes, speech recognition software, magnetic
resonance imaging machines, and even World Wide Web browsers, such as
Netscape and Microsoft's Internet Explorer. NSF education initiatives
of the late 1980s were the forerunners of the standards-based school
reform movement embraced throughout the Nation today and most recently
in the new No Child Left Behind Act governing nearly all federal
elementary and secondary education programs.
We can and should build on NSF's record in improving the lives of
millions of Americans. The 20th Century was the era of the industrial
age, and the 21st Century will be the era of information technology and
the life sciences.
The bill before us doubles NSF's budget authority over the next five
years. It matches the growth of the National Institutes of Health over
the last five years. We double budget authority for research and
development in the physical sciences and theoretical mathematics,
because they support advances in the health sciences and because they
are valuable in their own right.
I am particularly proud that the legislation before us authorizes a
new secondary school systemic initiative at NSF that will develop model
school reforms to improve high school student math and science
performance and better prepare all students for college-level and
technical work. For too long, federal policy has paid scant attention
to the needs of secondary school students. Senator Jeffords and I have
been working extensively in this area. I commend him for his leadership
and look forward to continued work with him on the needs of secondary
students.
The bill before us supports model math and science partnerships
between institutions of higher education and local school districts to
improve the knowledge and teaching techniques of current and future
math and science teachers. The math and science partnership provisions
are based on proposals offered by the Administration, Senator Frist,
Senator Roberts, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Bingaman. They track
a strong body of educational research that emphasizes the importance of
training math and science teachers to improve student performance in
those important subject areas.
This legislation supports institutions of higher education in
increasing the number of students, particularly women and minorities,
who study toward and obtain degrees in science, math, engineering, and
technology. Senator Lieberman, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Bond are
leaders on this issue, and I commend them as well. We have an economic
need and a national security imperative to increase the number and
quality of students studying science, math, engineering, and technology
at the post-secondary level.
Finally, the bill before us reforms NSF's program on major research
and facilities equipment, to help prioritize projects and guard against
cost overruns and approval of proposals that have not received adequate
analysis. This is an area of concern for Senator Clinton, Senator Bond,
and Senator Mikulski, and I commend them for this initiative. Quality
and merit should be the touchstones of our Nation's investment in the
sciences.
The National Science Foundation Doubling Act is a thoughtful piece of
bipartisan legislation that prepares us for the future. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, today, the Senate will pass
legislation that authorizes the doubling of the National Science
Foundation budget by fiscal year 2007. As you all know, NSF is the
nation's premier federal science agency that invests in basic research
across all disciplines. We rely on NSF research to open new frontiers
of science, and I am proud that we can pass this important legislation
today.
We have approached this legislation in concert with our friends on
the Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions Committee, Senators Kennedy
and Gregg. Once again, it has been a pleasure to work with Chairman
Boehlert and ranking member Ralph Hall of the House Science Committee.
Obviously, we could not have produced this product without Senator
McCain, Senator Rockefeller, and the other members of the Commerce
Committee. We were also pleased to work with our friends, Senators Bond
and Mikulski, who have been leaders on the NSF.
This doubling bill is vital. The Hart-Rudman Commission on National
Security, and former speaker Newt Gingrich, warned that our failure to
invest in science and to reform math and science education was the
second biggest threat to our national security. NSF is well positioned
to address this threat. After all, NSF invests in math and science
education from kindergarten all the way through to the post-doctoral
level and beyond. This bill allows the Foundation to increase that
investment, while reaffirming our commitment to women, minorities, and
people with disabilities. These underrepresented groups, together, make
up more than half of our nation's work force and are only increasing.
Letting these groups fall by the wayside would not only threaten our
economic competiveness, but also our national security.
It is often said that more than one-half of our nation's economic
growth since World War I has stemmed from technology driven by science.
Let me give just one example of how NSF's investments can spur our
economy. NSF is the leading agency in the National Nanotechnology
Initiative. Nanotechnology--which is the science of manipulating matter
at the atomic and molecular level--will cut across every scientific
discipline, including materials and manufacturing, healthcare and
medicine, energy and the environment, agriculture, biotechnology,
information technology, and national security. Worldwide, the market
for nanotechnology is expected
[[Page S11156]]
to be $1 trillion annually within 10 to 15 years. NSF's cross-
disciplinary approach, which includes groundbreaking research into the
way society and this new technology will interact, will help this
nation take advantage of Nanotechnology sooner, better, and with
greater confidence.
Finally, I want to note that NSF is responsible for the overall
health and well-being of the research enterprise in this country.
Congress is now completing its 5-year commitment to double funding for
the National Institutes of Health. We made that investment because we
want to cure and prevent disease. But increasingly, it's not just the
biomedical research that NIH supports that brings us breakthroughs.
Recent advances in biomedical science have relied on advances in fields
such as computer science, physics, and chemistry. For example, the
sequencing of the human genome was enabled by powerful computers
networked in innovative ways. The commitment that we are making today
to science at NSF will build our base knowledge in non-medical fields
to complement the research done at NIH.
NSF research is not just for large universities. The Foundation's
continued support for the EPSCoR program supports the development of
the science and technology resources of individual states like South
Carolina, through partnerships that involve the state's universities,
industry, government, and the Federal research and development
enterprise. These partnerships put researchers in these states in a
better position to compete and win NSF grants.
Mr. President, I think these arguments are solid, simple, and
straightforward. We can talk about NSF's past outstanding contributions
to science. We can talk about the future and the importance of science
and technology to our economy. But, Mr. President, where the rubber
meets the road, we have to stop talking and invest, with real money, in
the science and engineering enterprise that will guaranty the health,
economic viability, and security of our future. I, for one, appreciate
the hard work that NSF has done over the past 52 years promoting the
progress of science, and I thank my Senate colleagues for supporting me
in providing this agency the resources needed to conquer tomorrow.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I am proud with my Senate colleagues,
particularly Senators Kennedy, Gregg, and Hollings, in expressing
support for this historic legislation, which will help ensure that our
country continues to be a leader in scientific and technological
innovation. I also want to extend my appreciation to Chairman Boehlert
of the House Science Committee for his leadership in moving this
strongly bipartisan legislation.
The reality is that technological and scientific innovation is now
widely understood to be the major driver of economic growth, not to
mention a critical factor in our military superiority. Education is
essential to ensuring that the American workforce possesses the skills
necessary to meet these innovation needs. The provisions included in
this legislation will help give universities and colleges in
Connecticut and nationwide the tools they need to boost our domestic
pool of brainpower--the next generation of people who will incubate and
implement the next generation of ideas to expand our economy.
I am extremely pleased that the bill passed today includes all of the
key elements of the Technology Talent Act of 2001 S. 1549, legislation
that I and my colleagues, most notably Senators Mikulski, Bond, Frist
and Domenici, first proposed a year ago today. The Technology Talent
Act of 2001, ``Tech Talent Act'', sought to stimulate economic growth
by boosting the number of math, science, technology and engineering
graduates from U.S. institutions of higher learning. House Science
Committee Chairman Boehlert introduced similar legislation in the House
, H.R. 3130, on October 16, 2001.
In keeping with the Tech Talent Act, the National Science Foundation
Act of 2002 ``NSF Authorization Act approved today establishes a
framework for a multi-year competitive grant program that would award
performance-based grants to institutions of higher learning to increase
the number of math, science, technology and engineering graduates. The
legislation will formally authorize an existing program at NSF that was
inspired by and modeled after Tech Talent Act--the Science,
Mathematics, Engineering,and Technology talent Expansion Program, STEP.
STEP, has already received Federal appropriations for fiscal year 2002
and elicited more than 170 applications from interested colleges and
universities, of which 16 were awarded grants. I am pleased that
Naugatuck Valley Community College in my home state was selected to be
one of the first grantees under the program and have every confidence
that it will lead the Nation in developing creative and effective ways
to build a 21st century workforce.
The provisions in the NSP Authorization Act before us today achieves
the same goals as were proposed in my Tech Talent Act. The following
analysis describes the growing talent gap that threatens America's
leadership in science and technology and clarifies the goals, concepts,
and themes underpinning both my original legislation and the STEP, or
Tech Talent, provisions of the NSF Authorization Act.
America's technological prowess is unequaled in the world today--
which is why, despite our economic slowdown and the financial burdens
of prosecuting the war against terror and ensuring our collective
defense, we still have the strongest, most vibrant economy on the
planet. However, our long-term competitive standing and economic
security could well be at risk if we do not address a troubling trend
line in our workforce, the mismatch between the demand and supply of
workers with science and engineering training.
Studies show that the number of jobs requiring significant technical
skills is projected to grow by more than 50 percent in the United
States over the next ten years. But outside of the life sciences, the
number of degrees awarded in science and engineering has been flat or
declining. This has helped fuel a well-chronicled shortage of qualified
New Economy workers.
We have tried to temporarily plug this human capital hole with a
stopgap of foreign workers. Unfortunately, there is a broad consensus
among high-tech leaders and policymakers that it would be a serious
mistake to prolong this dependence and essentially render our GDP
contingent on the supply of H-1 B visa holders.
That may sound like a bit of an overstatement to some. But the
reality is that technological innovation has been a key enabler of our
economic and military dominance over the last half century. It is
widely acknowledged, moreover, that we cannot continue to expand our
economy in the future if we don't take steps now to expand our domestic
pool of human intellectual capital.
Now, most answers to serious economic challenges flow from the
private sector, which is where growth must occur. But there are things
that the Federal Government can do to help, particularly when it comes
to educating and training our workforce. We can provide leadership,
focus, and not least of all resources, and that was the purpose of the
Tech Talent Act as introduced, and STEP as is included in this NSF
legislation.
Specifically, the Tech Talent program aims to fix a critical link in
this ``tech talent'' gap--undergraduate education in science, math,
engineering, and technology. As established in our bill, it would
provide competitive grants to institutions of higher learning, from
universities to community colleges, to encourage them to find creative
methods for increasing the number of graduates in these disciplines.
This is not another scholarship program, but a targeted, results-
driven initiative that goes straight to the gatekeepers. We're not
asking them to change their admissions policies, but, in effect, to
design new missions. Come up with effective ideas, and we will provide
the dollars to make them work.
For example, institutions could propose to add or strengthen the
interdisciplinary components of undergraduate science education. Or
they could establish targeted support programs for women and
minorities, who are 54 percent of our total workforce, but only 22
percent of scientists and engineers, to increase enrollment and
graduation numbers in these fields. Or they could partner with local
technology companies to provide summer industry internships for ongoing
research experience.
[[Page S11157]]
This initiative was conceived with strong bipartisan, bicameral
support. The Tech Talent Act, as noted, was introduced last year by
Senators Mikulski, Bond, Frist, Domenici, and myself; the House
companion bill, H.R. 3130, was introduced by House Science Committee
Chairman Boehlert and Representative Larson. By the end of the year,
Congress had agreed to appropriate $5 million for this fiscal year to
jumpstart the program in the form of NSF's STEP, even though our
authorizing legislation had not yet been passed. Most recently, the
Senate VA-HUD Committee Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003
included $20 million for the program.
The program also has extremely broad support outside the Congress.
The Administration has supported Tech Talent as a priority, including
funding for it in its budget request for FY 2003. In addition, the
response from leaders in industry, academia, and educational
communities, also has been tremendous, we have received letters of
support from TechNet, Semiconductor Industry Association, National
Alliance of Business, K-12 Science, Mathematics, Engineering &
Technology Coalition, American Association of State Colleges and
Universities, Texas Instruments, and the American Society for
Engineering Education, to name but a few.
Even more encouraging are the preliminary data obtained from NSF's
STEP. NSF received 177 applications requesting a total of $59.7 million
in aid, clear evidence of the vast interest in, and need for, the Tech
Talent program among undergraduate institutions seeking to implement
reforms in science and math education. In its first year, the program
has awarded 16 grants to colleges and universities.
The NSF Authorization Act passed today will do much to enhance the
efforts already underway at NSF in this area and to permanently
establish ``Tech Talent'' as a national priority. I want to make clear
the intent of a few provisions in this legislation as their
implementation will be critical to the success of the program.
The intent of H.R. 4664, expressed in section (8)(a)(7)(A), is to
prioritize funding for programs in fields of science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology that have witnessed a period of stagnant of
declining enrollment and degree conferrals, especially where such
declines have resulted, or are likely to result, in adverse social,
economic, technological, or military costs. It deserves clarification
that a declining trend can be indicated not only through an absolute
decrease in the number of students enrolling or graduating in a
particular field, but through a relative decrease in the proportion
that students of a particular field constitute relative to the total
number of students enrolled or graduating across all fields.
For example, statistics from the National Science Foundation, NSF,
demonstrate that between 1985 and 2000, the number of bachelor's
degrees awarded declined from 77,572 to 59,536 in engineering, and from
16,270 to 14,580 in the physical sciences. Furthermore, the NSF
predicts that the number of jobs requiring skills and backgrounds in
information technology will vastly outstrip the number of people
capable of filling such positions over the next decade. The negative
consequences of such trends with respect to economic growth,
technological innovation, and gainful employment have been widely
documented and should represent near to medium-term priorities for Tech
talent funding.
In emphasizing the need to remediate stagnant or declining trends, we
recognize and appreciate previous criticisms regarding the difficulty
of accurately modeling future employment scenarios and of forecasting
areas of societal need. Nevertheless, we believe that investments must
bear a relationship to desired outcomes if limited funds are to be
allocated intelligently. The NSF is therefore expected to undertake
efforts to the best extent it can to identify and account for broader
social considerations, including generally anticipated industry
requirements or imbalances between the number of students graduating
across different fields, in determining fields appropriate for
prioritization. To this end, the NSF may require applicants to specify
the specific societal needs being addressed by their proposals and to
articulate how such proposals would further the remediation of targeted
needs.
The fundamental goal of the Technology Talent Act as introduced was
to increase the number of graduates with expertise in math, science,
technology and engineering to meet the critical needs of our U.S.
businesses, industries, research community and military. As such, the
intention of sections (8)(a)(7)(B) and (8)(a)(7)(D)(i) of H.R. 4664 is
to require applicants to clearly establish measurable targets to both
increase the number of students studying toward degrees in science,
mathematics, technology and engineering, and to increase the number of
students who have completed degrees, concentrations, or certificates in
these fields. Therefore, it is intended that applicants that fail to
establish goals for both enrollment and completion shall be considered
inadequate.
Likewise under section (8)(a)(7)(D)(ii), it is intended that the
Director shall terminate funding in the case of a grantee that has
failed to make substantial progress toward meeting the targets
established in section (8)(a)(7)(D)(i) for increasing the number of
students completing degrees, concentrations or certificates in science,
mathematics, technology and engineering. However, I would encourage the
Director to work with grantees and provide technical assistance to help
ensure that grantees make substantial progress during the first three
years of the grant toward meeting the targets established in
(8)(a)(7)(D)(i) and to achieve such targets by the end of the grant
period. I further believe that it is inherent in this legislation that
grantees that successfully meet their targets established in
(8)(a)(7)(D)(i) shall be eligible to compete for subsequent grants.
I believe that this NSF bill provides a real boost to efforts that
are being undertaken in parts of the country to address our technical
workforce challenge. As such, it is the intention that innovative
consortias between institutions of higher education and non-profits,
industry or state or local governments are eligible to compete for
grants under the STEP program per section (8)(a)(7)(F). In particular,
I believe that legislation under (8)(a)(7)(F)(iii) allows for non-
profits established on behalf of such high-quality and proven
consortias to apply directly for grants.
For example, the State of Texas passed legislation last year that
created a consortium--the Texas Engineering and Technical Consortium,
TETC, among private industry and 32 colleges and universities to
increase the number of students graduating from Texas schools with
degrees in electrical engineering and computer science. Grants are
awarded to universities and colleges to support curriculum changes,
bridge programs, and various forms of student and faculty support to
help increase the retention rate of students pursuing degrees in these
areas and to attract and retain more underrepresented groups. This
collaborative effort has received funding from Advance Micro Devices,
Texas Instruments, Hewlett Packard, Motorola, Intel, Applied Materials
and Sabre, with in-kind support from AeA and TechNet. The state matches
private and other contributions up to $5 million per year.
In April, grants worth $5.3 million were awarded to fund 33 projects
as 23 institutions. The appeal of this program is that industry,
academia and the state are working cooperatively and collaboratively to
address a pressing workforce need, rather than on a school-by-school or
company-by-company basis. While it is still too early to determine the
success of these projects, which were funded at 64 percent of the
potential grant amount, the institutions are projecting a 13 percent
increase in total student numbers in these programs for fall 2003. If
fully funded, that increase could go as high as 23 percent. This is
just the type of innovation that the Tech Talent is meant to encourage.
Finally, the real success the version of the ``Tech Talent'' program
encompassed in this legislation will be based on the successful
replication and expansion of model programs supported through this
grant program at all of our higher education institutions. Therefore, I
believe it is critical that the Director follow the intent of the
original language as introduced in S.
[[Page S11158]]
1549, section (5)(a), and H.R. 3130, section (4)(d), and select an
independent evaluative organization to develop metrics for measuring
the impact of the program, particularly on the number of students
enrolled, academic performance of students, persistence to degree
completion, and placement in post-graduate education or career
pathways, and to identify the program approaches assisted under this
program that are the most effective in increasing the number of
students obtaining degrees in science, mathematics, technology and
engineering.
In addition, both S. 1549 and H.R. 3130 intend for the Director to
regularly disseminate information on the activities conducted by
grantees and the results of programs assisted under this grant program,
including best practices, to participating institutions of higher
education and other interested institutions of higher education.
Similarly, I believe it is imperative to share the findings of programs
assisted under STEP grants with Congress through interim and final
reports so that we may make better policy decisions to enhance our
nation's standing as a scientific and technological leader.
We all realize that solving the undergraduate problem is not going to
single handedly close our talent gap. At the same time, we should also
realize that the talent gap cannot be closed without first solving the
problem at the undergraduate level. Therefore, I am pleased by the
Senate's unanimous support today for the NSF Authorization Act of 2002,
and the STEP, or Tech Talent, provisions encompassed therein. In doing
so, we will be helping to ensure that the young minds of today will be
capable of mastering and fueling the high-tech economies of tomorrow.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise today to join with Senator
Kennedy, Senator Hollings, Senator Gregg, Senator McCain, and Senator
Bond to urge passage of the National Science Foundation Doubling Act.
On July 12, 2002, Senator Kit Bond and I joined together and called
on our Senate colleagues to join us in an effort to double the budget
of the National Science Foundation over five years. We said at that
time, that just as we worked collectively to double the NIH budget, now
was the time for a parallel effort on behalf of the fundamental
research supported by the NSF.
NSF's impact over the past half century has been monumental--
especially in the field of medical technologies and research. The
investments have also spawned not only new products, but entire new
industries, such as biotechnology, the internet, and e-commerce.
Medical technologies such as biotechnology, the internet, and e-
commerce. Medical technologies such as magnetic resonance imaging,
ultrasound, digital mammography and genomic mapping could not have
occurred, and cannot now improve to the next level of proficiency,
without underlying knowledge from NSF-supported work in biology,
physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, and computer sciences.
Today, with this bill, we take an important step to ensure the well-
being of this Nation and its citizens with passage of this bill to
double the funding for the basic research and science education
activities of the National Science Foundation over the next five years.
Some might ask, ``Why should we do this now?'' Let me try and answer
that question.
We have seen some dramatic increases in research and development
investments during the past decade, largely from industry. These
investments have contributed to this country's standing as a global
economic powerhouse.
However, according to the National Science Board--in its latest
report on science indicators--developments abroad could affect U.S.
preeminence in the years to come. The Board says that the United States
finances 44 percent of the total worldwide investment in R&D--equal to
the combined total of Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, France,
Germany and Italy.
But other nations are increasing their R&D investments and focusing
on areas such as physical sciences and engineering, which receive
comparably less funding in the United States. Those changes could lead
to the creation of new centers for research excellence abroad, which
will encourage many of those who have come here from other countries
and have become a part of our science enterprise to return home.
The fact is that this country's future competitiveness rests on our
ability to develop a U.S. work force that has the skills necessary to
meet the increased competition coming from abroad.
In this country, R&D investments by U.S. industry have contributed to
a steady stream of innovations and economic growth. We are seeing new
partnerships develop that connect firms and universities, nonprofit
organizations and government.
Meanwhile, the balance of R&D investments continues to shift. As
industry R&D grew to nearly 75 percent of the national total by 2000,
Federal expenditures remained essentially flat over the past decade.
At the same time federal research expenditures in life sciences have
grown, from 41 to 47 percent of the federal total between 1990 and
2000. However, the combined share of physical sciences and engineering
in federal research total dropped from 37 to 29 percent in the same
period.
Changes in the U.S. economy have spilled into the workforce.
Information- and technology-based changes in the economy have created
new opportunities for highly trained workers.
Science and engineering occupational fields are growing faster than
the overall growth of the American work force. the Bureau of Labor
Statistics predicts that during this decade, hi-tech occupations will
grow by 47 percent, compared to 15 percent for the labor force as a
whole.
Despite many state and national reforms initiated during the last
decade, the quality of mathematics and science education at the
precollege level is not where it should be. America's high school
students continue to lag behind in international achievement measures
in science and mathematics. U.S. high school students taking physics
lag behind students in Norway, Sweden, the Russian Federation, Denmark,
Germany, Australia and seven other countries.
A persistent issue in science and mathematics education remains the
size and adequacy of the teaching force. According to the National
Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century,
the nation's schools will need to hire 2.2 million teachers, including
240,000 middle and high school mathematics and science teachers, in the
next decade.
The need for teachers is most pronounced in urban and rural areas and
within specific disciplines and grade levels of mathematics and
science. A survey of urban school districts, by the Council of the
Great City Schools and Recruiting New Teachers, Inc., in 1998-99,
indicated that up to 95 percent of our urban school districts had an
immediate demand for high school science and mathematics teachers.
A high percentage of science and mathematics teachers lack even a
minor in their teaching field, with 56 percent of public secondary
students receiving instruction in the physical sciences from teachers
without a major or minor in the physical sciences. And as many as 50
percent of new teachers in urban school districts leave the teaching
profession within their first three years, further exacerbating
shortages.
Solving the problem of producing more high-quality, homegrown
scientists and engineers--and a well educated workforce--depends upon
solving the math and science education problems we have at the
elementary and secondary levels of our school system.
The bill before us today authorizes substantial growth in all areas
of basic research--including the physical, engineering, biological, and
computer sciences--fields vital for progress in just about every other
area of science including biomedical research. The bill also puts a
high priority on cutting edge programs such as information technology,
nanotechnology and plant genome research.
Under this bill, the NSF budget would grow from today's level of $5
billion to nearly $10 billion by fiscal year 2007 which should allow
for substantial growth in both the size of the average award as well
increase the number of awards NSF is able to make. Increasing the size
of the grants will benefit those currently conducting research.
Increasing the number of awards should help
[[Page S11159]]
those individuals who are just starting their careers in science as
well as attract more women and minorities into our science and
technology enterprise.
In the area of math and science education, the bill firmly
establishes the President's Math and Science Partnership program at the
National Science Foundation. This is a new effort designed to create
strong connections between state and local school districts with our
institutions of higher education.
This bill also includes a provision for a new undergraduate ``tech
talent'' program. The ``tech talent'' program is designed to provide
financial support to undergraduate students to pursue bachelor degrees
in science and engineering--all in an effort to help meet today's and
tomorrow's workforce needs.
The funding in this bill will also help increase the graduate student
stipends in both the NSF fellowship programs as well as in the support
graduate students receive as research assistants on the NSF research
grants. Under this bill, NSF's entire education and human resources
program would grow from $875 million in fiscal year 2002 to almost $1.8
billion by fiscal year 2007.
Finally, this bill includes two provisions that relate to the
National Science Board. These are ``good government'' provisions that
give the National Science Board, the policy making body of the
Foundation, the authority and funding to hire its own staff. Our
rationale is to ensure that the Board remains independent with respect
to its policy making and oversight responsibilities. This is
particularly important as Congress attempts to double the NSF over the
next five years. Finally, it is equally important to know that these
provisions do not preclude the Board and the NSF from continuing to
work closely together as they have over the years such as in the
staffing of NSB committees, subcommittees, and task forces and the
development of the biennial Science and Engineering Indicators report.
As a Nation, we have a big challenge ahead of us as we enter the new
millennium. Our world has changed and we must do what is necessary to
meet the new challenges that will surely come our way. The sustained
and effective investment in our Nation's research and education
enterprise is one of the keys to meeting those challenges. I urge all
my colleagues to join us in enacting this important investment in the
future of our country.
NSF reauthorization: NSF doubling act
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I see that in this legislation, there is an authorization
for the Plant Genome Project, a program that had previously been
authorized only in appropriations acts.
Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. Is the intent of the mangers in including this provision
merely to provide a permanent authorization for the Plant Genome
Project, and not to state a preference by the Senate for plant genomics
over other agricultural genomics programs when it comes to additional
funding provided through appropriations?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. That plant genomics language
included in the NSF doubling legislations is only to establish an
authorization, it does not state a preference for plant genomics over
other agricultural genomics programs that might be provided through
later appropriations acts.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. I think that is an important point
because Senator Lugar and I worked hard in the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 to authorize an
agricultural genomics program administered by the National Science
Foundation because we felt a balanced genomics program was essential to
keeping U.S. agriculture productive and competitive.
While I think the plant genomics program is an excellent one, I
sincerely hope that any further increases provided for agricultural
genomics be open to animal and microbiological research as will, not
just plants. We need a balanced portfolio of agricultural research to
best capitalize on the resources devoted to agriculture-related
genomics research. I would not want anyone to think that the Senate was
now backtracking on the progress we made with the passage of the 1998
agricultural research legislation.
Mr. KENNEDY. It is certainly not the manager's intent to limit the
Agricultural, Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for that. I thank the Senator for
yielding.
Mr. REID. I understand Senators Kennedy, Gregg, and Hollings have a
substitute amendment at the desk; I ask that that amendment be
considered and agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table; the bill, as amended, be read three times and passed; the motion
to reconsider be laid upon the table; the title amendment be agreed to;
and any statements be printed in the Record with no intervening action
or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4958) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of the
Amendments.'')
The bill (H.R. 4644), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
The amendment (No. 4959) was agreed to, as follows:
Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to authorize
appropriations for fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and
2007 for the National Science Foundation, and for other
purposes.''.
____________________