[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.''.

                          ____________________