[House Report 110-114]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    110-114

======================================================================



 
         NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007

                                _______
                                

 April 30, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, from the Committee on Science and Technology, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1867]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Science and Technology, to whom was 
referred the bill (H.R. 1867) to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 for the National Science 
Foundation, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 
the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendment.......................................................2
  II. Purpose of the Bill.............................................9
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................9
  IV. Hearing Summary................................................10
   V. Committee Actions..............................................12
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill as Reported............14
 VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section).............14
VIII. Committee Views................................................16
  IX. Cost Estimate..................................................22
   X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................23
  XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4...............................24
 XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............25
XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........25
 XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................25
  XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................25
 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................25
XVII. Earmark Identification.........................................25
XVIII.Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........25

 XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported..........25
  XX. Committee Recommendations......................................28
 XXI. Proceedings of the Subcommittee Markup.........................29
XXII. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................76

                              I. Amendment

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

  In this Act:
          (1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the National Science 
        Board established under section 2 of the National Science 
        Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861).
          (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
        the Foundation.
          (3) Elementary school.--The term ``elementary school'' has 
        the meaning given that term by section 9101(18) of the 
        Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
        7801(18)).
          (4) Foundation.--The term ``Foundation'' means the National 
        Science Foundation.
          (5) Institution of higher education.--The term ``institution 
        of higher education'' has the meaning given such term in 
        section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
        1001(a)).
          (6) Secondary school.--The term ``secondary school'' has the 
        meaning given that term by section 9101(38) of the Elementary 
        and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801(38)).

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) Fiscal Year 2008.--
          (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
        the Foundation $6,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
          (2) Specific allocations.--Of the amount authorized under 
        paragraph (1)--
                  (A) $5,080,000,000 shall be made available for 
                research and related activities, of which $115,000,000 
                shall be made available for the Major Research 
                Instrumentation program;
                  (B) $873,000,000 shall be made available for 
                education and human resources, of which--
                          (i) $94,000,000 shall be for Mathematics and 
                        Science Education Partnerships established 
                        under section 9 of the National Science 
                        Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 
                        1862n);
                          (ii) $70,000,000 shall be for the Robert 
                        Noyce Scholarship Program established under 
                        section 10 of the National Science Foundation 
                        Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1);
                          (iii) $44,000,000 shall be for the Science, 
                        Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Talent 
                        Expansion Program established under section 
                        8(7) of the National Science Foundation 
                        Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368); 
                        and
                          (iv) $51,620,000 shall be for the Advanced 
                        Technological Education program established by 
                        section 3(a) of the Scientific and Advanced-
                        Technology Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-476);
                  (C) $245,000,000 shall be made available for major 
                research equipment and facilities construction;
                  (D) $285,600,000 shall be made available for agency 
                operations and award management;
                  (E) $4,050,000 shall be made available for the Office 
                of the National Science Board; and
                  (F) $12,350,000 shall be made available for the 
                Office of Inspector General.
  (b) Fiscal Year 2009.--
          (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
        the Foundation $6,980,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
          (2) Specific allocations.--Of the amount authorized under 
        paragraph (1)--
                  (A) $5,457,400,000 shall be made available for 
                research and related activities, of which $123,100,000 
                shall be made available for the Major Research 
                Instrumentation program;
                  (B) $934,000,000 shall be made available for 
                education and human resources, of which--
                          (i) $100,600,000 shall be for Mathematics and 
                        Science Education Partnerships established 
                        under section 9 of the National Science 
                        Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 
                        1862n);
                          (ii) $101,000,000 shall be for the Robert 
                        Noyce Scholarship Program established under 
                        section 10 of the National Science Foundation 
                        Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1);
                          (iii) $55,000,000 shall be for the Science, 
                        Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Talent 
                        Expansion Program established under section 
                        8(7) of the National Science Foundation 
                        Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368); 
                        and
                          (iv) $55,200,000 shall be for the Advanced 
                        Technological Education program as established 
                        by section 3(a) of the Scientific and Advanced-
                        Technology Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-476);
                  (C) $262,000,000 shall be made available for major 
                research equipment and facilities construction;
                  (D) $309,760,000 shall be made available for agency 
                operations and award management;
                  (E) $4,120,000 shall be made available for the Office 
                of the National Science Board; and
                  (F) $12,720,000 shall be made available for the 
                Office of Inspector General.
  (c) Fiscal Year 2010.--
          (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
        the Foundation $7,493,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
          (2) Specific allocations.--Of the amount authorized under 
        paragraph (1)--
                  (A) $5,863,200,000 shall be made available for 
                research and related activities, of which $131,700,000 
                shall be made available for the Major Research 
                Instrumentation program;
                  (B) $1,003,000,000 shall be made available for 
                education and human resources, of which--
                          (i) $107,600,000 shall be for Mathematics and 
                        Science Education Partnerships established 
                        under section 9 of the National Science 
                        Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 
                        1862n);
                          (ii) $133,000,000 shall be for the Robert 
                        Noyce Scholarship Program established under 
                        section 10 of the National Science Foundation 
                        Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1);
                          (iii) $60,000,000 shall be for the Science, 
                        Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Talent 
                        Expansion Program established under section 
                        8(7) of the National Science Foundation 
                        Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368); 
                        and
                          (iv) $59,100,000 shall be for the Advanced 
                        Technological Education program as established 
                        by section 3(a) of the Scientific and Advanced-
                        Technology Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-476);
                  (C) $280,000,000 shall be made available for major 
                research equipment and facilities construction;
                  (D) $329,450,000 shall be made available for agency 
                operations and award management;
                  (E) $4,250,000 shall be made available for the Office 
                of the National Science Board; and
                  (F) $13,100,000 shall be made available for the 
                Office of Inspector General.
  (d) Major Research Instrumentation.--
          (1) Award amount.--The minimum amount of an award under the 
        Major Research Instrumentation program shall be $100,000. The 
        maximum amount of an award under the program shall be 
        $4,000,000, except if the total amount appropriated for the 
        program for a fiscal year exceeds $125,000,000, in which case 
        the maximum amount of an award shall be $6,000,000.
          (2) Use of funds.--In addition to the acquisition of 
        instrumentation and equipment, funds made available by awards 
        under the Major Research Instrumentation program may be used to 
        support the operations and maintenance of such instrumentation 
        and equipment.
          (3) Cost sharing.--
                  (A) In general.--An institution of higher education 
                receiving an award shall provide at least 30 percent of 
                the cost from private or non-Federal sources.
                  (B) Exceptions.--Institutions of higher education 
                that are not Ph.D.-granting institutions are exempt 
                from the cost sharing requirement in subparagraph (A), 
                and the Director may reduce or waive the cost sharing 
                requirement for--
                          (i) institutions--
                                  (I) which are not ranked among the 
                                top 100 institutions receiving Federal 
                                research and development funding, as 
                                documented by the statistical data 
                                published by the Foundation; and
                                  (II) for which the proposed project 
                                will make a substantial improvement in 
                                the institution's capabilities to 
                                conduct leading edge research, to 
                                provide research experiences for 
                                undergraduate students using leading 
                                edge facilities, and to broaden the 
                                participation in science and 
                                engineering research by individuals 
                                identified in section 33 or 34 of the 
                                Science and Engineering Equal 
                                Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 
                                1885b); and
                          (ii) consortia of institutions of higher 
                        education that include at least one institution 
                        that is not a Ph.D-granting institution.
  (e) Undergraduate Education Programs.--The Director shall continue to 
carry out programs in support of undergraduate education, including 
those authorized in section 17 of the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-6). Funding for these 
programs shall increase in proportion to the increase in the total 
amount appropriated to the Foundation in any year for which 
appropriations are authorized by this Act.
  (f) Limit on Proposals.--
          (1) Policy.--For programs that require as part of the 
        selection process for awards the submission of preproposals and 
        that also limit the number of preproposals that may be 
        submitted by an institution, the Director shall allow the 
        subsequent submission of a full proposal based on each 
        preproposal that is determined to have merit following the 
        Foundation's merit review process.
          (2) Review and assessment of policies.--The Board shall 
        review and assess the effects on institutions of higher 
        education of the policies of the Foundation regarding the 
        imposition of limitations on the number of proposals that may 
        be submitted by a single institution for programs supported by 
        the Foundation. The Board shall determine whether current 
        policies are well justified and appropriate for the types of 
        programs that limit the number of proposal submissions. Not 
        later that 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
        Board shall summarize its findings and any recommendations 
        regarding changes to the current policy on the restriction of 
        proposal submissions in a report to the Committee on Science 
        and Technology of the House of Representatives and to the 
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the 
        Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the 
        Senate.
  (g) Research Experiences for Undergraduates.--The Director shall 
increase funding for the Research Experiences for Undergraduates 
program in proportion to the increase in the total amount appropriated 
to the Foundation for research and related activities in any year for 
which appropriations are authorized by this Act.

SEC. 4. CENTERS FOR RESEARCH ON LEARNING AND EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT.

  (a) Funding for Centers.--The Director shall continue to carry out 
the program of Centers for Research on Learning and Education 
Improvement as established in section 11 of the National Science 
Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-2).
  (b) Eligibility for Centers.--Section 11 of the National Science 
Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-2) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``or eligible 
        nonprofit organizations'' after ``institutions of higher 
        education'';
          (2) in subsection (b)(1) by inserting ``or an eligible 
        nonprofit organization'' after ``institution of higher 
        education''; and
          (3) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``of such institutions'' 
        and inserting ``thereof''.

SEC. 5. INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH.

  (a) In General.--The Board shall evaluate the role of the Foundation 
in supporting interdisciplinary research, including through the Major 
Research Instrumentation program, the effectiveness of the Foundation's 
efforts in providing information to the scientific community about 
opportunities for funding of interdisciplinary research proposals, and 
the process through which interdisciplinary proposals are selected for 
support. The Board shall also evaluate the effectiveness of the 
Foundation's efforts to engage undergraduate students in research 
experiences in interdisciplinary settings, including through the 
Research in Undergraduate Institutions program and the Research 
Experiences for Undergraduates program.
  (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Board shall provide the results of its evaluation under 
subsection (a), including a recommendation for the proportion of the 
Foundation's research and related activities funding that should be 
allocated for interdisciplinary research, to the Committee on Science 
and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate.

SEC. 6. PILOT PROGRAM OF GRANTS FOR NEW INVESTIGATORS.

  (a) In General.--The Director shall carry out a pilot program to 
award one-year grants to individuals to assist them in improving 
research proposals that were previously submitted to the Foundation but 
not selected for funding.
  (b) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded under this section shall be used to 
enable an individual to resubmit an updated research proposal for 
review by the Foundation through the agency's competitive merit review 
process. Uses of funds made available under this section may include 
the generation of new data and the performance of additional analysis.
  (c) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under this 
section, an individual shall--
          (1) not have previously received funding as the principal 
        investigator of a research grant from the Foundation; and
          (2) have submitted a proposal to the Foundation, which may 
        include a proposal submitted to the Research in Undergraduate 
        Institutions program, that was rated very good or excellent 
        under the Foundation's competitive merit review process.
  (d) Selection Process.--The Director shall make awards under this 
section based on the advice of the program officers of the Foundation.
  (e) Program Administration.--The Director may carry out this section 
through the Small Grants for Exploratory Research program.
  (f) National Science Board Review.--The Board shall conduct a review 
and assessment of the pilot program under this section, including the 
number of new investigators funded, the distribution of awards by type 
of institution of higher education, and the success rate upon 
resubmittal of proposals by new investigators funded through this pilot 
program. Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this 
Act, the Board shall summarize its findings and any recommendations 
regarding changes to or the continuation of the pilot program in a 
report to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions of the Senate.

SEC. 7. BROADER IMPACTS MERIT REVIEW CRITERION.

  (a) In General.--In evaluating research proposals under the 
Foundation's broader impacts criterion, the Director shall give special 
consideration to proposals that involve partnerships between academic 
researchers and industrial scientists and engineers that address 
research areas that have been identified as having high importance for 
future national economic competitiveness, such as nanotechnology.
  (b) Partnerships With Industry.--The Director shall encourage 
research proposals from institutions of higher education that involve 
partnerships with businesses and organizations representing businesses 
in fields that have been identified as having high importance for 
future national economic competitiveness and that include input on the 
research agenda from and cost-sharing by the industry partners.
  (c) Report on Broader Impacts Criterion.--Not later than 1 year after 
the date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit to 
Congress a report on the impact of the broader impacts grant criterion 
used by the Foundation. The report shall--
          (1) identify the criteria that each division and directorate 
        of the Foundation uses to evaluate the broader impacts aspects 
        of research proposals;
          (2) provide a breakdown of the types of activities by 
        division that awardees have proposed to carry out to meet the 
        broader impacts criterion;
          (3) provide any evaluations performed by the Foundation to 
        assess the degree to which the broader impacts aspects of 
        research proposals were carried out and how effective they have 
        been at meeting the goals described in the research proposals;
          (4) describe what national goals, such as improving 
        undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineering education, 
        improving K-12 science and mathematics education, promoting 
        university-industry collaboration and technology transfer, and 
        broadening participation of underrepresented groups, the 
        broader impacts criterion is best suited to promote; and
          (5) describe what steps the Foundation is taking and should 
        take to use the broader impacts criterion to improve 
        undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineering education.

SEC. 8. POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOWS.

  (a) Mentoring.--The Director shall require that all grant 
applications that include funding to support postdoctoral researchers 
include a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided 
for such individuals, and shall ensure that this part of the 
application is evaluated under the Foundation's broader impacts merit 
review criterion. Mentoring activities may include career counseling, 
training in preparing grant applications, guidance on ways to improve 
teaching skills, and training in research ethics.
  (b) Reports.--The Director shall require that annual reports and the 
final report for research grants that include funding to support 
postdoctoral researchers include a description of the mentoring 
activities provided to such researchers.

SEC. 9. RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH.

  The Director shall require that each institution that applies for 
financial assistance from the Foundation for science and engineering 
research or education describe in its grant proposal a plan to provide 
appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical 
conduct of research to undergraduate students, graduate students, and 
postdoctoral researchers participating in the proposed research 
project.

SEC. 10. REPORTING OF RESEARCH RESULTS.

  The Director shall ensure that all final project reports and 
citations of published research documents resulting from research 
funded, in whole or in part, by the Foundation, are made available to 
the public in a timely manner and in electronic form through the 
Foundation's Web site.

SEC. 11. SHARING RESEARCH RESULTS.

  An investigator supported under a Foundation award, whom the Director 
determines has failed to comply with the provisions of section 734 of 
the Foundation Grant Policy Manual, shall be ineligible for a future 
award under any Foundation supported program or activity. The Director 
may restore the eligibility of such an investigator on the basis of the 
investigator's subsequent compliance with the provisions of section 734 
of the Foundation Grant Policy Manual and with such other terms and 
conditions as the Director may impose.

SEC. 12. FUNDING FOR SUCCESSFUL STEM EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

  (a) Evaluation of Programs.--The Director shall, on an annual basis, 
evaluate all of the Foundation's grants that are scheduled to expire 
within one year and--
          (1) that have the primary purpose of meeting the objectives 
        of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 
        1885 et seq.); or
          (2) that have the primary purpose of providing teacher 
        professional development.
  (b) Continuation of Funding.--For grants that are identified under 
subsection (a) and that are deemed by the Director to be successful in 
meeting the objectives of the initial grant solicitation, the Director 
may extend the duration of those grants for up to 3 additional years 
beyond their scheduled expiration without the requirement for a 
recompetition. The Director may extend such grants for an additional 3 
years following a second review within 1 year before the extended 
completion date, in accordance with subsection (a), and the 
determination by the Director that the objectives of the grant are 
being achieved.
  (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Director shall submit a report to the 
Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate 
that--
          (1) lists the grants which have been extended in duration by 
        the authority provided under this section; and
          (2) provides any recommendations the Director may have 
        regarding the extension of the authority provided under this 
        section to programs other than those specified in subsection 
        (a).

SEC. 13. COST SHARING.

  (a) In General.--The Board shall evaluate the impact of its policy to 
eliminate cost sharing for research grants and cooperative agreements 
for existing programs that were developed around industry partnerships 
and historically required industry cost sharing, such as the 
Engineering Research Centers and Industry/University Cooperative 
Research Centers. The Board shall also consider the impact that the 
cost sharing policy has on initiating new programs for which industry 
interest and participation are sought.
  (b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Board shall report to the Committee on Science and 
Technology and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, on the 
results of the evaluation under subsection (a).

SEC. 14. DONATIONS.

  Section 11(f) of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 
U.S.C. 1870(f)) is amended by inserting at the end before the semicolon 
``, except that funds may be donated for specific prize competitions''.

SEC. 15. ADDITIONAL REPORTS.

  (a) Report on Funding for Major Facilities.--
          (1) Preconstruction funding.--The Board shall evaluate the 
        appropriateness of the requirement that funding for detailed 
        design work and other preconstruction activities for major 
        research equipment and facilities come exclusively from the 
        sponsoring research division rather than being available, at 
        least in part, from the Major Research Equipment and Facilities 
        Construction account.
          (2) Maintenance and operation costs.--The Board shall 
        evaluate the appropriateness of the Foundation's policies for 
        allocation of costs for, and oversight of, maintenance and 
        operation of major research equipment and facilities.
          (3) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Board shall report on the results of 
        the evaluations under paragraphs (1) and (2) and on any 
        recommendations for modifying the current policies related to 
        allocation of funding for major research equipment and 
        facilities to the Committee on Science and Technology and the 
        Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, 
        and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
        the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and 
        the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.
  (b) Inclusion of Polar Facilities Upgrades in Major Research 
Equipment and Facilities Construction Plan.--Section 201(a)(2)(D) of 
the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 
1862l(a)(2)(D)) is amended by inserting ``and for major upgrades of 
facilities in support of Antarctic research programs'' after 
``facilities construction account''.
  (c) Report on Education Programs Within the Research Directorates.--
Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Director shall transmit to the Committee on Science and Technology of 
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions of the Senate a report cataloging all elementary and secondary 
school, informal, and undergraduate educational programs and activities 
supported through appropriations for Research and Related Activities. 
The report shall display the programs and activities by directorate, 
along with estimated funding levels for the fiscal years 2006, 2007, 
and 2008, and shall provide a description of the goals of each program 
and activity. The report shall also describe how the programs and 
activities relate to or are coordinated with the programs supported by 
the Education and Human Resources Directorate.
  (d) Report on Research in Undergraduate Institutions Program.--The 
Director shall transmit to Congress along with the fiscal year 2011 
budget request a report listing the funding success rates and 
distribution of awards for the Research in Undergraduate Institutions 
program, by type of institution based on the highest academic degree 
conferred by the institution, for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010.
  (e) Annual Plan for Allocation of Education and Human Resources 
Funding.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
        enactment of legislation providing for the annual appropriation 
        of funds for the Foundation, the Director shall submit to the 
        Committee on Science and Technology and the Committee on 
        Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and to the 
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the 
        Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the 
        Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, a plan for the 
        allocation of education and human resources funds authorized by 
        this Act for the corresponding fiscal year, including any funds 
        from within the research and related activities account used to 
        support activities that have the primary purpose of improving 
        education or broadening participation.
          (2) Specific requirements.--The plan shall include a 
        description of how the allocation of funding--
                  (A) will affect the average size and duration of 
                education and human resources grants supported by the 
                Foundation;
                  (B) will affect trends in research support for the 
                effective instruction of mathematics, science, 
                engineering, and technology;
                  (C) will affect the K-20 pipeline for the study of 
                mathematics, science, engineering, and technology; and
                  (D) will encourage the interest of individuals 
                identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science and 
                Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 
                1885b) in mathematics, science, engineering, and 
                technology, and help prepare such individuals to pursue 
                postsecondary studies in these fields.

SEC. 16. ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS.

  (a) Triannual Audit of the Office of the National Science Board.--
Section 15(a) of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 
2002 (42 U.S.C. 4862n-5) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``an annual audit'' and 
        inserting ``an audit every three years'';
          (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``each year'' and inserting 
        ``every third year''; and
          (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
        paragraph:
          ``(5) Materials relating to closed portions of meetings.--To 
        facilitate the audit required under paragraph (3) of this 
        subsection, the Office of the National Science Board shall 
        maintain the General Counsel's certificate, the presiding 
        officer's statement, and a transcript or recording of any 
        closed meeting, for at least 3 years after such meeting.''.
  (b) Limited Term Personnel for the National Science Board.--
Subsection (g) of section 4 of the National Science Foundation Act of 
1950 (42 U.S.C. 1863(g)) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(g) The Board may, with the concurrence of a majority of its 
members, permit the appointment of a staff consisting of not more than 
5 professional staff members, technical and professional personnel on 
leave of absence from academic, industrial, or research institutions 
for a limited term and such operations and support staff members as may 
be necessary. Such staff shall be appointed by the Chairman and 
assigned at the direction of the Board. The professional members and 
limited term technical and professional personnel of such staff may be 
appointed without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States 
Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and the 
provisions of chapter 51 of such title relating to classification, and 
shall be compensated at a rate not exceeding the maximum rate payable 
under section 5376 of such title, as may be necessary to provide for 
the performance of such duties as may be prescribed by the Board in 
connection with the exercise of its powers and functions under this 
Act. Section 14(a)(3) shall apply to each limited term appointment of 
technical and professional personnel under this subsection. Each 
appointment under this subsection shall be subject to the same security 
requirements as those required for personnel of the Foundation 
appointed under section 14(a).''.
  (c) Increase in Number of Waterman Awards to Three.--Section 6(c) of 
the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 
1881a) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(c) Up to three awards may be made under this section in any one 
fiscal year.''.

SEC. 17. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD REPORTS.

  Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 4(j) of the National Science 
Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1863(j)(1) and (2)) are amended by 
striking ``, for submission to'' and ``for submission to'', 
respectively, and inserting ``and''.

SEC. 18. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE REPORT ON DIVERSITY IN STEM 
                    FIELDS.

  (a) In General.--The Foundation shall enter into an arrangement with 
the National Academy of Sciences for a report, to be transmitted to the 
Congress not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
about barriers to increasing the number of underrepresented minorities 
in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields and to 
identify strategies for bringing more underrepresented minorities into 
the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce.
  (b) Specific Requirements.--The Director shall ensure that the study 
described in subsection (a) addresses--
          (1) social and institutional factors that shape the decisions 
        of minority students to commit to education and careers in the 
        science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields;
          (2) specific barriers preventing greater minority student 
        participation in the science, technology, engineering, and 
        mathematics fields;
          (3) primary focus points for policy intervention to increase 
        the recruitment and retention of underrepresented minorities in 
        America's future workforce;
          (4) programs already underway to increase diversity in the 
        science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, and 
        their level of effectiveness;
          (5) factors that make such programs effective, and how to 
        expand and improve upon existing programs;
          (6) the role of minority-serving institutions in the 
        diversification of America's workforce in these fields and how 
        that role can be supported and strengthened; and
          (7) how the public and private sectors can better assist 
        minority students in their efforts to join America's workforce 
        in these fields.

                        II. Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of this bill is to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010 for the National Science 
Foundation and to impose requirements related to: major 
research instrumentation funded by the Foundation; application 
of merit review criteria used by the Foundation; mentoring and 
ethics training for students and postdoctoral research 
associates funded under Foundation grants; and reporting on 
allocation of funds for education and human resources 
activities supported by the Foundation.

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    NSF is an independent federal agency created by the 
National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-507). NSF's 
mission is unique among the federal government's scientific 
research agencies in that it is to support science and 
engineering across all disciplines. NSF currently funds 
research and education activities at more than 2,000 
universities, colleges, K-12 schools, businesses, and other 
research institutions throughout the United States. Virtually 
all of this support is provided through competitive, merit-
reviewed grants and cooperative agreements. Although NSF's 
research and development budget accounts for only about three 
percent of all federally funded research, the role of NSF in 
promoting fundamental research is vital to the nation's 
scientific enterprise, as NSF provides approximately 20 percent 
of the federal support for basic research conducted at academic 
institutions.
    Basic research pays enormous dividends to society. Economic 
growth, public health, national defense, and social advancement 
have all been tied to technological developments resulting from 
research and development. In fact, economists estimate that 
innovation and the application of new technology have generated 
at least half of the phenomenal growth in America's gross 
domestic product since World War II. In recent years, NSF-
funded research in areas such as nanotechnology, information 
technology, computing, genetics, and climate has had a 
tremendous impact on society.
    While the Administration's American Competitiveness 
Initiative (ACI) brought greater recognition and more money for 
NSF in fiscal year (FY) 2007, funding for NSF was stagnant for 
several years prior to ACI, and NSF needs to see steady growth 
over the long-term to maximize the agency's potential 
contribution to the nation's research enterprise. NSF is 
currently able to fund only about 25 percent of the grant 
proposals submitted because of limited funds; in some 
directorates, the percentage of grant proposals funded is as 
low as 10 percent. More funding for basic science is needed to 
feed the innovation pipeline and to ensure future economic 
growth, as well as to strengthen homeland defense and national 
security.
    NSF was most recently authorized by the National Science 
Foundation Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368), which authorized 
appropriations for NSF for FY 2003 through FY 2007. In addition 
to continuing authorizations of appropriations for three more 
years, several policy and administrative issues--including ones 
related to the Foundation's responsibilities for funding major 
research instrumentation at universities, for mentoring 
postdoctoral research associates, for reporting research 
results, for funding science, technology, engineering and 
mathematics (STEM) education programs, and for implementing 
responsible and clear cost-sharing guidelines--have arisen 
since the last authorization bill.

                          IV. Hearing Summary

    During the 109th Congress, the House Committee on Science 
held five hearings relevant to H.R. 1867.
    On Wednesday, March 9, 2005, the Subcommittee on Research 
held a hearing on National Science Foundation Budget and 
Management Challenges. Witnesses included (1) Dr. Arden L. 
Bement, Director of NSF; (2) Dr. Mark S. Wrighton, Chairman of 
the Audit and Oversight Committee of the National Science 
Board; and (3) Dr. Christine C. Boesz, Inspector General of the 
NSF. In addition to testifying about the FY 2006 budget 
request, witnesses discussed the most important short-term and 
long-term budget and management challenges facing NSF, and how 
they should be addressed, as well what NSF can do to ensure 
that limited research and management resources are allocated 
most effectively.
    On Thursday, July 21, 2005, the Committee on Science held a 
hearing, U.S. Competitiveness: The Innovation Challenge, to 
examine the relationship between federal science and 
engineering research and education investments and U.S. 
economic competitiveness. The witnesses were (1) Mr. Nicholas 
Donofrio, Executive Vice President for Innovation and 
Technology at IBM Corporation; (2) Mr. John Morgridge, Chairman 
of Cisco Systems, Incorporated, and part-time professor at 
Stanford University's Graduate School of Business; and (3) Dr. 
William Brody, President of The Johns Hopkins University and 
co-chair of the Council on Competitiveness working group that 
authored the National Innovation Initiative. The witnesses 
emphasized that the educational system needs to provide 
students with a solid background in science and engineering 
fields so that the United States has access to a 
technologically-literate workforce. The witnesses also stressed 
that investments in basic university research provide the 
background knowledge necessary for future technology 
developments.
    On Thursday, October 20, 2005, the Committee on Science 
held a hearing to receive testimony on the report released by 
NAS on October 12 entitled Rising Above the Gathering Storm: 
Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic 
Future. The report, which was requested by Congress, recommends 
ways to strengthen research and education in science and 
technology. The witnesses were (1) Mr. Norman R. Augustine, 
retired Chairman and CEO of the Lockheed Martin Corporation 
(Mr. Augustine chaired the committee that wrote the report); 
(2) Dr. P. Roy Vagelos, retired Chairman and CEO of Merck & Co. 
(Dr. Vagelos served on the committee that wrote the report); 
and (3) Dr. William A. Wulf, President of the National Academy 
of Engineering. The witnesses emphasized that solving the 
problems of global economic competition requires significant 
improvements to America's K-12 and higher education systems and 
greater support for basic research, including innovative 
research in cutting-edge fields.
    The witnesses also stressed that the U.S. ability to 
innovate has been the source of U.S. prosperity and security, 
so future policy decisions should be aimed at generating an 
environment that supports innovation by creating a vibrant 
research base, educated workforce, and social climate that 
encourages students to pursue science and technology degrees.
    On March 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Research held a 
hearing on Undergraduate Science, Math and Engineering 
Education: What's Working? The purpose of the hearing was to 
examine how colleges and universities are improving their 
undergraduate science, math and engineering programs and how 
the federal government might help encourage and guide the 
reform of undergraduate science, math and engineering education 
to improve learning and to attract more students to courses in 
those fields. Witnesses (1) Dr. Elaine Seymour, author of 
Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences 
and the former Director of Ethnography and Evaluation Research 
at the University of Colorado at Boulder; (2) Dr. Daniel L. 
Goroff, Vice President and Dean of Faculty at Harvey Mudd 
College and co-director of the Sloan Foundation Scientific and 
Engineering Workforce Project based at the National Bureau of 
Economic Research; (3) Dr. John Burris, President of Beloit 
College in Wisconsin; (4) Dr. Carl Wieman, Distinguished 
Professor of Physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder 
and the recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in physics; and (5) 
Ms. Margaret Collins, Assistant Dean of Science, Business and 
Computer Technology at Moraine Valley Community College in 
Illinois. Witnesses testified about the critical role of NSF in 
improving undergraduate STEM education.
    On May 3, 2006, the full Committee on Science held a 
hearing on The Role of the National Science Foundation in K-12 
Science and Math Education. The purpose of the hearing was to 
review the effectiveness and value of the National Science 
Foundation's (NSF's) past and present programs in support of 
improvement of K-12 science and math education and to examine 
what role the Foundation should play in future federal 
initiatives for strengthening K-12 science and math education. 
Witnesses included (1) Dr. Dennis Bartels, executive director 
of the Exploratorium science museum in San Francisco, CA; (2) 
Dr. Joseph Heppert, Professor and Chair of Chemistry, and 
Director of the Center for Science Education at the University 
of Kansas; (3) Ms. Rebecca Pringle, physical science teacher at 
Susquehanna Township Middle School in Harrisburg, PA; and (4) 
Ms. Judy Snyder, math teacher at Eastside High School in 
Taylors, SC and a winner of a 2005 Presidential Award for 
Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. The witnesses 
unanimously supported a leadership role for NSF in K-12 science 
and math education.
    During the 110th Congress, the Subcommittee on Research and 
Science Education of the House Committee on Science and 
Technology held three hearings relevant to H.R. 1867.
    On Tuesday, March 20, 2007, the Subcommittee held National 
Science Foundation Reauthorization, a legislative hearing with 
agency officials Dr. Arden Bement, Director of NSF, and Dr. 
Steven Beering, Chairman of the National Science Board. The 
witnesses responded to certain provisions in the legislative 
proposal, voiced strong support for the authorization levels 
proposed by the Committee, and offered specific recommendations 
of additional issues to consider as part of the NSF 
reauthorization legislation.
    On Thursday, March 29, 2007, the Subcommittee held a second 
legislative hearing, Reauthorizing the National Science 
Foundation, Part II, to receive testimony from a panel of 
outside witnesses, including (1) Dr. Phyllis M. Wise, Provost, 
University of Washington, Seattle; (2) Dr. Catherine T. Hunt, 
President, American Chemical Society; (3) Dr. Margaret L. Ford, 
President, Houston Community College System--Northeast; (4) Dr. 
Carlos A. Meriles, Assistant Professor of Physics, City College 
of New York; and (5) Dr. Jeffrey J. Welser, Director of the 
Semiconductor Industry's Nanoelectronics Research Initiative. 
The witnesses responded to certain provisions in the 
legislative proposal, voiced unanimous and strong support for 
the authorization levels proposed by the Committee, and offered 
specific recommendations of additional issues to consider as 
part of the NSF reauthorization legislation.
    On February 14, 2007 the full Committee on Science and 
Technology held a hearing with Office of Science and Technology 
Policy Director, Dr. John H. Marburger III, on the 
Administration's FY2008 Research and Development Budget 
Proposal. Dr. Marburger identified NSF as a priority agency 
under the Administration's American Competitiveness Initiative, 
and explained the connection between U.S. competitiveness and 
the Administration's proposed 7.7 percent increase in NSF's 
research budget. He also testified about NSF's leadership role 
in STEM education.

                          V. Committee Actions

    As summarized in Section IV of this report, the Full 
Committee on Science heard testimony in the 109th Congress 
relevant to the programs authorized in H.R. 1867 at hearings 
held on July 21 and October 20, 2005 and on May 3, 2006; the 
Subcommittee on Research heard testimony in the 109th Congress 
relevant to the programs authorized in H.R. 1867 at hearings 
held on March 9, 2005 and March 15, 2006; the Full Committee on 
Science and Technology heard testimony in the 110th Congress 
relevant to the programs authorized in H.R. 1867 at a hearing 
held on February 14, 2007; and the Subcommittee on Research and 
Science Education heard testimony in the 110th Congress 
relevant to the programs authorized in H.R. 1867 at hearings 
held March 20 and March 29, 2007.
    On April 16, 2007, Representative Brian Baird, Chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education of the 
Committee on Science and Technology, for himself and 
Representatives Ehlers, Gordon, Hooley, Bilbray, McNerney and 
Hill, introduced H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 2007, a bill to authorize appropriations 
for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 for the National Science 
Foundation, and for other purposes.
    The Subcommittee on Research and Science Education met to 
consider H.R. 1867 on Thursday, April 19, 2007 and considered 
the following amendments to the bill:
    1. On behalf of Ms. Johnson, Mr. Baird offered an amendment 
to Sec. 15 to require a report describing the allocation of 
funds authorized for education and human resources activities. 
The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
    2. On behalf of Ms. Johnson, Mr. Baird offered an amendment 
to create a new section requiring a National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS) report on broadening participation of minorities 
in the STEM workforce. The amendment was agreed to by voice 
vote.
    3. Ms. Hooley offered an amendment to Sec. 3 to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010 for the 
Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program. The 
amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
    Mr. Ehlers moved that the Subcommittee favorably report the 
bill, H.R. 1867, as amended, to the full Committee. The motion 
was agreed to by a voice vote.
    The full Committee on Science and Technology met to 
consider H.R. 1867, as amended in Subcommittee, on Wednesday, 
April 25, 2007 and considered the following amendments to the 
bill:
    1. Mr. Baird offered an amendment to make technical and 
clarifying amendments to the bill and to make the following 
additional changes:
           In Sec. 3(d)(3), on cost-sharing for Major 
        Research Instrumentation awards (MRI), adds permission 
        for a reduction or waiver of the cost-sharing 
        requirement, at the discretion of the Director, for 
        consortia of institutions of higher education that 
        include at least one institution that is not a Ph.D.-
        granting institution;
           In Sec. 4, adds eligibility for awards under 
        the Centers for Research on Learning and Education 
        Improvement program for certain nonprofit 
        organizations;
           In Sec. 16, adds new subsection to increase 
        the number of Waterman Awards up to 3; and
           In Sec. 18, clarifies the charge for a 
        report on diversity in STEM fields by listing specific 
        topics for NAS to address in the report.
    The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.
    2. Mr. Hall offered an amendment to Sec. 3(d) to set the 
cap for MRI awards at $4 million, or $6 million if the total 
appropriation for the MRI program exceeds $125 million. The 
amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.
    3. Mr. Gingrey offered an amendment to Sec. 3 to strike the 
specific allocation for the REU program and instead require 
that funding for the program increase in proportion to 
increases in the total research budget. The amendment was 
agreed to by a voice vote.
    Mr. Hall moved that the Committee favorably report the 
bill, H.R. 1867, as amended, to the House with the 
recommendation that the bill as amended do pass; that the staff 
be instructed to prepare the report and make necessary 
technical and conforming changes; and that the Chairman take 
all necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for 
consideration. The motion was agreed to by a voice vote.
    Mr. Gordon moved that: (1) Members have two subsequent 
calendar days in which to submit supplemental, minority, or 
additional views on the measure; and (2) pursuant to clause 1 
of rule 22 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee authorizes the Chairman to offer such motions as may 
be necessary in the House to adopt and pass H.R. 1867, the 
National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007, as 
amended.

        VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill as Reported

    H.R. 1867 authorizes $21 billion for the National Science 
Foundation (NSF) for fiscal years 2008-2010, including $16.4 
billion for research and related activities, $2.8 billion for 
education and human resources, and $787 million for major 
research facilities. Specific allocations are made for major 
research instrumentation under the research account, and for K-
12 and two-year college programs under the education account. 
The bill would also require the National Science Board to 
conduct studies on NSF's role in interdisciplinary research and 
on the impacts of NSF's new cost-sharing policy on university/
industry partnerships. It would establish a pilot program of 
grants for new investigators and would require the Director to 
give special consideration to grant proposals involving 
industry partnerships. The bill would require NSF-funded 
researchers to report on mentoring activities for postdoctoral 
research fellows and NSF-funded institutions to train covered 
individuals in the ethical conduct of research. Finally, the 
bill would require a National Academy of Sciences report on 
barriers to and recommendations for broadening participation in 
STEM fields.

        VII. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill as Reported


Sec. 1. Short title

    The National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007.

Sec. 2. Definitions

    Provides definitions for terms used in this Act.

Sec. 3. Authorization of appropriations

    Authorizes $21 billion for the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) for fiscal years 2008-2010, including $16.4 billion for 
research and related activities (R&RA), $2.8 billion for 
education and human resources (EHR), and $787 million for major 
research facilities (MREFC). Allocates funding for major 
research instrumentation (MRI) program under the R&RA account, 
and for certain K-12 and two-year college education and teacher 
training programs under the EHR account. Sets the ceiling for 
MRI awards at $4 million, or $6 million if the total MRI budget 
exceeds $125 million, and requires 30 percent cost-sharing on 
MRI awards for Ph.D.-granting institutions, with exceptions for 
certain institutions and consortia of institutions at the 
discretion of the Director. Requires the Director to fund 
undergraduate education division programs at a growth rate 
equal to the Foundation's overall growth rate; and the Research 
Experiences for Undergraduates program at a rate equal to the 
R&RA growth rate.

Sec. 4. Centers for research on learning and education improvement

    Requires the Director to continue funding these Centers, 
which were established by the 2002 NSF Reauthorization, and 
adds eligibility for awards for certain nonprofit 
organizations, as defined in the 2002 Act.

Sec. 5. Interdisciplinary research

    Requires the National Science Board to evaluate the current 
and potential role of the Foundation in supporting 
interdisciplinary research, in providing adequate information 
to the scientific community about opportunities for funding of 
interdisciplinary research proposals, and in engaging 
undergraduate students in interdisciplinary research.

Sec. 6. New investigators

    Establishes a pilot program of one-year seed grants for new 
investigators to improve their likelihood of being awarded 
standard competitive research grants. Uses an existing funding 
mechanism, the Small Grants for Exploratory Research program, 
to carry out the pilot program. Requires the Board to evaluate 
the effectiveness of the pilot program after three years.

Sec. 7. Broader impacts merit review criterion

    Requires the Director, in reviewing proposals under 
criterion 2 of the merit review process, to give special 
consideration to proposals that include partnerships between 
academic researchers and industrial scientists and engineers 
and that address research areas that have been identified as 
having high importance for future national economic 
competitiveness. Also requires the Director to encourage 
industry/university partnerships that include cost-sharing. 
Finally requires report to Congress on the impact of the 
broader impacts grant criterion used by the Foundation.

Sec. 8. Postdoctoral research fellows

    Requires funded investigators to report on activities to 
mentor postdoctoral research fellows funded under their grants.

Sec. 9. Responsible conduct of research

    Requires each institution funded by NSF research grants to 
provide a plan for appropriate training in the responsible and 
ethical conduct of research to supported individuals.

Sec. 10. Reporting of research results

    Requires the Director to make available to the public, 
through the Foundation website, final project reports and all 
citations of published work resulting from NSF-funded research.

Sec. 11. Sharing research results

    Makes investigators who fail to comply with existing NSF 
policy on sharing of research results (Section 734 of the NSF 
Grant Policy Manual) ineligible for future NSF awards until 
they comply with the policy.

Sec. 12. Funding for successful STEM education programs

    Permits the Director to exempt from the recompete 
requirement certain STEM education programs, including 
minority-serving programs and teacher training programs, that 
continue to demonstrate positive performance.

Sec. 13. Cost sharing

    Requires the Board to evaluate the impact of the ruling to 
eliminate cost-sharing at the Foundation on programs that 
already do involve or may involve industry partnership.

Sec 14. Donations

    Allows NSF to accept private funds for certain prize 
competitions.

Sec. 15. Additional reports

    Requires the Board to evaluate the Foundation policies on 
funding for pre-construction and maintenance and operation 
costs for major research equipment and facilities. Requires 
plans for upgrades of Antarctic facilities to be included in 
the annual national research facilities construction, repair 
and upgrades plan required under SEC 201(a)(1) of the NSF 
Authorization Act of 1998, as amended. Requires the Director to 
catalog all educational activities supported by R&RA programs 
and report to Congress. Requires the Director to report on 
funding success rates and distribution of awards for the 
Research in Undergraduate Institutions program. Requires the 
Director to report on how funds are allocated for education and 
human resources activities supported by the Foundation.

Sec. 16. Administrative amendments

    Changes audit requirement from every year to every three 
years for assessment of the compliance of the Board with the 
requirements of the Government in Sunshine Act. Gives the Board 
authority to take on IPA assignees (``rotators'') to supplement 
permanent staff. Increases the number of Waterman Awards up to 
three.

Sec. 17. National Science Board reports

    Amends the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 so that 
National Science Board reports are submitted directly to 
Congress from the Board, rather than through the President.

Sec. 18. National Academy of Science report on diversity in STEM fields

    Requires the Foundation to enter into a contract with the 
National Academies of Sciences for a report on barriers to and 
strategies for increasing participation of underrepresented 
minorities in STEM fields.

                         VIII. Committee Views


               SECTION 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

    Research and Related Activities.--The Committee supports 
the proposed increases for the math and physical sciences, 
computer sciences, and engineering directorates in the fiscal 
year 2008 request for research and related activities (R&RA). 
But the Committee also believes it is important to maintain 
adequate growth over the long term for all fields supported by 
NSF. Competitiveness depends on advances in biological 
sciences, physical sciences, mathematics, computer sciences, 
geosciences, engineering and the social sciences, as well as 
the interplay between these fields. The Committee expects 
future R&RA budgets to include adequate growth for the fields, 
including social and biological sciences, that saw smaller 
increases in the FY 2008 request.
    The Committee also supports NSF's participation in the 
cross-agency, coordinated research initiatives in 
nanotechnology and information technology. In particular, the 
Committee applauds NSF for their increased focus on the 
environmental, health and safety aspects of nanotechnology in 
the FY 2008 budget request, including through the support of a 
new multidisciplinary center focusing on those topics, and the 
potential implications of such research for future regulation. 
The Committee expects NSF to take an active role in the 
development of a coordinated and prioritized research plan for 
EHS research across the agencies participating in the National 
Nanotechnology Initiative. The Committee also endorses NSF's 
support for research under the Social, Economic, and Workforce 
Implication component of the Networking and Information 
Technology Research and Development program since advancements 
in information technology and its growing pervasiveness in our 
society also raises substantial ethical and social questions.
    The Committee is also aware that NSF funds some K-16 
science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) 
education activities from the R&RA account, and it encourages 
such activities. In particular, the Committee is interested in 
learning more about the synergies between research and 
education and how research grants can be used more effectively 
to stimulate both research endeavors and educational needs. The 
Committee included the requirement for the report in section 15 
of the bill in order to gauge the scope and size of K-16 STEM 
education programs within R&RA. One valuable STEM education 
program funded through R&RA is the Research Experiences for 
Undergraduates (REU) program. The Committee recognizes the 
importance of the REU program for both recruitment and adequate 
training of students for careers or graduate studies in STEM 
fields. The REU program benefits not just the students by 
providing them with invaluable research experiences, but also 
the host institutions and the students' home institutions, by 
cross-pollinating ideas and people. The Committee is concerned 
about the adequacy of funding levels for the REU program in 
recent years and, consequently, included explicit language in 
the bill to ensure that funding for REU grows in proportion to 
the total research budget.
    Education and Human Resources (EHR).--Once again, the 
Committee reiterates its strong support for the critical role 
that NSF plays in science, technology, engineering and 
mathematics (STEM) education at all levels, including K-12. 
Consequently, the funding authorized by the bill for the EHR 
budget grows at the same rate as the overall Foundation budget. 
In particular, the bill provides specific allocations for the 
K-12 STEM programs authorized in H.R. 362, including the Math 
and Science Partnerships Program, the Noyce Scholarships 
Program, and the STEM Talent Expansion Program. The FY 2008 
authorization for EHR is higher than the President's request in 
order to accommodate the increase in the budgets for these 
specific programs while maintaining support for NSF's other 
education programs. The total FY 2008 authorization for NSF is 
$70 million more than the request, in order to accommodate the 
authorized increases in these critical K-12 education programs. 
The remainder of the funding increase required for these 
programs comes from a 1 percent reduction in the agency's 
proposed research budget. While the Committee strongly supports 
a growing NSF research budget, maintaining a robust STEM 
education budget is equally important, and it is necessary to 
address past underfunding, particularly of the K-12 STEM 
education activities.
    Workforce.--The Committee recognizes that administrative 
and operating expenses funded through the agency operations and 
award management (AOAM) account, including salaries, travel, 
infrastructure, information technology, and expansion of 
workspace, are putting a strain on the ability of the 
Foundation staff, and in particular the program officers, to 
keep up with the growing workload resulting from growing 
research budgets. The Committee strongly supports an AOAM 
budget that will help maintain a strong and healthy workforce 
and infrastructure in order to maintain a world class science 
agency. The Committee also understands that the Foundation is 
undertaking a long-range business plan, including a workforce 
plan, and expects that the Foundation will share the plan with 
Congress when it is complete.
    Undergraduate STEM Education.--The language in Sec. 3(e) on 
undergraduate education is meant to underscore the importance 
of adequate funding for undergraduate programs, including for 
the Research Experiences for Undergraduates program and the 
Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) program. 
The Committee encourages NSF to take a more active role in 
disseminating the results of CCLI grants to other institutions, 
in particular to smaller institutions with fewer resources in 
emerging areas of science and technology both within and across 
disciplines. Furthermore, the Committee believes that the 
review panels for grants should have proportional 
representation relative to proposal pressure by type of 
institution, in order to ensure that panels take into 
consideration the unique conditions of each type of 
institution, including primarily undergraduate institutions. 
The Committee requests that NSF report on the three-year 
distribution of CCLI funding and success rates by type of 
institution, based on the highest academic degree conferred by 
the institution, along with the FY11 budget request.
    With respect to the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) 
program, the Committee commends the Foundation for their 
successful efforts in building and expanding this program over 
the last 15 years. Community colleges are vital to educating 
the nation's STEM workforce, and many 2-year college graduates 
in STEM fields go straight into high-skills jobs, thanks in 
large part to the ATE program. However, there is growing demand 
in many industries for more advanced degrees. Therefore, the 
Committee believes that there is a need for increased emphasis 
on articulation between two-year and four-year institutions, as 
exemplified by the Process Technology ATE program at Houston 
Community College, and the related Gulf Coast Technology 
Articulation Partnership, an alliance of 100 industry members 
and 20 colleges. This program is focused on transitioning 
students from the Associate in Applied Science degree to the 
Bachelor of Science in Engineering Technology degree.
    Service Sciences.--The Committee applauds the Foundation 
for its work to support the emerging multidisciplinary field of 
Service Science, which combines disciplines such as computer 
science, operations research, industrial engineering, business 
strategy and management sciences to meet the needs of the 21st 
century workforce. Services account for close to 80 percent of 
the U.S. economy, and sectors such as healthcare, energy, 
financial services, retail and government, are increasingly 
reliant on service innovation. The Committee encourages NSF to 
continue its efforts and expand support for research and 
curricula development in this field.
    Icebreakers.--It is the view of the Committee that polar 
icebreakers are essential instruments of United States national 
policy and that the U.S. Coast Guard should have the 
responsibility and the budget to construct new icebreakers and 
provide for the operations and maintenance costs of existing 
icebreakers, including any icebreakers required for resupply of 
U.S. Antarctic research facilities. The Committee endorses the 
National Academy of Sciences' recommendation for a Presidential 
Decision Directive to clearly align agency responsibilities and 
budgetary authorities accordingly.
    Research Infrastructure.--In the Academic Research 
Facilities Modernization Act (Title II of the NSF Authorization 
Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 1862)), Congress created a program of 
awards for the repair, renovation, or, in exceptional cases, 
replacement of obsolete science and engineering facilities 
primarily devoted to research. Congress appropriated money for 
this program for a few years because the need at that time was 
dire. The Committee is interested in pursuing whether a need 
now exists to re-fund the program. To that end, the Committee 
requests that NSF and the Board revisit this issue and assess 
the relative priority of facilities modernization at academic 
institutions versus support for research awards, STEM 
education, and other types of research infrastructure for which 
NSF programs now exist (Major Research Equipment and Facilities 
Construction and Major Research Instrumentation). The Committee 
requests that NSF and the Board provide a report on the 
findings of their assessment to the Committee within one year 
of enactment of this Act.

                   SEC. 5. INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

    The Committee recognizes that the Foundation is striving to 
respond to demands from within the community to support more 
interdisciplinary research and to develop a more coherent and 
transparent process for funding interdisciplinary research. 
Given how much the research enterprise has shifted in the last 
few years toward more interdisciplinary research, including 
more cyber-enabled research, and smaller and smaller dimensions 
that require a deep understanding of both biology and physics, 
we encourage the Director to develop a Foundation-wide policy 
to address the issue of interdisciplinary research.
    In general, the Committee supports NSF efforts to promote 
interdisciplinary research across all directorates, such as 
between physical scientists and biological scientists, and at 
all levels of university research, from undergraduate research 
assistant through principal investigator. One successful model 
for interdisciplinary research is the Science and Technology 
Centers (STC) Integrative Partnerships program. The Committee 
strongly encourages the Foundation to fund new STCs in FY08 and 
beyond. In addition, the Committee encourages the Foundation to 
work with other appropriate agencies to foster 
interdisciplinary work across the agencies. For example, the 
Committee recommends that the Director explore the options for 
NSF to establish a program, in cooperation with the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH), to simultaneously advance the 
physical, mathematical, computational and life sciences--the 
so-called ``Bridging Sciences.'' The Committee understands that 
NIH is pursuing a similar proposal for collaboration with the 
NSF.

         SEC. 6. PILOT PROGRAM OF GRANTS FOR NEW INVESTIGATORS

    The Committee recognizes that this activity is already 
being implemented in some form in several of the research 
divisions, and commends those NSF staff for their role in 
mentoring young investigators. The Committee expects to see 
this scattered practice expanded into a Foundation-wide 
practice. On a related topic, the Committee understands that 
the Board has recommended a new Foundation-wide initiative on 
transformative research. The Committee requests that NSF 
provide the details of the implementation plan for the 
initiative when completed. Furthermore, the Committee 
recommends that the Director consider using this pilot program, 
at least in part, to fund young scientists with particularly 
novel, cutting-edge proposals--including those considered to be 
high-risk or transformative.

             SEC. 7. BROADER IMPACTS MERIT REVIEW CRITERION

    Research areas that have been identified as having high 
importance for future national economic competitiveness and 
that should warrant special consideration with respect to 
industry partnerships include such physical sciences, 
engineering and computing-related areas as nanotechnology, 
information technology, and communications technology. The 
Committee commends NSF for its leadership role in these areas 
and for its efforts to engage industry through the various 
Centers programs and other multi-year group awards. The 
Committee strongly encourages NSF to continue to issue 
solicitations for new awards under these programs.
    The Committee does not intend in any way to devalue other 
broader impacts considered by review panels under Criterion 2, 
such as promoting learning and broadening participation. But, 
at the same time, the Committee understands from both the 
academic and industrial stakeholders that 1) much more can be 
done to foster university/industry partnerships across the 
Foundation and 2) for research in certain areas where industry 
has a direct long-range interest, it is appropriate to weight 
industry participation more heavily than other broader impacts.
    The Committee is basing its emphasis on greater industry 
participation in part on the example set by the Semiconductor 
Industry Association (SIA) through its Nanoelectronics Research 
Initiative (NRI). In his March 29, 2007 testimony before the 
Research and Science Education Subcommittee, the NRI director 
stated that ``the partnership between NSF and industry in NRI 
results in a more productive research program because it brings 
together the technical expertise of industrial research 
managers and university scientists. Moreover, by jointly 
funding research with industry, NSF can focus basic research 
efforts on scientific questions that have maximum potential 
economic impact.'' The SIA contribution to university basic 
research through the NRI is about $5 million per year, in 
addition to about $60 million invested in universities through 
research consortia. These numbers are modest to a multi-billion 
dollar industry, but significant to the university research 
enterprise.
    The Committee supports the mission of NSF to support 
discovery research--that is, research that asks questions about 
how the world works before any particular problem or 
application has been identified. It is exactly this type of 
research that makes U.S. scientists the most creative in the 
world. However, when the federal government supports an 
initiative to address a specific challenge--in this case 
keeping the U.S. at the forefront of the innovation curve in 
areas such as nanotechnology and information technology--every 
opportunity should be taken to leverage private money and 
expertise. The NRI mission of finding a new computing switch to 
insure U.S. leadership in nanoelectronics is one example of 
where this can be done effectively, without compromising either 
NSF's mission to support basic research or the merit-review 
model through which it funds grants.

                SEC. 9. RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH

    The Committee recognizes that what constitutes 
``appropriate training'' may not be the same for undergraduate 
students as for graduate students or postdocs. The Committee 
prefers to give the Director maximum flexibility in determining 
the full range of activities that would constitute appropriate 
training; however, the Committee does expect the Foundation to 
promptly develop and provide written guidelines and/or 
templates for universities to follow so that compliance can be 
verified by all parties, and to share any such guidelines with 
the Committee. When developing guidelines, the Foundation 
should bear in mind the financial impact that these measures 
will have on institutions and should seek to minimize such 
impacts accordingly.
    The Committee recognizes that NSF grants are funded by 
federal taxpayer dollars. The Committee believes that it is 
important that federal research grant recipients are aware of 
the source of their funding and the responsibility that it 
carries. The Committee expects the Foundation to take steps to 
educate all of its grantees accordingly, and should consider 
requiring funding recipients to sign a certification that 
recognizes the source of the funding they are receiving and 
includes an agreement to conduct the research responsibly and 
consistent with the highest ethical and methodological 
standards.

                         SEC. 13. COST-SHARING

    The Committee supports the Board's cost-sharing policy in 
general, especially as it pertains to research grants. However, 
there are specific programs and activities for which the 
Committee believes that cost-sharing requirements may be 
appropriate and tasks the Board to revisit their cost-sharing 
policy in the case of these limited number of programs and 
activities. The Committee is not at this time seeking a more 
comprehensive review of the cost-sharing policy.

   SEC. 18. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REPORT ON DIVERSITY IN STEM 
                                 FIELDS

    The National Academy's recent report, Rising Above the 
Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a 
Brighter Economic Future, identified key policy recommendations 
for maintaining American competitiveness. The report ranked the 
improvement of STEM education at the top of the list, and 
rightly recognized the need to ensure that students 
underrepresented in STEM disciplines, including women, low 
income and minority students, have equal access to the highest 
quality education in these disciplines. Following the 
``Gathering Storm'' report, a 2006 NAS report considered, and 
made recommendations for overcoming, the barriers and bias 
faced by women in science and engineering. The Committee 
expects the Foundation to consider how the recommendations from 
that report can be incorporated into Foundation programs and 
practices.
    The Committee would now like NAS to undertake an in-depth 
report on the unique challenges faced by underrepresented 
minorities and the steps that government, universities and the 
private sector can take to mitigate those challenges. The 
Committee expects the NAS report, when addressing the 
particular role of minority-serving institutions, to look 
across all types of minority-serving institutions, including 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving 
Institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities and other 
institutions of higher education serving a substantial number 
of minority students.
    NSF has some critical programs, both within EHR and 
scattered throughout R&RA, to broaden participation in STEM 
fields. As long as the total budget for the Foundation 
continues to grow, the Committee expects programs at NSF 
designed to broaden the participation in STEM fields by 
individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science and 
Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b) 
to receive annual funding increases at least in keeping with 
the rate of inflation.
    Sec. 24 of the National Science Foundation Act of 2002 
created a new program to award grants to minority-serving 
institutions to enhance the quality of undergraduate STEM 
education at such institutions. The Committee expects NSF to 
report on the status of this program, including total funding 
for the program and the distribution of awards made under the 
program. The Committee expects such a report within six months 
after enactment of this Act.

                           IX. Cost Estimate

    A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to 
the Committee on Science and Technology prior to the filing of 
this report and is included in Section X of this report 
pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
    H.R. 1867 does not contain new budget authority, credit 
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming 
that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 
1867 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as 
described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the 
bill, which is contained in Section X of this report.

              X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate


H.R. 1867--National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007

    Summary: H.R. 1867 would authorize the appropriation of 
about $21 billion over the 2008-2010 period for ongoing 
operations of the National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF 
provides funding for basic research in science and engineering, 
as well as programs to improve science education and 
infrastructure. Assuming appropriation of the specified 
amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1867 would cost 
$1.5 billion in 2008 and $19.5 billion over the 2008-2012 
period. Enacting H.R. 1867 would have no significant effect on 
direct spending or revenues.
    H.R. 1867 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 
The bill would benefit public institutions of higher education 
and any costs they may incur would result from complying with 
conditions for receiving federal assistance.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1867 is shown in the following table. 
The cost of this legislation falls within budget functions 050 
(national defense) and 250 (general science, space, and 
technology).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              2007     2008     2009     2010     2011     2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

NSF Spending Under Current Law:
    Budget Authority......................................    5,916        0        0        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.....................................    5,631    4,451    2,083      769      253        8
Proposed Changes:
    Research and Related Activities:
        Authorization Level...............................        0    5,080    5,457    5,863        0        0
        Estimated Outlays.................................        0    1,118    3,385    4,754    4,128    1,930
    Education and Human Resources:
        Authorization Level...............................        0      873      934    1,003        0        0
        Estimated Outlays.................................        0      105      461      721      766      435
    Other NSF Activities:\1\
        Authorization Level...............................        0      547      589      626        0        0
        Estimated Outlays.................................        0      299      448      563      260      137
        Total Changes:
            Authorization Level...........................        0    6,500    6,980    7,492        0        0
            Estimated Outlays.............................        0    1,522    4,294    6,038    5,154    2,502
NSF Spending Under H.R. 1867:
    Authorization Level...................................    5,916    6,500    6,980    7,492        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.....................................    5,631    5,973    6,377    6,807    5,407   2,510
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes funding for Agency Operations and Awards Management, Major Research Equipment and Facilities
  Construction, the Office of the Inspector General, and the Office of the National Science Board.

    Basis of estimate: H.R. 1867 would authorize funding for 
NSF over the next three years. For this estimate, CBO assumes 
that the bill will be enacted in fiscal year 2007 and that the 
amounts authorized by the bill will be appropriated each year. 
Based on historical spending patterns, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 1867 would cost about $19.5 billion over the 
2008-2012 period, assuming appropriation of the specified 
amounts.

Research and related activities

    H.R. 1867 would authorize the appropriation of $16.4 
billion over the 2008-2010 period for programs under NSF's 
Research and Related Activities account. In 2007, these 
programs received an appropriation of about $4.7 billion to 
support most of NSF's basic science, technology, engineering, 
and mathematics (STEM) research. Included in the bill's 
authorization level is $370 million over the three-year period 
for NSF's Major Research Instrumentation program, which 
provides grants to organizations to acquire and develop major 
research equipment that would not otherwise be available 
through other NSF programs. Based on historical spending 
patterns, CBO estimates that implementing these provisions 
would cost $1.1 billion in 2008 and $15.3 billion over the 
2008-2012 period for ongoing research and related activities.

Education and human resources

    The bill would authorize the appropriation of about $2.8 
billion over the 2008-2010 period for NSF's Education and Human 
Resources programs. In 2007, these programs received an 
appropriation of $797 million to support and expand the STEM 
knowledge-base and workforce. Included in the bill's three-year 
authorization level is $303 million for Mathematics and Science 
Education Partnerships, $304 million for the Robert Noyce 
Scholarship Program, $159 million for the STEM Talent Expansion 
Program, and $166 million for the Advanced Technological 
Education program. Based on historical spending patterns, CBO 
estimates that implementing these provisions would cost $105 
million in 2008 and $2.5 billion over the 2008-2012 period for 
ongoing operation of Education and Human Resources program.

Other NSF activities

    The bill would authorize the appropriation of nearly $1.8 
billion over the 2008-2010 period for other activities of NSF, 
including Agency Operations and Award Management ($925 
million), Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction 
($787 million), the Office of the Inspector General ($38 
million), and the Office of the National Science Board ($12 
million). In 2007, NSF received appropriations totaling $453 
million for these activities. Based on historical spending 
patterns, CBO estimates that implementing these provisions 
would cost $1.7 billion over the 2008-2012 period, assuming 
appropriation of the specified amounts.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1867 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA. Public institutions of higher education would 
benefit from math and science grants programs authorized in the 
bill. Institutions that choose to participate in those programs 
may incur costs to comply with the conditions of the federal 
assistance, including cost-sharing requirements, but such costs 
would be incurred voluntarily.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Daniel Hoople. Impact 
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum. 
Impact on the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                  XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H.R. 1867 contains no unfunded mandates.

         XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    The oversight findings and recommendations of the Committee 
on Science and Technology are reflected in the body of this 
report.

      XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the goals of 
H.R. 1867 are to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 
2008, 2009, and 2010 for the National Science Foundation.

                XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 1867.

                XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    H.R. 1867 does not establish nor authorize the 
establishment of any advisory committee.

                 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act

    The Committee finds that H.R. 1867 does not relate to the 
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services 
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of 
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

                      XVII. Earmark Identification

    H.R. 1867 does not contain any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.

     XVIII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law

    This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or 
tribal law.

       XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2002

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 11. ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTERS FOR RESEARCH ON MATHEMATICS AND 
                    SCIENCE LEARNING AND EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT.

  (a) Establishment.--
          (1) In general.--(A) The Director shall award grants 
        to institutions of higher education or eligible 
        nonprofit organizations (or consortia thereof) to 
        establish multidisciplinary Centers for Research on 
        Learning and Education Improvement.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Selection Process.--
          (1) Application.--An institution of higher education 
        or an eligible nonprofit organization (or a consortium 
        [of such institutions] thereof) seeking funding under 
        this section shall submit an application to the 
        Director at such time, in such manner, and containing 
        such information as the Director may require. The 
        application shall include, at a minimum, a description 
        of--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 15. ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS.

  (a) Board Meetings.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Compliance audit.--The Inspector General of the 
        Foundation shall conduct [an annual audit] an audit 
        every three years of the compliance by the Board with 
        the requirements described in paragraph (2). The audit 
        shall examine the proposed and actual content of closed 
        meetings and determine whether the closure of the 
        meetings was consistent with section 552b of title 5, 
        United States Code.
          (4) Report.--Not later than February 15 of [each 
        year] every third year, the Inspector General of the 
        Foundation shall transmit to the Committee on Science 
        of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 
        Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, 
        and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
        Pensions of the Senate the audit required under 
        paragraph (3) along with recommendations for corrective 
        actions that need to be taken to achieve fuller 
        compliance with the requirements described in paragraph 
        (2), and recommendations on how to ensure public access 
        to the Board's deliberations.-
          (5) Materials relating to closed portions of 
        meetings.--To facilitate the audit required under 
        paragraph (3) of this subsection, the Office of the 
        National Science Board shall maintain the General 
        Counsel's certificate, the presiding officer's 
        statement, and a transcript or recording of any closed 
        meeting, for at least 3 years after such meeting.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ACT OF 1950

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

  Sec. 4. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(g) The Board may, with the concurrence of a majority of its 
members, permit the appointment of a staff consisting of not 
more than five professional staff members and such clerical 
staff members as may be necessary. Such staff shall be 
appointed by the Chairman and assigned at the direction of the 
Board. The professional members of such staff may be appointed 
without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States 
Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and 
the provisions of chapter 51 of such title relating to 
classification, and compensated at a rate not exceeding the 
maximum rate payable under section 5376 of such title, as may 
be necessary to provide for the performance of such duties as 
may be prescribed by the Board in connection with the exercise 
of its powers and functions under this Act. Each appointment 
under this subsection shall be subject to the same security 
requirements as those required for personnel of the Foundation 
appointed under section 14(a).]
  (g) The Board may, with the concurrence of a majority of its 
members, permit the appointment of a staff consisting of not 
more than 5 professional staff members, technical and 
professional personnel on leave of absence from academic, 
industrial, or research institutions for a limited term and 
such operations and support staff members as may be necessary. 
Such staff shall be appointed by the Chairman and assigned at 
the direction of the Board. The professional members and 
limited term technical and professional personnel of such staff 
may be appointed without regard to the provisions of title 5, 
United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive 
service, and the provisions of chapter 51 of such title 
relating to classification, and shall be compensated at a rate 
not exceeding the maximum rate payable under section 5376 of 
such title, as may be necessary to provide for the performance 
of such duties as may be prescribed by the Board in connection 
with the exercise of its powers and functions under this Act. 
Section 14(a)(3) shall apply to each limited term appointment 
of technical and professional personnel under this subsection. 
Each appointment under this subsection shall be subject to the 
same security requirements as those required for personnel of 
the Foundation appointed under section 14(a).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (j)(1) The Board shall render to the President[, for 
submission to] and the Congress no later than January 15 of 
each even numbered year, a report on indicators of the state of 
science and engineering in the United States.
  (2) The Board shall render to the President [for submission 
to] and the Congress reports on specific, individual policy 
matters related to science and engineering and education in 
science and engineering, as the Board, the President, or the 
Congress determines the need for such reports.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                    GENERAL AUTHORITY OF FOUNDATION

  Sec. 11. The Foundation shall have the authority, within the 
limits of available appropriations, to do all things necessary 
to carry out the provisions of this Act, including, but without 
being limited thereto, the authority--
          (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (f) to receive and use funds donated by others, if 
        such funds are donated without restriction other than 
        that they be used in furtherance of one or more of the 
        general purposes of the Foundation, except that funds 
        may be donated for specific prize competitions;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


  SECTION 201 OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 
                                  1998

SEC. 201. NATIONAL RESEARCH FACILITIES.

  (a) Facilities Plan.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Contents of the plan.--The plan shall include--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (D) for each project funded under the major 
                research equipment and facilities construction 
                account and for major upgrades of facilities in 
                support of Antarctic research programs--
                          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


 SECTION 6 OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1975

  Sec 6. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) No more than one award shall be made under this section 
in any one fiscal year.]
  (c) Up to three awards may be made under this section in any 
one fiscal year.

                     XX. Committee Recommendations

    On April 25, 2007, the Committee on Science and Technology 
favorably reported the National Science Foundation Act by a 
voice vote, and recommended its enactment.

  XXI. Proceedings of the Markup by the Subcommittee on Research and 
    Science Education on H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation 
                       Authorization Act of 2007

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:51 p.m., in 
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian 
Baird [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Chairman Baird. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on 
Research and Science Education will come to order. Pursuant to 
notice, the Subcommittee on Research and Science meets to 
consider the following: H.R. 1867, the National Science 
Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. We will now proceed with 
the markup, beginning with opening statement, and I will begin.
    I would like to thank everyone for being here first of all, 
especially my dear friend Vern Ehlers for his work in this. It 
is in the tradition of this committee that this has truly been 
a bipartisan effort, and I am pleased with the product we have 
produced. This afternoon, the Committee will markup H.R. 1867, 
the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. Dr. 
Ehlers and several other Members of the Subcommittee join me in 
introducing this bill, which was developed with input from a 
diverse range of stakeholders in the research and STEM 
education communities. NSF is the only federal agency whose 
mission is to support science and engineering across all 
disciplines. Currently, NSF funds 20 percent of all basic 
research conducted at American colleges and universities. In 
many fields such as mathematics, computer science and the 
social sciences, NSF is the major source of federal backing. 
NSF is a proposal-driven agency. This means that the 
overwhelming of research grants funded by NSF are unsolicited, 
thereby helping to cultivate a scientific-research enterprise 
in which the capacity for creativity and innovation is 
unrivaled throughout the world.
    NSF also has a mission to achieve excellence in U.S. 
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education at 
all levels, in all settings from kindergarten through post-
doctoral training, from classrooms to science museums to online 
resources.
    The National Science Foundation was last authorized by 
Congress in 2002. In that Act, Congress authorized a five-year 
doubling for NSF. Unfortunately, in fiscal year 2007, the final 
year of the previous authorization, NSF's actual budget is only 
$5.9 billion, about three billion short of what was authorized 
in the last bill.
    On the one hand, I am disappointed that we did not get more 
for NSF in the annual appropriations give-and-take, and at the 
same time, I am optimistic about NSF's prospects for increasing 
budgets in the next several years. What makes this 
authorization different is that we have the support of the 
Administration, the leadership in the House, Congress as a 
whole, and leading voices in industry to pass legislation that 
helps keep our scientific enterprise and our capacity for 
innovation number one in the world.
    As we see high-paying jobs outsourced, our children 
graduating high school well behind their international peers in 
understanding basic science, China surging ahead in the export 
of high-tech products, it has finally sunk in. Funding basic 
research and teaching our children math and science has a huge 
impact on our economy, on our competitiveness, and on the well 
being of our population.
    H.R. 1867 will authorize nearly $21 billion for NSF over 
three years, representing an annual growth rate of just over 
seven percent. Of that total, $16.4 billion would be available 
to fund research, primarily through competitive grants; $2.8 
billion would be available for STEM-education programs, 
including $765 million for three critical K through 12 
programs, math and science partnerships, Noyce teacher 
scholarship, and the Tech Talent Program. And an additional 
$790 million would be available for construction of world-class 
research facilities and equipment. But NSF cannot keep up with 
the growing research and education budgets without support for 
a growing workforce and maintenance of its own infrastructure, 
including such seemingly mundane needs as office space and 
computers for its employees. Therefore, in this bill, we have 
also authorized an agency-operation budget that grows at the 
same seven percent rate for a total of $925 million over three 
years. The remaining $50 million would fund the National 
Science Board, the oversight body for the Foundation, and the 
Office of the Inspector General. In addition to authorizing 
appropriations for the Foundation, H.R. 1867 contains several 
other important provisions. Section 3 provides specific funding 
for the Advanced Technology Education Program, which to date 
has helped create 2,000 and 16,800 courses that successfully 
prepare two-year college students across the country for a 
high-tech workforce. Section 3 also increases the cap on awards 
for major research instrumentation, step-wise, as the total MRI 
budget grows in order to accommodate a wider range of state-of-
the-art research tools. Section 5 requires an evaluation of 
NSF's role in supporting interdisciplinary research, which is 
increasingly central to scientific progress and technological 
innovation. Section 6 establishes a pilot program of one-year 
seed grants for new investigations to help improve funding 
rates for young investigators and stimulate higher risk 
research. Section 7 encourages university-industry partnerships 
to make every federal research dollar go further and to engage 
the private sector in setting research priorities in areas of 
national needs. Section 8 requires funded investigators to 
report on activities to mentor post-doctoral research scholars, 
the most under-mentored, under-compensated, and under-
recognized segment of the higher education STEM pipeline. 
Section 9 requires NSF-funded institutions to train covered 
individuals, in particular students, in the responsible and 
ethical conduct of research. Section 12 encourages continuity 
of funding for certain STEM education programs that can 
continue to demonstrate success without requiring them to 
redesign and recompete their proposal every five years. Section 
13 requires an evaluation of the impact of NSF's new cost-
sharing policy on existing and potential university-industry 
partnerships.
    In addition to the items just listed, the bill has several 
other provisions to address administrative and budget issues at 
the Foundation, require reports on area of interest to the 
Committee, and ensure that important programs continue to 
receive adequate attention and funding. As you can see, we did 
not just copy what was done before. I think we listened to the 
feedback of people from a broad spectrum, and improved the good 
work that had preceded us.
    I would like to thank my colleague Dr. Ehlers and other 
Members of the Committee, including Ms. Hooley and Ms. Johnson, 
for their thoughtful contributions to this bipartisan bill. 
With your input, we have a stronger bill that addresses the 
needs of broad range of stakeholders in the scientific 
community. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1867 and yield 
the floor to my friend Mr. Ehlers.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
    This afternoon the Research and Science Education Subcommittee will 
mark up H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 
2007. Dr. Ehlers and several other Members of the Subcommittee joined 
me in introducing this bill, which was developed with input from a 
diverse range of stakeholders in the research and STEM education 
communities.
    NSF is the only federal agency whose mission is to support science 
and engineering across all disciplines. Currently, NSF funds 20 percent 
of all basic research conducted at American colleges and universities. 
In many fields such as mathematics, computer science and the social 
sciences, NSF is the major source of federal backing.
    NSF is a proposal-driven agency. That means that the overwhelming 
majority of research grants funded by NSF are unsolicited, thereby 
helping to cultivate a scientific research enterprise in which the 
capacity for creativity and innovation is unrivaled in the world.
    NSF also has a mission to achieve excellence in U.S. science, 
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education at all levels 
and in all settings, from kindergarten through post-doctoral training, 
from classrooms to science museums to online resources.
    The National Science Foundation was last reauthorized by Congress 
in 2002. In that Act, Congress authorized a five-year doubling for NSF. 
Unfortunately, in fiscal year 2007, the final year of the previous 
authorization, NSF's actual budget is only $5.9 billion--about $3 
billion short of what was authorized in the last bill.
    On the one hand, I am disappointed that we didn't get more for NSF 
in the annual appropriations give-and-take. On the other hand, I am 
optimistic about NSF's prospects for steadily increasing budgets in the 
next several years. What makes this authorization different is that we 
have the support of the Administration, the Leadership in the House, 
Congress as a whole, and leading voices in industry, to pass 
legislation that helps keep our scientific enterprise--and our capacity 
for innovation--number one in the world.
    As we see high-paying jobs outsourced, our children graduating high 
school well behind their international peers in understanding of basic 
science concepts, China surging ahead in export of high-tech products--
it has finally sunk in. Funding basic research and teaching our kids 
math and science has a huge impact on our economy, on our 
competitiveness, and on the well-being of our population.
    H.R. 1867 would authorize nearly $21 billion for NSF over three 
years--representing an annual growth rate of just over seven percent. 
Of that total--

          $16.4 billion would be available to fund research, 
        primarily through competitive grants;

          $2.8 billion would be available for STEM education 
        programs, including $765 million for three critical K-12 
        programs--Math and Science Partnerships, Noyce Teacher 
        Scholarships, and the Tech Talent program; and

          $790 million would be available for construction of 
        world-class research facilities and equipment.

    But NSF can't keep up with the growing research and education 
budgets without support for a growing workforce and maintenance of its 
infrastructure, including such seemingly mundane needs as office space 
and computers for its employees. Therefore, we have also authorized an 
agency operations budget that grows at the same seven percent rate, for 
a total of $925 million over three years.
    The remaining $50 million would fund the National Science Board, 
the oversight body for the Foundation; and the Office of the Inspector 
General.
    In addition to authorizing appropriations for the Foundation, H.R. 
1867 contains several other important provisions--

          Section 3 provides specific funding for the Advanced 
        Technological Education program, which to date has helped 
        create 2,000 programs and 16,800 courses that successfully 
        prepare two-year college students across the country for the 
        high-tech workforce;

          Section 3 also increases the cap on awards for major 
        research instrumentation step-wise as the total MRI budget 
        grows, in order to accommodate a wider range of state-of-the-
        art research tools;

          Section 5 requires an evaluation of NSF's role in 
        supporting interdisciplinary research, which is increasingly 
        central to scientific progress and technological innovation;

          Section 6 establishes a pilot program of one-year 
        seed grants for new investigators to help improve funding rates 
        for young investigators and stimulate higher-risk research;

          Section 7 encourages university/industry partnerships 
        in order to make every federal research dollar go further and 
        to engage the private sector in setting research priorities in 
        areas of national need;

          Section 8 requires funded investigators to report on 
        activities to mentor post-doctoral research scholars--the most 
        under-mentored, under-compensated, and under-recognized segment 
        of the higher education STEM pipeline;

          Section 9 requires NSF-funded institutions to train 
        covered individuals, in particular students, in the responsible 
        and ethical conduct of research;

          Section 12 encourages continuity of funding for 
        certain STEM education programs that can continue to 
        demonstrate success, without requiring them to redesign and 
        recompete their proposals every five years;

          Section 13 requires an evaluation of the impacts of 
        NSF's new cost-sharing policy on existing and potential 
        university/industry partnerships.

    In addition to the items just listed, the bill has several other 
provisions to address administrative and budget issues at the 
Foundation, to require reports on areas of interest to the Committee, 
and to ensure that important programs continue to receive adequate 
attention and funding.
    I would like to thank my colleague Dr. Ehlers and other Members of 
the Subcommittee, including Ms. Hooley and Ms. Johnson, for their 
thoughtful contributions to this bipartisan bill. With your input we 
have a stronger bill that addresses the needs of a broad range of 
stakeholders in the scientific community. I urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 1867.

    Mr. Ehlers. I thank Chairman Baird for yielding, but also 
and especially, I thank Chairman Baird and the Committee staff 
for their hard work on this bill. It is an excellent bill, and 
I am pleased that a large bipartisan group of Members of this 
committee have joined me in co-sponsoring the National Science 
Foundation Authorization Act of 2007.
    This bill would provide a three-year authorization for the 
National Science Foundation, an agency that provides critical 
support for researchers, educators and students in science, 
technology, engineering and mathematics--usually abbreviated as 
STEM. Given the ``flattening'' of our world today, these 
subject are increasingly critical to our global 
competitiveness. The ability to innovate has always set the 
United States apart, and I believe that the expertise of the 
NSF has laid the groundwork for that reputation. American 
creativity has resulted in the highest standard of living in 
the world, a well as a large number of wonderful research 
developments and ideas that have come out of that. And we 
certainly want to keep encouraging that creativity and 
innovation. The NSF Authorization Act of 2007 seeks to build on 
the foundation established over 60 years ago when Vannevar 
Bush's recommendations on science policy led to the creation of 
this unique institution. Among other things, it fortifies the 
Math and Science Partnership Program, expands the existing 
scholarship programs for STEM majors and creates new 
opportunities for innovative ideas to be funded.
    I have said before that writing a bill such as this is 
particularly challenging because the NSF is typified by 
exceptional efficiency and successes. Finding areas of needed 
change is not an easy task. Nonetheless, we have heard from a 
number of witnesses, both internal and external to the 
Foundation, who have offered helpful insights on possible ways 
to strengthen the NSF. This subcommittee has incorporated some 
of that feedback in the bill that we are marking up today. I 
also expect that since this bill has been on somewhat of a fast 
track, there will be opportunities to improve it later in the 
process as we receive more comprehensive comments from NSF 
stakeholders. I am pleased that this bill establishes a pathway 
to double the total budget of the Foundation. In 2002, 
Congresswoman Biggert and I collaborated and the Congress 
wholeheartedly supported a five-year doubling path for the 
Foundation, though unfortunately, appropriations have fallen 
far short of that target. Personally, I would like to have us 
reinstitute that five-year doubling, but I am pleased that the 
bill at least establishes a 10-year instead of a five-year 
pathway. I hope the levels authorized will also be 
appropriated, and I do hope that someday we will be able to 
speed up both the authorization and appropriation processes. I 
know that many Members of this committee will work tirelessly 
to make sure that these numbers become a reality, and I would 
also call it a floor that hopefully we can do better than that. 
In addition, given the strong bipartisan support for the NSF, I 
would have also preferred to see this bill authorize the agency 
for more than three years.
    Finally, I would like to mention an important provision 
absent from the bill we are marking up today. In the Antarctic, 
NSF performs important research on climate change, among other 
subjects, that requires the use of icebreakers. These boats are 
expensive to maintain and operate, yet are a critical part of 
the NSF's mission. For many years, these icebreakers were 
provided without cost to the NSF by the Coast Guard. In view of 
the Coast Guard's lack of resources at this point, causes 
partially by terrorism, we have developed a new problem here. 
While we wanted to--and I believe the Chair also wanted to do 
this--we wanted to solve this problem here. We could not do it 
because of jurisdictional problems. Another committee would 
have demanded that they look at the bill, and that would have 
held it up beyond reason. So I certainly concur with the 
Chairman's activity in removing that part, but I just simply 
want to say I believe the Committee needs to revisit this 
topic, perhaps on the Floor, perhaps in conference, but we have 
to, at some point, include the statutory language necessary to 
insure that NSF has the means to prudently manage Antarctic 
activities, including the use of icebreakers.
    I look forward to working with Chairman Baird. I appreciate 
him on this bill and congratulate him on the product, and I 
look forward to continue to work with him and colleagues on the 
bill. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
    I am pleased a bipartisan group of Members of this committee have 
joined me in co-sponsoring the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 2007, and thank Chairman Baird and the Committee 
staff for their hard work.
    This bill would provide a three-year authorization for the National 
Science Foundation (NSF), an agency that provides critical support for 
researchers, educators, and students in science, technology, 
engineering and mathematics (STEM). Given the ``flattening'' of our 
world today, these subjects are increasingly critical to our global 
competitiveness. The ability to innovate has always set the United 
States apart, and I believe that the expertise of the NSF has laid the 
groundwork for that distinguished reputation.
    The NSF Authorization Act of 2007 seeks to build on the foundation 
established over 60 years ago when Vannevar Bush's recommendations on 
science policy led to the creation of this unique institution. Among 
other things, it fortifies the Math and Science Partnership program, 
expands existing scholarship programs for STEM majors, and creates new 
opportunities for innovative ideas to be funded. I have said before 
that writing a bill such as this is particularly challenging because 
the NSF is typified by exceptional efficiency and success; finding 
areas of needed change is not an easy task. Nonetheless, we have heard 
from a number of witnesses, both internal and external to the 
Foundation, who have offered helpful insights on possible ways to 
strengthen the NSF. The Subcommittee has incorporated some of that 
feedback in the bill we are marking up today. I also expect that since 
this bill has been on somewhat of a fast track, there will be 
opportunities to improve it later in the process, as we receive more 
comprehensive comments from NSF stakeholders.
    I am pleased that this bill establishes a pathway to double the 
total budget of the Foundation. In 2002, Congress wholeheartedly 
supported a five-year doubling path for the Foundation, though 
unfortunately appropriations have fallen far short of that target. 
Though I am discouraged the bill establishes a ten-year instead of 
five-year pathway, I hope that the levels authorized will also be 
appropriated. I know that many Members of this committee will work 
tirelessly to make sure these numbers become a reality. In addition, 
given the strong bipartisan support for the NSF, I would have also 
preferred to see this bill authorize the agency for more than three 
years.
    Finally, I would like to mention an important provision absent from 
the bill we are marking up today. In the Antarctic, NSF performs 
important research on climate change among other subjects that requires 
the use of icebreakers. These boats are expensive to maintain and 
operate, yet are a critical part of the NSF's mission. While I 
understand mention of icebreakers has been removed from today's bill 
due to jurisdictional concerns, I believe the Committee needs to 
revisit this topic and include the statutory language necessary to 
ensure that NSF has the means to prudently manage Antarctic activities.
    I look forward to working with Chairman Baird and my colleagues on 
this bill.

    Chairman Baird. I thank Mr. Ehlers, and I would respond to 
your observation abut the icebreakers, that I fully share your 
commitment, and it is definitely something that we will take up 
in the Committee. It is an essential part of our polar 
activities, and we will make sure we do what we can, but you 
are right about the jurisdictional issues, and that is the 
reason that is not particularly addressed in the bill as it 
stands now.
    Without objection, I would indicate that Members may place 
any statements in the record at this point. I would ask 
unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read and open 
to amendment at any point and that Members proceed with 
amendments in the order of the roster.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The first amendment is to be offered by Eddie Bernice 
Johnson from Texas. She is not here, and I will offer the 
amendment in her stead.
    She has been, as many of you know, a tireless of advocate 
of education for women and disadvantaged minorities, and this 
amendment and the following will reflect her commitment to 
that. This amendment would require the National Science 
Foundation to submit a plan to Congress each year for how it 
will allocate its education and human resource funds. Section 7 
of the current NSF law mandates the agency submit a similar 
plan for the research and related activities portion of its 
budget; however, there has not been a requirement for NSF to 
report on how it will allocate its budget for education and 
human resource activities. This amendment mandates such a plan. 
It requires that this plan include a description of how the 
education and human resource funding allocations will, one, 
affect the average size and duration of the EHR grants 
supported by NSF; two, affect trends in research support for 
the effective instruction of math, science, engineering and 
technology; three, affect the K-20 pipeline for the study of 
STEM; and four, encourage the interest of under-represented 
minorities in STEM, and help prepare them to pursue post-
secondary studies in these fields. Careful planning of NSF's 
education budget is important to achieving our shared objective 
in expanding the pool of scientists and engineers and improving 
the quality of math and science education in the U.S. For this 
reason, I support the amendment and urge its adoption. It 
occurs to me, I perhaps should have had the Clerk read the 
amendment first. So the Clerk will report the amendment.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
    This amendment, which I am offering on behalf of Congressman Eddie 
Bernice Johnson, would require NSF to submit a plan to Congress each 
year for how it will allocate its Education and Human Resources Funds.
    Section 7 of the current NSF law mandates that the agency submit a 
similar plan for the Research and Related Activities portion of its 
budget. However, there has not been a requirement for NSF to report on 
how it will allocate its budget for Education and Human Resources 
activities.
    This amendment mandates such a plan. It requires that this plan 
include a description of how Education and Human Resources funding 
allocations will:

        (1)  affect the average size and duration of E&HR grants 
        supported by NSF;

        (2)  affect trends in research support for the effective 
        instruction of math, science, engineering and technology;

        (3)  affect the K-20 pipeline for the study of STEM; and

        (4)  encourage the interest of under-represented minorities in 
        STEM, and help them prepare to pursue post-secondary studies in 
        these fields.

    Careful planning of NSF's Education budget is important to 
achieving our shared objective of expanding the pool of scientists and 
engineers and improving the quality of math and science education in 
the U.S. For this reason, I support this amendment and urge its 
adoption.

    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1867, offered by Ms. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson of Texas.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for considering this amendment to the NSF 
Reauthorization Act of 2007.
    My amendment would require NSF to annually submit a plan for how 
the foundation will allocate its Education and Human Resources Funds.
    The plan will be submitted to Members on the House and Senate 
Committees of science jurisdiction, and also to the Members on the 
Appropriations Committees.
    Section 7 of the current NSF law mandates that the agency submit a 
similar plan for the Research and Related Activities portion of its 
budget.
    This current policy directs NSF to describe how its budget 
allocations will affect the average size and duration of research 
grants.
    The plan should also include information on trends in research 
support for major fields of science, math, and engineering.
    However, there has not been a requirement for NSF to report on how 
it will allocate its budget for Education and Human Resources 
activities.
    Mr. Chairman, Section 3 of the NSF Authorization Act of 2002 states 
that NSF's policy objectives shall be, among others, to:

        (1)  expand the pool of scientists and engineers in the U.S.;

        (2)  improve the quality of math and science education, 
        particularly in kindergarten through grade 12;

        (3)  raise post-secondary enrollment rates in STEM for 
        individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science and 
        Engineering Equal Opportunities Act; and

        (4)  increase access to higher education in STEM fields for 
        students from low-income households.

    Careful planning of the Education section and other portions of the 
NSF budget is important for the success of these objectives.
    This activity is also important to enable pertinent Congressional 
committees to oversee a transparent planning process and provide 
appropriate oversight. That is our mission.
    As I mentioned, my amendment would require NSF to report a plan for 
the allocation of its Education and Human Resources budget for the 
upcoming fiscal year.
    The amendment states that the plan shall include a description of 
how E&HR funding allocations:

        (1)  will affect the average size and duration of E&HR grants 
        supported by NSF;

        (2)  will affect trends in research support for the effective 
        instruction of math, science, engineering, and technology;

        (3)  will affect the K-20 pipeline for the study of STEM; and

        (4)  will encourage the interest of under-represented 
        minorities in STEM, and help them prepare to pursue post-
        secondary studies in these fields.

    My friend and colleague, Representative Ruben Hinojosa, a Member of 
the Education and Labor Committee, is a strong advocate of this policy 
change, as am I.
    It is our intent that this amendment will draw greater focus and 
increased transparency on the planning and budgeting of NSF's STEM 
education activities.
    I appreciate the Subcommittee's consideration of this amendment and 
yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    And having already articulated the reasons that I support 
the amendment, I will now invite anyone--I was so excited to 
offer Eddie's amendment--I am happy to offer anyone else who 
wishes to make any additional comments.
    Hearing none, the motion occurs on the amendment. All in 
favor will indicate by saying aye. Those opposed no.
    The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    The second amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 
by the gentlelady from Texas. I will again offer the amendment 
on her behalf. But this time, the Clerk will report the 
amendment before I do.
    The Clerk. An amendment to H.R. 1867, offered by Ms. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson of Texas.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for considering my amendment.
    As a Co-Chair of the Diversity & Innovation Caucus, I have a strong 
interest in ensuring that members of under-represented minorities have 
greater opportunities to enter--and succeed--in our science, 
technology, engineering and math workforce.
    Mr. Chairman, I move to submit names of the Diversity and 
Innovation Caucus for the official record.
    Current workforce trends compiled by NSF and other entities 
demonstrate that Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and other 
minorities are not entering STEM fields at rates proportionate to their 
numbers in our population.
    Most recent NSF data reports that, of all scientists employed in 
this country, nearly 75 percent are White. A pitiful 3.5 percent are 
Black, and three percent are Hispanic. I respectfully submit this 
information for the record.
    Mr. Chairman, of all the progress the United States has made in 
computing, technology, and health science, we are still not taking care 
of our minority populations!
    For some reason, minorities are not entering the STEM workforce, 
and current NSF policies are not helping to change this problem.
    My district, in Dallas, Texas, is 42 percent Black, and 34 percent 
Hispanic. A majority of the students in my district are members of 
under-represented minorities, and they live in high-poverty areas.
    I believe that these children deserve a fair chance at access to 
highly qualified science and math instruction. These children deserve 
the same opportunities as students living in affluent areas to earn 
graduate degrees in STEM and succeed in the workforce.
    Representative Silvestre Reyes, who represents the El Paso area in 
west Texas, strongly agrees with me that a Gathering Storm-like report 
should be done that contains policy suggestions to increase diversity 
in STEM.
    Representative Reyes has been a strong advocate and good friend, 
and I want to acknowledge his engagement and good work on this issue.
    This amendment would direct the NSF to work with the National 
Academy of Sciences to produce such a report.
    The amendment states that the Foundation shall enter into an 
arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences for a report, to be 
transmitted to the Congress no later than one year after the date of 
enactment of this Act, about barriers to increasing the number of 
under-represented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics fields.
    This report shall also identify strategies for bringing more under-
represented minorities into the STEM workforce.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your proactive stance 
on the diversity issue. Your partnership and support have been 
important to me, and your technical background is truly an asset to 
this committee.
    I would also like to thank the staff, especially your designee and 
the staff of Chairman Gordon and Mr. Reyes, for their work on this 
legislation.
    In closing, I urge the Members of this subcommittee to support this 
amendment intended to facilitate policies that will foster greater 
diversity in the STEM workforce. I yield back.

    Chairman Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so order. And I will recognize 
myself for five minutes to explain the amendment.
    This amendment, which I am also offering on behalf of 
Congresswoman Johnson was drafted also in cooperation with 
Congressman Silvestre Reyes. It would direct the NSF to work 
with the National Academy of Sciences to produce a report that 
contains policy suggestions to increase diversity in STEM. 
Current workforce trends, compiled by NSF and other entities, 
demonstrate that African Americans, Hispanics, Native 
Americans, and other minorities are not entering STEM fields at 
rate proportionate to their numbers in our population. The 
amendment states that the Foundation shall enter into an 
arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences for a report 
to be transmitted to Congress, not later than one year after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, about barriers to 
increasing the numbers of under-represented minorities in 
science, technology, engineering, and math fields. The report 
shall also identify strategies for bringing more under-
represented minorities into the STEM workforce.
    As Co-Chair of the Diversity and Innovation Caucus, 
Congresswoman Johnson, who has been a clear leader in the House 
on this issue, has worked tirelessly to ensure that members of 
under-represented minorities have greater opportunity to enter 
and succeed in our science, technology, engineering, and math 
workforce. I commend her and Congressman Reyes for their 
commitment, and would urge adoption of this amendment. Are 
there any additional Members? Mr. Ehlers is recognized for five 
minutes.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
    This amendment, which I am also offering on behalf of Congresswoman 
Johnson, was drafted in cooperation with Congressman Silvestre Reyes. 
It would direct the NSF to work with the National Academy of Sciences 
to produce a report that contains policy suggestions to increase 
diversity in STEM.
    Current workforce trends compiled by NSF and other entities 
demonstrate that African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans and 
other minorities are not entering STEM fields at rates proportionate to 
their numbers in our population.
    The amendment states that the Foundation shall enter into an 
arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences for a report, to be 
transmitted to Congress not later than one year after the date of 
enactment of this Act, about barriers to increasing the number of 
under-represented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics fields.
    The report shall also identify strategies for bringing more under-
represented minorities into the STEM workforce.
    As Co-Chair of the Diversity & Innovation Caucus, Congresswoman 
Johnson has been a clear leader in the House on this issue and has 
worked tirelessly to ensure that members of under-represented 
minorities have greater opportunities to enter and succeed in our 
science, technology, engineering, and math workforce.
    I commend her for her commitment, and urge adoption of this 
amendment.

    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I do support the amendment, but Mr. Reyes name was 
mentioned. Is he a Member of this committee?
    Chairman Baird. No, he is not, but he worked with Ms. 
Johnson.
    Mr. Ehlers. All right. I think his name cannot be on an 
amendment offered in the Committee.
    Chairman Baird. All right. I appreciate that point. I was 
merely giving him credit where credit is due, but not 
officially on the amendment. Thank you. Any additional comments 
on the amendment? I appreciate that. Without any objection, 
then, we will proceed with the vote.
    A vote occurs on the amendment. Those in favor will signify 
by saying aye. Those opposed no. The ayes have it. The motion 
carries and the amendment is adopted.
    The third amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 
by the gentlelady, and my near neighbor, Ms. Hooley from the 
State of Oregon, who has also been a champion of these sorts of 
issues. Ms. Hooley, are you ready to proceed with your 
amendment?
    Ms. Hooley. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Baird. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1867 offered by Ms. Hooley of 
Oregon.
    Chairman Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the 
gentlelady from Oregon for five minutes to explain her 
amendment.
    Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would first like to 
thank you and the Ranking Member for all of your work on this 
issue, and for your staff's willingness to work with my office 
to ensure that this legislation is the best that it can be.
    I know that my colleagues join me in recognizing of 
promoting STEM education in this country as a means of 
preserving America's place in the global economy. My amendment 
does just that by seeing that a program with a proven track 
record for producing researchers and engineers is given the 
funding that it deserves in order to continue to serve our 
country's students.
    My amendment establishes specific funding levels for the 
research experiences for undergraduate program, rather than 
having it exist as part of the general budget for the research 
and related activities section. This is an important 
designation to make, since the REU program has its funding not 
increase at the same rate as the rest of the Foundation. 
Anecdotal evidence suggests that students who are able to 
participate in REU programs to be trained in research are more 
likely to pursue careers and further education in STEM 
disciplines, becoming researchers, engineers, technicians, math 
and science teachers that our nation so desperately needs.
    In my own district, students at Willamette University in 
Salem, Oregon, and Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon 
have taken advantage of these funds to participate in summer 
research programs, both at their own schools and at schools 
across the country. In addition, larger research universities 
in my State, like Oregon State University, conduct summer 
research programs that draw REU students from across the 
country. The cross-pollination that occurs when students from 
different institutions and different regions have a chance to 
work together benefits the students, the host schools, and the 
schools that the students return to.
    Again, I thank the Chairman for his support for this 
amendment and for the REU Program, and I urge my colleagues to 
join me in seeing that this program has the funding that it 
deserves.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Hooley follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Representative Darlene Hooley
    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Thank you Mr. 
Chairman. I would first like to thank you for your work on this issue 
and for you and your staff's willingness to work with my office to 
ensure that this legislation is the best that it can be.
    I know that my colleagues join me in recognizing the importance of 
promoting STEM education in this country as a means of preserving 
America's place in the global economy. My amendment does just that by 
seeing that a program with a proven track record for producing 
researchers and engineers is given the funding that it deserves in 
order to continue to serve our country's students.
    My amendment establishes specific funding levels for the Research 
Experiences for Undergraduates program rather than having it exist as 
part of the general budget for the Research and Related Activities 
section. This is an important designation to make since the REU program 
has seen its funding not increase at the same rate as the rest of the 
Foundation.
    Anecdotal evidence suggests that students who are able to 
participate in REU programs and be trained in research are more likely 
to pursue careers and further education in STEM disciplines, becoming 
the researchers, engineers, technicians, and math and science teachers 
that our nation so desperately need.
    In my own district, students at Willamette University in Salem, OR 
and Lewis and Clark College in Portland, OR have taken advantage of 
these funds to participate in summer research programs both at their 
own schools and at schools across the country.
    In addition, larger research universities in my State, like Oregon 
State University, conduct summer research programs that draw REU 
students from across the country.
    The cross-pollination that occurs when students from different 
institutions and different regions have a chance to work together 
benefits the students, the host schools, and the schools that the 
students return to.
    Again, I thank the Chairman for his support for this amendment and 
for the REU program and I urge my colleagues to join me in seeing that 
this program has the funding that it deserves.
    Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Baird. I thank the gentlelady. Are there any other 
Members----
    Mr. Neuberger. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Baird. Yes, the gentleman from Texas.
    Mr. Neuberger. Yes, I have a question for Ms. Hooley. Now, 
you said that these programs have been funded in another 
category in the past. Is that correct?
    Ms. Hooey. Well, they have been under a general funding 
category, and what has happened, those funds have gone down. 
For example, two years ago, they were at $58 million, and then 
they went to $56 million, and so what we are doing is saying 
they are an important part; they need their own designation. 
And we would put them--instead of being in the general 
category, they are put separate from that.
    Mr. Neuberger. So did we reduce the general category by the 
amount commensurate with what you are specifically earmarking?
    Ms. Hooley. No, the general category stays the same. It 
just designates that these go up on an annual basis.
    Mr. Neuberger. So then we added additional authorization 
with this, rather than making it neutral?
    Ms. Hooley. No, it is neutral.
    Chairman Baird. If the gentleman would yield momentarily.
    Essentially what happened was we fire-walled this within 
the existing program. The authorization already exists to 
allocate funds in this fashion. What has happened is basically 
those funds have been used for other purposes, thereby leaving 
less for this important area, and all this amendment does, it 
doesn't create a new program. It just recognizes one and 
firewalls a portion of the existing program for that purpose, 
recognizing its importance.
    Mr. Neuberger. And this amendment does not increase that 
amount of authorization in the original bill. Is that correct?
    Chairman Baird. Absolutely correct.
    Ms. Hooley. No.
    Mr. Neuberger. I thank the gentlewoman. Thank you.
    Ms. Hooley. Thank you.
    Chairman Baird. I thank the gentleman for his question. Mr. 
Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really torn on 
this amendment because I very strongly support the program. It 
is an excellent program, and I have seen the results of it 
myself. And I also support the intent of the amendment.
    At the same time, we have always tried to minimize the 
amount to which we subdivide the NSF budget and authorize bits 
and pieces of it for a couple of reasons. First of all, they 
operate under an organic act, and they have been given 
considerable freedom to operate within that. Another reason is 
that if we start designating or authorizing separately, that 
may well lead to this becoming a line-item at some point, and 
very often line-items like that are more susceptible to attack, 
rather than simply lumping it together and letting the 
Foundation decide.
    Another factor is that the decreases of the past--let us 
see, just the last two budgets when--'08 is up slightly from 
'07; '07 was down a little. But that was an abysmal year 
financially all of the way around.
    So I am torn. I would think a better approach to take would 
be a sense of Congress or else report language saying how 
important we believe this is, and encouraging the Foundation to 
increase the amount allocated to it, thereby not infringing on 
their wishes, but also making it clear what our wishes are. And 
I think it would probably have the same effect without 
impinging on their ability to make their decisions freely.
    My concern is not so great that I will oppose the amendment 
or fight against it, but I just wanted to register that point. 
And I hope as this bill proceeds, we can try to work out an 
accommodation that ensures that these institutions do get this 
money, because they should have it, and frankly, I think it 
should be increased. But also, make it clear that we do not 
want to break tradition and start authorizing relatively small 
programs, that might in some way make them more susceptible in 
the future.
    So I will be happy to support the amendment and continue 
working with you and sponsor the amendment to see if we can 
come up with a good solution to that problem.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Baird. I respect and appreciate the gentleman's 
comments, and I will yield myself five minutes. As both Mr. 
Ehlers and I taught at the university level and taught 
undergraduates, I think we both know, personally, the absolute 
importance of proving high-quality research opportunities for 
undergraduates, both because when they graduate, they will be 
expected to have skill levels that they will acquire from doing 
research themselves, but also this is the seed corn, if you 
will, for our graduate programs. And under-funded or under-
equipped undergraduate opportunities will limit their ability 
to do that. And it is almost precisely because this is a 
relatively small portion of the NSF's budget overall that I 
think we provide some protection for that.
    I, however, agree that we don't necessarily want to micro-
manage these NSF funding bills, but at the same time, we want 
to--I think it is valid for the Congress to put down a marker 
on behalf of undergraduate education, if one looks at the 
relative percentage of expenditures that are dedicated to that 
function versus other uses, and I think that is what 
Congresswoman Hooley is focusing on, as a former educator 
herself, and when you visit our colleges and universities and 
you see the vast bulk of the students there are, indeed, in the 
undergraduate programs, making sure we have a bit of protection 
for them is sound.
    I appreciate the gentleman's indication that he will be 
supportive of this, but I also think we can probably work 
together to see how we can best recognize and respect your 
concerns while protecting this, I think, important function of 
NSF for the literally hundreds of thousands of undergraduates 
who have a potential to benefit from it.
    Other Members wishing to offer comments or amendment?
    With that, the motion occurs on the vote. All in favor will 
say aye. Those opposed will say no.
    They ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
    Are there any other amendments? Hearing none, the vote will 
be on the Bill H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 2007, as amended.
    All those in favor will signify by saying aye. All those 
opposed will say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. Those are 
the kinds of votes we like.
    I recognize Mr. Ehlers to offer a motion.
    Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Subcommittee 
favorably report H.R. 1867, as amended, to the Full Committee. 
Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to prepare the 
Subcommittee a legislative report and make necessary technical 
and conforming changes to the bill, as amended, in accordance 
with the recommendation of the Subcommittee.
    Chairman Baird. The question is on the motion to report the 
bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by 
saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table. Additionally, Subcommittee Members may submit 
additional or minority views on the measure.
    I want to thank the Members for their attendance and all of 
those who have contributed to this, particularly the staff for 
their long, long hours of hard work. With that, this concludes 
our subcommittee markup.
    [Whereupon, at 3:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


        H.R. 1867, Section-by-Section Summary, Amendment Roster






                     Section-by-Section Summary of
               H.R. 1867, The National Science Foundation
                       Authorization Act of 2007
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE--The National Science Foundation Authorization Act 
of 2007.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS--Provides definitions for terms used in this Act.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS--Authorizes $21 billion for the 
National Science Foundation (NSF) for fiscal years 2008-2010, including 
$16.4 billion for research and related activities (R&RA), $2.8 billion 
for education and human resources (EHR), and $787 million for major 
research facilities (MREFC). Allocates funding for major research 
instrumentation (MRI) under the R&RA account, and for certain education 
programs, including those authorized under H.R. 362. (See attached 
funding table for more detail.) Raises the ceiling for MRI awards step-
wise as the total MRI budget grows and requires 30 percent cost-sharing 
on MRI awards for certain Ph.D.-granting institutions. Requires the 
Director to fund undergraduate education division programs at a growth 
rate at least equal to the Foundation's overall growth rate.

SEC. 4. CENTERS FOR RESEARCH ON LEARNING AND EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT--
Requires the Director to continue funding these Centers, which were 
established by the 2002 NSF Reauthorization.

SEC. 5. INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH--Requires the National Science Board 
to evaluate the current and potential role of the Foundation in 
supporting interdisciplinary research, in providing adequate 
information to the scientific community about opportunities for funding 
of interdisciplinary research proposals, and in engaging undergraduate 
students in interdisciplinary research.

SEC. 6. NEW INVESTIGATORS--Establishes a pilot program of one-year seed 
grants for new investigators to improve their likelihood of being 
awarded standard competitive research grants. Uses an existing funding 
mechanism, the Small Grants for Exploratory Research program, to carry 
out the pilot program. Requires the Board to evaluate the effectiveness 
of the pilot program after three years.

SEC. 7. BROADER IMPACTS MERIT REVIEW CRITERION--Requires the Director, 
in reviewing proposals under criterion 2 of the merit review process, 
to give special consideration to proposals that include partnerships 
between academic researchers and industrial scientists and engineers 
and that address research areas that have been identified as having 
high importance for future national economic competitiveness. Also 
requires the Director to encourage industry/university partnerships 
that include cost-sharing. Finally requires report to Congress on the 
impact of the broader impacts grant criterion used by the Foundation.

SEC. 8. POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOWS--Requires funded investigators to 
report on activities to mentor postdoctoral research fellows funded 
under their grants.

SEC. 9. RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH--Requires each institution 
funded by NSF research grants to provide a plan for appropriate 
training in the responsible and ethical conduct of research to 
supported individuals.

SEC. 10. REPORTING OF RESEARCH RESULTS--Requires the Director to make 
available to the public, through the Foundation website, final project 
reports and all citations of published work resulting from NSF-funded 
research.

SEC. 11. SHARING RESEARCH RESULTS--Makes investigators who fail to 
comply with existing NSF policy on sharing of research results (Section 
734 of the NSF Grant Policy Manual) ineligible for future NSF awards 
until they comply with the policy.

SEC. 12. FUNDING FOR SUCCESSFUL STEM EDUCATION PROGRAMS--Permits the 
Director to exempt from the recompete requirement certain STEM 
education programs, including minority-serving programs and teacher 
training programs, that continue to demonstrate positive performance.

SEC. 13. COST SHARING--Requires the Board to evaluate the impact of the 
ruling to eliminate cost-sharing at the Foundation on programs that 
already do involve or may involve industry partnership.

SEC 14. DONATIONS--Allows NSF to accept private funds for certain prize 
competitions.

SEC. 15. ADDITIONAL REPORTS--Requires the Board to evaluate the 
Foundation policies on funding for pre-construction and maintenance and 
operation costs for major research equipment and facilities. Requires 
plans for upgrades of Antarctic facilities to be included in the annual 
national research facilities construction, repair and upgrades plan 
required under SEC 201(a)(1) of the NSF Authorization Act of 1998, as 
amended. Requires the Director to catalog all educational activities 
supported by R&RA programs and report to Congress. Requires the 
Director to report on funding success rates and distribution of awards 
for the Research in Undergraduate Institutions program.

SEC. 16. ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS--Changes audit requirement from 
every year to every three years for assessment of the compliance of the 
Board with the requirements of the Government in Sunshine Act. Gives 
the Board authority to take on IPA assignees (``rotators'') to 
supplement permanent staff.

SEC. 17. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD REPORTS--Amends the National Science 
Foundation Act of 1950 so that National Science Board reports are 
submitted directly to Congress from the Board, rather than through the 
President.



   XXII. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup on H.R. 1867, the 
         National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Gordon. The Committee on Science and Technology 
will come to order. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on 
Science and Technology meets to consider the following 
measures, H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 2007; H.R. 1868, Technology Innovation and 
Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007; H. Con. Res. 95, 
Honoring the career and research accomplishments of Frances E. 
Allen, the 2006 recipient of the A.M. Turing Award; and H. Res. 
316, Recognizing the accomplishments of Roger D. Kornberg, 
Andrew Fire, Craig Mello, John C. Mather, and George F. Smoot 
for being awarded Nobel Prizes in the fields of chemistry, 
physiology or medicine, and physics.
    And we will now proceed with the markup. Today the 
Committee is meeting to markup four good, bipartisan bills. The 
first bill we will consider today is H.R. 1867, the National 
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. H.R. 1867 was 
introduced by Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and other 
Members of the Research and Science Education Subcommittee. The 
Subcommittee met last Wednesday to consider H.R. 1867 and 
favorably reported the bill by voice vote after adopting three 
amendments. I want to thank and congratulate Members of the 
Subcommittee for their hard work and bipartisan cooperation on 
this excellent bill.
    The core of this bill is the three-year authorization that 
keeps the Foundation on a ten-year doubling path. NSF is a 
major source of federal backing for basic research at 
universities across all disciplines, and Members of the Science 
and Technology Committee often have a difficult time explaining 
to our constituents and other Members of Congress why it is so 
important to fund basic research. The benefits to you and me 
can seem so intangible in comparison to many of the other 
things the Federal Government does. But with the publicity 
around the recent reports like Rising Above the Gathering 
Storm, more of our colleagues and constituents understand that 
federally funded research pays enormous dividends to society.
    Economic growth, public health, national defense, and 
social advancements have all been tied to technological 
developments resulting from basic research. Let me just quickly 
add that as we know, there is a long time between basic 
research and applied research; and what we are talking about 
really--when we look at the big problems today, whether they 
are energy independence, whether it is climate change, whether 
it is competitiveness, our kids' and grandkids' jobs really are 
going to depend upon the technology that is developed today. 
There are seven billion people in the world, half of which make 
less $2 a day. We can't compete with them at $2. We don't want 
to. So it is the technologies that we are developing today that 
are going to let our kids and grandkids be more productive, and 
that is why it is so important that the National Science 
Foundation continue to do its work.
    In addition to providing strong research budgets, H.R. 1867 
provides important funding for some critical STEM education 
programs including three K0912 programs this committee expanded 
and refined in H.R. 362 which I am happy to say just passed the 
House yesterday. And again, I want to thank everyone here for 
that bipartisan work. It is a good bill. Mr. Gingrey spoke on 
it, and certainly Ralph and others spoke to that. I hope that 
everybody is in their local newspapers today because you were 
all a part of this bill, and it is a very good bill.
    And I am pleased that H.R. 1867 once again reaffirms the 
critical role that the National Science Foundation plays with 
STEM education. This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it and continue to work with me to assure that the 
rest of our colleagues in Congress understand the value of 
basic research as we do.
    Today we will also take up H.R. 1868, the Technology 
Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. This is 
an authorization bill for the programs of the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST. This bill is a 
bipartisan product of the Technology and Innovation 
Subcommittee, and I want to commend Chairman Wu and Ranking 
Member Gingrey for moving this bill through the Subcommittee 
expeditiously. The Science and Technology Committee needs to 
send a strong signal to the Appropriations Committees about the 
importance we place on full funding of NIST. The pace of 
technology keeps accelerating, particularly in areas such as 
biofuels, pharmaceutical biologics, and health care IT. NIST 
has an important role to play in the adoption of these 
technologies through the creation of standards and the new 
measurement technologies.
    And let me speak just a moment on this. You know, NIST is 
probably one of the most under-estimated aspects of the Federal 
Government. It was originally meant to take care of measures 
and standards. Now it goes much beyond that, and I think it is 
an agency that all of us can feel comfortable with because this 
is not a regulatory agency. This is an agency that brings 
together the business community and the manufacturing 
community, to work out problems on standards. And I think you 
are going to find that our committee here, besides the 
Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, is going to get a lot 
more respect within Washington and elsewhere because of this 
agency. We are where the Commerce Committee has been stagnant 
in terms of health care IT. Ways and Means hasn't been able to 
go forward. We are going to be able to step forward and solve 
some of those problems where the health care community is going 
to look at the Science and Technology Committee as the one who 
made that breakthrough. Financial services is going to look at 
us pretty soon as a committee that can make those kind of 
breakthroughs because of NIST. So we are going to continue 
working on that, and I think you are going to see NIST help us 
to make our committee much more relevant.
    The Committee is also aware of the important role that the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, plays in keeping good 
manufacturing jobs here in the United States, and NIST has a 
proven track record of implementing its technology development 
programs.
    Finally, the last two measures we are considering today, H. 
Con. Res. 95 and H.Res. 316 recognize the outstanding 
achievements of a group of American scientists. It is important 
that Congress recognize Americans who achieve great things in 
science, not just for the satisfaction of individual scientists 
but to show the public that Congress truly values the work that 
scientists do.
    And now I will recognize Mr. Hall to present his opening 
statement.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
    Good Morning. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science and 
Technology meets to consider the following measures:

         H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation 
        Authorization Act of 2007;

          H.R. 1868, Technology Innovation and Manufacturing 
        Stimulation Act of 2007;

         H. Con. Res. 95, Honoring the career and research 
        accomplishments of Frances E. Allen, the 2006 recipient of the 
        A.M. Turing Award; and

          H. Res. 316, Recognizing the accomplishments of Roger 
        D. Kornberg, Andrew Fire, Craig Mello, John C. Mather, and 
        George F. Smoot for being awarded Nobel Prizes in the fields of 
        chemistry, physiology or medicine, and physics.

    Today the Committee is meeting to markup four good bipartisan 
bills. The first bill we will consider today is H.R. 1867, the National 
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. H.R. 1867 was introduced 
by Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers and other Members of the 
Research and Science Education Subcommittee.
    The Subcommittee met last Wednesday to consider H.R. 1867, and 
favorably reported the bill by voice vote after adopting three 
amendments. I want to thank and congratulate Members of the 
Subcommittee for their hard work and bipartisan cooperation on this 
excellent bill. The core of this bill is the three-year authorization 
that keeps the Foundation on a 10-year doubling path.
    NSF is a major source of federal backing for basic research at 
universities, across all disciplines.
    Members of the Science and Technology Committee often have a 
difficult time explaining to our constituents and other Members of 
Congress why it is so important to fund basic research. The benefits to 
you and me can seem so intangible in comparison to many of the other 
things the Federal Government funds.
    But with the publicity around recent reports like ``Rising Above 
the Gathering Storm,'' more of our colleagues and constituents 
understand that federally-funded research pays enormous dividends to 
society. Economic growth, public health, national defense, and social 
advancement have all been tied to technological developments resulting 
from basic research.
    In addition to providing strong research budgets, H.R. 1867 
provides important funding for some critical STEM education programs, 
including three K0912 programs that this committee expanded and refined 
in H.R. 362, which I am happy to say just passed the House yesterday.
    The education programs at NSF are perhaps more tangible to the 
typical American, as everybody wants their children to be taught by 
highly qualified teachers and to graduate high school and community 
college prepared for the workforce of the 21st Century, or to have the 
opportunity to pursue even higher degrees if they so desire.
    I am pleased that H.R. 1867 once again reaffirms the critical role 
that NSF plays in STEM education. This is a good bill. I urge my 
colleagues to support it, and to continue to work with me to ensure 
that the rest of our colleagues in Congress understand the value of 
basic research as we do.
    Today, we'll also take up H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and 
Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. This is an authorization bill 
for the programs of the National institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST).
    This bill is the bipartisan product of the Technology and 
Innovation Subcommittee. I want to commend Chairman Wu and Ranking 
Member Gingrey for moving this bill through the Subcommittee 
expeditiously. The Science and Technology Committee needs to send a 
strong signal to the Appropriations Committee about the importance we 
place on full funding for NIST.
    H.R. 1868 places the NIST budget on the path to doubling over the 
next 10 years. The Science and Technology Committee has always been in 
the ``amen corner'' for fully funding all of NIST.
    The pace of technology keeps accelerating--particularly in areas 
such as biofuels, pharmaceutical biologics and health care IT. NIST has 
an important role to play in the adoption of these technologies through 
the creation of standards and new measurement technologies.
    This committee is also aware of the important role that the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program plays in keeping good 
manufacturing jobs here in the U.S. And NIST has a proven track record 
in implementing its technology development program. H.R. 1868 does an 
excellent job of balancing and funding these priorities and everyone on 
this committee should support this legislation.
    Finally, the last two measures we are considering today, H.Con.Res. 
95 and H.Res. 316, recognize the outstanding achievements of a group of 
American scientists.
    It is important that Congress recognizes Americans who achieve 
great things in the sciences, not just for the satisfaction of the 
individual scientists, but to show the public that the Congress truly 
values the work that scientists do.
    I recognize Mr. Hall to present his opening remarks.

    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the chance to make 
some opening remarks. Of course, as you say, we are considering 
two authorization bills relating to the President's American 
Competitive Initiative and two resolutions honoring the 
accomplishments of some very eminent American scientists.
    The National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007 
authorizes funding for NSF for the next three fiscal years. 
This measure goes a long way in keeping with the President's 
ACI plan to double the budget within ten years. In fact, it 
goes slightly beyond that to incorporate some of the additions 
to education programs that the House passed just yesterday.
    I appreciate the work of the Subcommittee Ranking Member, 
Mr. Ehlers, for his dedication and work on this bill; and I 
thank the Chairman and I thank Congressman Baird for their 
willingness to cooperate on making this really a truly 
bipartisan endeavor. I look forward to our continuing working 
together to improve this legislation and pass it with broad 
support.
    I am also pleased that we are marking up H.R. 1868, the 
Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 
2007. H.R. 1868 supports the President's ACI by setting the 
NIST lab budget on a path to double by fiscal year 2017. This 
bill ensures that America's small- and medium-sized 
manufacturers have access to the latest technologies and 
processes by authorizing the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership Program.
    Finally, H.R. 1868 authorizes the Technology Innovation 
Program to promote the swift development of high-risk research 
into marketable technologies. And I thank Dr. Ehlers and Dr. 
Gingrey for their extensive input into developing this bill, as 
well as the staff who dedicated considerable time in this 
endeavor. Also I want to thank my Democratic colleagues for 
incorporating these important priorities in this bipartisan 
legislation.
    Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased this committee will honor 
six esteemed American scientists today. H. Con. Res. 95 
recognizes the first woman to receive the prestigious computer 
science A.M. Turing Award, Frances Allen. H. Res. 316 honors 
the five American scientists who received Nobel Prizes in 2006, 
Roger Kornberg for chemistry, Andrew Fire for medicine, Craig 
Mello for Medicine, John Mather for physics, and George Smoot 
for physics.
    And before I close, I want to point out that the NSF and 
NIST bills as you have said, Mr. Chairman, both major pieces of 
legislation, were developed after only a few hearings on each 
topic, only one in the case of NIST. These hearings were at the 
subcommittee level, so only a few Members of the Committee were 
able to attend the hearings. Also, with regard to the NIST 
bill, there was never a hearing on the New Technology 
Innovation Program. In fact, these two bills were put together 
so quickly we have yet to receive all the witnesses' response 
and questions--their response to the questions for the record 
submitted by Members of the Committee.
    So Mr. Chairman, while I certainly support these bills in 
their current form and once I have received all of the 
witnesses' response, I or some other Members may want to 
propose further amendments to these bills when they are 
considered on the House Floor, and I know you will work with us 
on that.
    With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I thank 
you for laying out a good bill and preparing for a good 
hearing. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall

         H.R. 1867, National Science Foundation Authorization 
        Act of 2007

          H.R. 1868, Technology Innovation and Manufacturing 
        Stimulation Act of 2007

         H.Con.Res. 95, Honoring the Career and Research 
        Accomplishments of Frances E. Allen, the 2006 Recipient of the 
        A.M. Turing Award

          H.Res. 316, Recognizing the accomplishments of Roger 
        D. Kornberg, Andrew Fire, Craig Mello, John C. Mather, and 
        George F. Smoot for being award Nobel Prizes in the fields of 
        chemistry, physiology or medicine, and physics.

    Thank you, Chairman Gordon, for the chance to make some opening 
remarks about today's markup. Today we are considering two 
authorization bills related to the President's American Competitiveness 
Initiative (ACI) and two resolutions honoring the accomplishments of 
eminent American scientists.
    The National Science Foundation (NSF) Authorization Act of 2007, 
H.R. 1867, authorizes funding for NSF for the next three fiscal years. 
This measure goes a long way in keeping with the President's ACI plan 
to double the budget within ten years. In fact, it goes slightly beyond 
that to incorporate some of the additions to education programs that 
the House passed yesterday. I appreciate the work of the Subcommittee 
Ranking Member, Mr. Ehlers, for his dedication and work on this bill 
and thank the Chairman and Mr. Baird for their willingness to cooperate 
on making this a bipartisan endeavor. I look forward to our continuing 
to work together to improve this legislation and pass it with broad 
support.
    I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of H.R. 1868, the 
Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. H.R. 
1868 supports the President's ACI by setting NIST's lab budget on a 
path to double the budget by fiscal year 2017. The bill will ensure 
America's small- and medium-sized manufacturers have access to the 
latest technologies and processes by authorizing the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership Program. Finally, H.R. 1868 authorizes the 
Technology Innovation Program to promote the swift development of high-
risk research into marketable technologies. I thank Dr. Ehlers and Dr. 
Gingrey for their extensive input in developing this bill and my 
Democratic colleagues for incorporating our priorities into this 
bipartisan legislation.
    I also am pleased the Committee will honor six esteemed American 
scientists today. H.Con.Res. 95 recognizes the first woman to receive 
the prestigious computer science A.M. Turner award, Frances Allen. 
H.Res. 316 honors the five American scientists who received Nobel 
prizes in 2006: Roger Kornberg for chemistry; Andrew Fire for medicine; 
Craig Mello for medicine; John Mather for physics; and George Smoot for 
physics.
    Before I close, I want to point out that the NSF and NIST bills, 
both major pieces of legislation, were developed after only one hearing 
on each topic. Those hearings were at the Subcommittee level, so only a 
few Members of the Committee were able to attend the hearings. In the 
case of the NIST bill there was never a hearing on the new Technology 
Innovation Program. In fact, these two bills were put together so 
quickly that we have yet to receive all of the witnesses' responses to 
questions for the record submitted by Members of this committee. 
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, while I support these bills in their current 
form, once I have reviewed all of the witnesses responses I, or other 
Members, may want to propose further amendments to these bills when 
they are considered on the House Floor.
    With that I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Let me assure you 
that we want to continue to work in the spirit that we have to 
get good bills. You know, the last NIST authorization was in 
1992 out of this committee. It has been five years since we had 
a National Science Foundation authorization. There have been 
lots of hearings in between, but you know, it is time to get 
something done; and we want to have the best bill possible, and 
you can be absolutely assured that we will continue with that 
collaboration.
    Without objection, Members may place statements in the 
record at this point.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

    Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and Members of the Committee 
on Science and Technology,

    H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 
2007, is to me, one of the most important bills this committee will 
consider during the 110th Congress.
    The bill authorizes appropriations for fiscal years 2008092010, 
including funding for research and related activities, education and 
human resources and research facilities.
    Provisions were made for major research instruments and the 
Research Experiences for Undergraduates program. The bill also touches 
the K 0912 and two-year college programs under the education account.
    The bill would also require the National Science Board to report on 
NSF's role in interdisciplinary research and on the impacts of NSF's 
new cost-sharing policy on university/industry partnerships.
    It would establish a grant program for new investigators and 
require the Director to give special consideration to grant proposals 
involving industry partnerships.
    H.R. 1867 would require NSF-funded researchers to report on 
mentoring activities for postdoctoral research fellows and NSF-funded 
institutions to train individuals in the ethical conduct of research.
    Finally, and most important to me, the bill would require a 
National Academy of Sciences report on barriers to and recommendations 
for broadening minority participation in STEM fields.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you and my colleagues on this 
committee for your dedication to improving programs to diversify our 
scientific workforce.
    My district, in Dallas, is in a high-need area of low-income 
families. Many of our schools are experiencing a shortage of qualified 
math and science teachers.
    Students in my district struggle to keep pace on standardized 
tests.
    I have always viewed a strong education to be the key to lifting 
oneself out of poverty.
    Math and science education is especially important, because the 
careers of tomorrow will demand a strong foundation in these subjects.
    The National Science Foundation, along with other agencies, plays a 
pivotal role in enhancing math and science education.
    NSF is also tasked with broadening the participation of under-
represented minorities in science, technology, engineering and math.
    This committee, perhaps more than any other group, is poised to 
make a difference in our national competitiveness in STEM.
    Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. I believe it will be good for 
Dallas and for our nation as a whole.
    I yield back the balance of my time.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Representative Daniel Lipinski
    Thank you Mr. Chairman; I am pleased to be here today to act on 
this important legislation.
    I'd like to point out that this markup comes on the heels of 
yesterday's House passage of the ``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds'' 
and ``Sowing the Seeds'' legislation. Both of these bills were 
introduced in response to the Rising Above the Gathering Storm 
recommendations on improving America's competitiveness in the world, 
and today's legislation will further build upon that commitment.
    Today we stand at the cusp of numerous technological breakthroughs 
that will completely revolutionize our way of life; from hydrogen and 
other advanced fuels technologies to nanotechnology that has the 
potential to impact virtually every sector of our economy. The support 
that this legislation provides to American researchers will ensure that 
these breakthroughs continue.
    One important pilot program established by this bill will provide 
one-year seed grants for new investigators to improve their likelihood 
of being awarded standard competitive research grants. As a past 
recipient of a grant from NSF, I know just how beneficial this will be 
to our young researchers. In return for funding some of these 
investigators, NSF and the country may benefit from new technologies 
that otherwise would not have made it out of the lab.
    As a proud cosponsor of H.R. 1867, I urge the Committee to pass 
this important legislation and further America's dedication to science.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
    This bill would provide a three-year authorization for the National 
Science Foundation (NSF), an agency that provides critical support for 
researchers, educators, and students in science, technology, 
engineering and mathematics (STEM). Among other things, it fortifies 
the Math and Science Partnership program, expands existing scholarship 
programs for STEM majors, and creates new opportunities for innovative 
ideas to be funded.
    I think everyone on this committee understands the importance of 
NSF. Its research results in technologies that are later applied by 
other agencies, ranging from Doppler radar, which has saved many lives 
through accurate weather forecasts, to new devices which greatly 
improve health diagnosis and care, and to laser-guided weapons, which 
have revolutionized combat and helped to keep more of our troops out of 
harms way.
    NSF is also a key supporter of Science, Technology, Engineering and 
Mathematics (STEM) education. Now, more than ever, we must invest in 
our children's education to develop their talent, ensure their success, 
and maintain the quality of our workforce and the strength of our 
economy. NSF, with its expertise in merit-review awards, is uniquely 
positioned to contribute to math and science education and directly 
impact our nation's competitiveness.
    In 2002, Congress wholeheartedly supported a five-year doubling 
path for the Foundation, but unfortunately appropriations have fallen 
far short of that target. Though I am discouraged the bill establishes 
a ten-year instead of five-year pathway, I understand the Chairman is 
committed to seeing that these authorized levels are fully-funded in 
the appropriations process.
    I am pleased a bipartisan group of Members of this committee have 
joined me in co-sponsoring the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 2007, and thank Chairman Baird and the Committee 
staff for their hard work.

    Chairman Gordon. We will now consider H.R. 1867, the 
National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. I yield 
to the Chairman of the Research and Science Education 
Subcommittee, Mr. Baird, for five minutes to describe his bill.
    Mr. Baird. I thank the Chair and I want to begin by 
congratulating the Chair and really the entire Committee for 
passage of two very important pieces of legislation dealing 
with research and education. It is a testimony to the 
leadership of the Chair and to really an accomplishment for the 
Full Committee; and I want to put that into context. I think 
many Members may be pleasantly surprised to see so many young 
faces in our crowd today. I understand that they are Members of 
the Council for Undergraduate Research, and they are here as my 
understanding as part of the Posters on the Hill Session and I 
would just take this opportunity to encourage Members to join 
them at Rayburn B338, 339, or 340 to see some of the 
outstanding research being conducted by these young people. And 
I personally want to express my appreciation by giving you a 
round of applause for these young scientists who are here with 
us today.
    You will see what we are doing today is marking up the 
National Science Foundation bill. It is H.R. 1867, the National 
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. My friend and 
colleague, Dr. Ehlers, and several other Members of the 
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education joined us in 
introducing the bill which was developed with input from a 
diverse range of NSF stakeholders. We received much of our 
input during two Subcommittee hearings in March, but Dr. Ehlers 
and I made personal trips to NSF with the Director of NSF and 
the Science Board as well. A number of other hearings preceded 
the hearings in this committee this year as well as countless 
other informal conversations, both before and following those 
hearings.
    We tried to limit provisions of the bill to policy, 
administrative, and budget issues that have arisen since the 
last authorization in 2002 while leaving the Foundation with a 
maximum flexibility in translating our guidance into practice.
    On April 19th, the Subcommittee met to consider H.R. 1867 
and favorably reported the bill as amended by voice vote after 
adopting three amendments. I want to thank all of my colleagues 
on the Subcommittee for helping to improve this bill and move 
it expeditiously through the Subcommittee, and I want to take 
this chance to thank Representative Hall and Representative 
Gingrey for working in a good bipartisan manner to address some 
of their concerns with Ms. Hooley and myself and we are pleased 
that I think the results will improve the bill.
    The National Science Foundation is the only federal agency 
whose mission is to support science and engineering across all 
disciplines. NSF funds 20 percent of all basic research at 
American colleges and universities. In many fields such as 
mathematics, computer science, and the social sciences, NSF is 
the major source of federal backing. NSF is a proposal-driven 
agency, meaning that the overwhelming majority of research 
grants and funds are unsolicited basic research grants, thereby 
helping to cultivate a scientific research enterprise in which 
the capacity for creativity and innovation is unrivaled in the 
world. NSF also has a mission to achieve excellence in U.S. 
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM 
education at all levels and in all settings from K through 
post-doctoral training. I don't think the Committee can stress 
enough the critical leadership role NSF has in improving STEM 
education, and again I want to thank Chairman Gordon for his 
leadership on this issue.
    As we have seen high-paying jobs outsourced and our 
children graduating high school well behind their international 
peers in basic science, we realize more and more that funding 
basic research and teaching our kids math and science has a 
huge impact on our economy, our competitiveness, and the well-
being of our population, and I believe on our national 
security. H.R. 1867, the bill before us today, addresses these 
concerns by increasing funding for the basic research supported 
by NSF, strengthening NSF's STEM education programs and 
highlighting major policy issues at the forefront of the 
research community, including support for interdisciplinary 
research, mentoring of young investigators such as we see here 
today, and how best to facilitate and carry out our university 
and industry partnerships.
    H.R. 1867 will authorize nearly $21 billion for NSF over 
three years. This represents an annual growth rate of over 
seven percent of that total. $16.4 billion would be available 
to fund research primarily through competitive grants. $2.8 
billion will be available for STEM education programs including 
$765 million for three critical K through 12 programs, math and 
science partnership, Noyce Teacher Scholarships, and the Tech 
Talent Program. $790 million will be available for construction 
of world-class research facilities and equipment.
    But NSF can't keep up with the growing research and 
education budgets without a growing workforce and maintenance 
of its infrastructure, including such seemingly mundane needs 
as office space and computers for NSF employees. Therefore, we 
have also authorized an agency operations budget that grows at 
seven percent for a total of $925 million over three years, and 
I would underscore to my colleagues that this particular 
importance was very strongly emphasized to Dr. Ehlers and I 
during our visits with NSF and their staff.
    The remaining $50 million would fund the National Science 
Board, the oversight body for the Foundation, and the important 
Office of Inspector General.
    Specific elements of H.R. 1867 include Section 3 which 
provides specific funding for Advanced Technological Education 
Program which to date has helped create over 2,000 programs and 
16,300 courses that prepare two-year college students across 
the country for the high-tech workforce. Section 3 also 
increases the cap on awards for major research instrumentation 
step-wise as the total MRI budget grows in order to accommodate 
a wider range of state-of-the-art research tools. Section 5 
requires an evaluation of NSF's role in supporting 
interdisciplinary research which is increasingly central to 
scientific progress and technological innovation. Section 6 
establishes a pilot program of one-year seed grants for new 
investigators to help improve funding rates for young 
investigators. Section 7 encourages university-industry 
partnerships. Section 8 requires funded investigators to report 
on activities to mentor post-doctoral research scholars. 
Section 9 requires NSF-funded institutions to train covered 
individuals, in particular students in the responsible and 
ethical conduct of research. Section 12 encourages continuity 
of funding for certain STEM educations that can continue to 
demonstrate success without requiring a redesign and recompete 
of proposals every five years. Section 13 requires an 
evaluation of the impacts of NSF's new cost-sharing policy on 
existing and potential university partnerships. Section 15 
requires a few reports to Congress, including one on funding 
for major facilities and another on allocating funding for 
education for human resource activities. Finally, Section 18 
requires a National Academy of Sciences Report on barriers and 
strategies for increasing the participation of under-
represented minorities in STEM fields. Again, that is something 
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson has been a tireless advocate for.
    I would like to conclude by again thanking Dr. Ehlers and 
other Members of the Subcommittee, including Ms. Johnson and 
Ms. Woolsey, Chairman Gordon, and Ranking Member Hall for their 
thoughtful contributions to this bipartisan bill. We have a 
stronger bill thanks to your input. It addresses the needs of 
NSF stakeholders, and I urge support of H.R. 1867. Yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Brian Baird
    Good morning. The bill before us now is H.R. 1867, the National 
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. My colleague Dr. Ehlers, 
and several other Members of the Subcommittee on Research and Science 
Education joined me in introducing this bill, which was developed with 
input from a diverse range of NSF stakeholders. We received much of 
this input during two Subcommittee hearings in March. But a number of 
hearings that preceded those, as well as countless informal 
conversations with NSF stakeholders both before and following those 
hearings, also informed the details of this bill. We tried to limit 
provisions in the bill to policy, administrative and budget issues that 
have arisen since the last authorization in 2002, while leaving the 
Foundation with maximum flexibility in translating our guidance into 
practice.
    On April 19 the Subcommittee met to consider H.R. 1867 and 
favorably reported the bill as amended by voice vote after adopting 
three amendments. I want to thank all of my colleagues on the 
Subcommittee for helping to improve this bill and move it expeditiously 
through the Subcommittee.
    The National Science Foundation is the only federal agency whose 
mission is to support science and engineering across all disciplines. 
Currently, NSF funds 20 percent of all basic research conducted at 
American colleges and universities. In many fields such as mathematics, 
computer science and the social sciences, NSF is the major source of 
federal backing.
    NSF is a proposal-driven agency, meaning that the overwhelming 
majority of research grants it funds are unsolicited basic research 
grants, thereby helping to cultivate a scientific research enterprise 
in which the capacity for creativity and innovation is unrivaled in the 
world.
    NSF also has a mission to achieve excellence in U.S. science, 
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education at all levels 
and in all settings, from kindergarten through postdoctoral training. I 
don't think this Committee can stress enough the critical leadership 
role that NSF has in improving STEM education, and I want to thank 
Chairman Gordon for his leadership on this issue.
    As we see high-paying jobs outsourced, our children graduating high 
school well behind their international peers in understanding of basic 
science concepts, China surging ahead in export of high-tech products--
it has finally sunk in. Funding basic research and teaching our kids 
math and science has a huge impact on our economy, on our 
competitiveness, and on the well-being of our population.
    H.R. 1867 addresses these concerns by increasing funding for the 
basic research supported by NSF, strengthening and expanding NSF's STEM 
education programs, and highlighting several major policy issues at the 
forefront of the research community, including support for 
interdisciplinary research, mentoring of young investigators, and how 
best to facilitate and carry out university/industry partnerships.
    Specifically, H.R. 1867 would authorize nearly $21 billion for NSF 
over three years--representing an annual growth rate of just over seven 
percent. Of that total--

         $16.4 billion would be available to fund research, 
        primarily through competitive grants;

          $2.8 billion would be available for STEM education 
        programs, including $765 million for three critical K0912 
        programs--Math and Science Partnerships, Noyce Teacher 
        Scholarships, and the Tech Talent program; and

          $790 million would be available for construction of 
        world-class research facilities and equipment.

    But NSF can't keep up with the growing research and education 
budgets without support for a growing workforce and maintenance of its 
infrastructure, including such seemingly mundane needs as office space 
and computers for its employees. Therefore, we have also authorized an 
agency operations budget that grows at the same seven percent rate, for 
a total of $925 million over three years.
    The remaining $50 million would fund the National Science Board, 
the oversight body for the Foundation; and the Office of the Inspector 
General.
    In addition to authorizing appropriations for the Foundation, H.R. 
1867 contains several other important provisions--

         Section 3 provides specific funding for the Advanced 
        Technological Education program, which to date has helped 
        create 2,000 programs and 16,800 courses that successfully 
        prepare two-year college students across the country for the 
        high-tech workforce;

         Section 3 also increases the cap on awards for major 
        research instrumentation step-wise as the total MRI budget 
        grows, in order to accommodate a wider range of state-of-the-
        art research tools;

         Section 5 requires an evaluation of NSF's role in 
        supporting interdisciplinary research, which is increasingly 
        central to scientific progress and technological innovation;

         Section 6 establishes a pilot program of one-year seed 
        grants for new investigators to help improve funding rates for 
        young investigators and stimulate higher-risk research;

         Section 7 encourages university/industry partnerships 
        in order to make every federal research dollar go further and 
        to engage the private sector in setting research priorities in 
        areas of national need;

         Section 8 requires funded investigators to report on 
        activities to mentor postdoctoral research scholars--the most 
        under-mentored, under-compensated, and under-recognized segment 
        of the higher education STEM pipeline;

         Section 9 requires NSF-funded institutions to train 
        covered individuals, in particular students, in the responsible 
        and ethical conduct of research;

         Section 12 encourages continuity of funding for 
        certain STEM education programs that can continue to 
        demonstrate success, without requiring them to redesign and 
        recompete their proposals every five years;

         Section 13 requires an evaluation of the impacts of 
        NSF's new cost-sharing policy on existing and potential 
        university/industry partnerships;

         Section 15 requires a few reports to Congress, 
        including one on funding for major facilities, and one on 
        allocation of funding for education and human resources 
        activities;

         Section 18 requires a National Academy of Sciences 
        report on barriers to and strategies for increasing the 
        participation of under-represented minorities in STEM fields.

    I would like to thank my colleague Dr. Ehlers and other Members of 
the Subcommittee, including Ms. Johnson and Ms. Hooley, for their 
thoughtful contributions to this bipartisan bill. With your input we 
have a stronger bill that addresses the needs of a broad range of NSF 
stakeholders. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1867.

    Chairman Gordon. Thank you very much, Dr. Baird. Mr. Hall 
is recognized.
    Mr. Hall. I will yield to Dr. Ehlers if he might want to 
comment on the bill.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you for yielding, and I will be brief. 
Unfortunately, I was supposed to leave about two minutes ago to 
go testify before the Appropriations Subcommittee trying to get 
more money for the National Science Foundation. And that goes 
hand in glove with this bill.
    I will submit my statement for the record. Let me just 
briefly state it is an excellent bill. I appreciate the work 
that Dr. Baird has done on this, and it is important to 
recognize that the National Science Foundation is the crown 
jewel of the government's efforts in research. Not only that, 
it is the crown jewel of much of government. The Department of 
Management and Budget a few years ago ranked the National 
Science Foundation the highest of all government agencies in 
terms of what they accomplished for the money that was given to 
them and for their efficiency of administration.
    It is a great organization. I will not repeat all the 
details of what is in the bill, but I am just delighted to be 
involved in producing this bill. I am especially proud that we 
are on a doubling track again. I would prefer it be a shorter 
doubling track than ten years. I would prefer five years, but I 
recognize the spending difficulties we are facing right now.
    The last comment I want to make is to the students in the 
audience. When I ran for Congress, I didn't even realize it 
until after I was elected and a reporter checked through some 
220 years of records that it turned out I was the first 
research physicist ever elected to the United States Congress. 
Now, that is an indictment of the physics community. There 
should have been physicists here before.
    There is a huge amount of technical work to be done in the 
Congress, and much of what we deal with requires a knowledge of 
science. I encourage each and every one of you, because I am 
not going to be around that much longer, but I encourage each 
and every one of you to think seriously about at some point in 
your career entering the political arena, whether it is in the 
school board so that the school will have better math, science 
instruction, or the state legislature or the Congress. We 
desperately need technical expertise in the governing bodies of 
this Nation, and I hope you will consider that--doing that in a 
way that doesn't jeopardize your scientific careers.
    Mr. Hall. Excuse me. I thought you were finishing. Go 
ahead.
    Mr. Ehlers. Just one quick comment. I would much rather 
still be in the classroom and in the lab. It is a lot more fun. 
But this is something I have to do, and I hope it is something 
that you eventually will do as well. I am pleased to yield 
back.
    Mr. Hall. I thank you for that and I called on you because 
I knew you were very knowledgeable there and I knew you would 
have some good advice for students out here for one reason. The 
other reason is Appropriations Committee asked me to keep you 
over here just as long as I could.
    Mr. Ehlers. That is one thing the students have to learn. 
Many people will plot against you for trying to do good things.
    Mr. Hall. Thank you, with that I yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. Dr. Ehlers, are you recommending some of 
them move to Grand Rapids this afternoon?
    Mr. Ehlers. That would be fine. It is a great place to 
live, and the sooner you want to replace me, the happier I will 
be.
    Chairman Gordon. Let me just quickly say a sincere thanks 
to Dr. Baird and Dr. Ehlers for their very hands on--you can 
see they have a passion for the National Science Foundation. 
This was a hands-on effort, and I don't think we have ever had 
a combination of two folks that have worked better, known more 
about this agency; and for your information, it is 
interesting--some of you--and I remember. I don't know whether 
anybody else remembers Tim Valentine. Tim Valentine was the 
Chairman of this subcommittee, and it was in 1992 on 
Valentine's Day that the last time that NSF--I mean the NIST 
authorization was passed and signed in by the President. It was 
sort of a Valentine's Day gift to him. And so I think 15 years 
later with your leadership, we are going to see that 
accomplished again. So I thank you.
    Does anyone else wish to be recognized? Yes, Mr. 
Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, let me note that Mr. Valentine is a 
very fine man and does a great job when he was here; and when I 
first came to Congress, Mr. Valentine was my first chairman. 
And again, he is sort of--you are keeping with his tradition, 
Mr. Chairman, because he was a fine person, worked hard, and 
did everything in a very bipartisan way.
    I would like to ask a question about--we are of course 
authorizing a large amount of spending here today, and I was 
wondering--by the way, this is the first time I have known that 
you are a doctor, and I have been mistakenly just not calling 
you by your first name rather than Dr. Baird all this time.
    Chairman Gordon. He is the kind of doctor you might want to 
talk to.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. That is good. That was a good comeback. 
Dr. Baird, I got a problem. I was wondering--I am sorry to 
bring this up but it says here--I guess we are talking about 
$4,765,000,000 in research--goes specifically to research. How 
much of that is going to global warming research?
    Mr. Baird. I don't have that information off the top of my 
head. As you know there are various directorates within NSF. 
The particular allocations for those directorates are 
recommended by the Board, and I can get that for you, Mr. 
Rohrabacher, but I don't know.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me know this that again, I am not--
don't want to get into this long argument about whether global 
warming exists and whether it is caused by human beings. The 
more I have read--the more NASA reports I have read about the 
other planets warming up, not just Mars. Now we find the other 
planets are warming up as well just confirms to me that it is--
we are talking about the sun which we can't have much to do 
with that. But let me know this. I just came from a meeting in 
my office where a group of women were just requesting $25 
million more be spent for screening for breast cancer. And I am 
very sympathetic with that, and it seems to me that when we 
pass bills like this--and I know that scientists say, well, we 
are doing this for good science purposes, you know. Even if 
we--all the research we do on global warming is good for good 
science anyway, we can just stick it right into the computer of 
human knowledge, whatever we come up with. You know, it just 
seems to me that we have to be very, very careful with the 
money we are spending in the name of science is wisely spent 
because we don't have enough money to screen women who have 
breast cancer throughout the country. And it seems to me that 
$25 million--you know, you can say, okay, that is a good idea. 
But if we are spending billions of dollars on research that 
maybe does not have a purpose, we should be very cautious about 
that. It is just a thought.
    Mr. Baird. If I may briefly respond, I actually share the 
gentleman's concern that we spend our money wisely. In fact at 
the first convening of this subcommittee, I made precisely that 
point. I believe to the extent that scientists are receiving 
federal dollars, it is especially incumbent upon them to make 
sure that they are using that money wisely and well. And the 
example I gave in my opening comments of our opening hearing 
was I have got to somehow go back home and justify to the 
logger who is risking his life in the woods and putting food on 
his family's plate to the fisherman who is off the coast of 
Washington State to the guy working in the steel mill, 
wherever, and say we believe that spending your hard-earned 
taxpayer dollars is worthwhile; and I believe it is incumbent 
on scientists themselves to ask that question. Is the research 
I am doing with the federal dollars sufficiently important to 
spend somebody's hard-earned wages? Not all of it is, but I 
think most of it is. And I would share--the other thing I would 
say on the global warming front, I respect and recognize the 
gentleman's concerns. I think there are also many other--you 
may say that some aspect of research is going to global warming 
but it will be addressing other things like the health of our 
crops and the health of our forests, et cetera, water supply 
systems. They may tie that in some way to global warming, but 
it is probably not exclusively to global warming, so we will 
have other benefits.
    But the gentleman's point, the scientific dollars need to 
be spent wisely and well, and the research has to meet high 
standards is absolutely correct.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. And it is not just coming out of the 
taxpayers' pockets, it is coming out of money that we have 
available for things like breast cancer screening. So thank you 
very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you. Let me also say to the 
gentleman, one of the reasons that we resurrected the Oversight 
and Investigation Subcommittee was to make sure that our 
dollars were being spent well. And you know, I think that is a 
part of our job. We have limited resources. If we are not 
spending them well, then we are taking away from something 
else. And somewhat as Dr. Baird said, I think most of the 
climate change--if it is climate change, I think most of it 
really is looking for alternative energy and it is really an 
energy problem and climate change is really a secondary kind 
of--I mean, aspect to it.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the Chairman yield for just one 
moment?
    Chairman Gordon. Absolutely.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just note, and I am not going to 
name the institution, but I went down to visit an institution 
and I actually had a wonderful meeting on global warming in 
their new global warming center which was made out of--I mean, 
they had a beautiful dining room and they had wonderful 
facilities there where they were able to sit around and talk 
about global warming and it cost millions of dollars. And it 
was nothing more than a beautiful new building for these 
scientists to sit around in. It didn't even include any of 
the--there were even any machines there and everything like 
that. And they had a wonderful executive dining room in which 
they treated the Congressmen to lunch and everything like that. 
And quite frankly, that is--I don't know if some of the--a lot 
of the other money that we are spending in the name of that 
isn't going to that rather than research--I mean, the actual 
research that does help crops or forests or things like that.
    So there is some things that we need to be looking at, 
making sure the money is being spent in a way that is 
absolutely beneficial rather than just for people's comfort and 
scientists' comfort.
    Mr. Baird. May I respond briefly to that, Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Gordon. If you would--I am sure very brief.
    Mr. Baird. I will be very brief because I want to get to 
the markup, but to reassure the gentleman, it is my 
understanding that except in the case of large facilities, you 
know, where the infrastructure needs a building, NSF dollars 
typically don't go to buildings.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. This was a facility.
    Mr. Baird. But was it funded by--it may or may not have 
been funded by NSF dollars.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you. We always appreciate your 
input, Mr. Rohrabacher. We hope you had a good lunch there 
also.
    We need to bring this to a close. Let me just quickly say I 
think Dr. Ehlers shares most all of our opinions here is that 
we are all disappointed that the doubling of NSF takes ten 
years. That is not much more than inflation, but I think it is 
realistic. And it is something that we are all swallowing 
because again, we are trying to be realistic and move the ball 
forward, and we thank you for it.
    So does anyone else wish to be recognized? Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. I just want to submit my statement.
    Chairman Gordon. And we certainly will have the record open 
for anyone else that wants to submit their remarks. And if 
there are no other--Ms. Hooley?
    Ms. Hooley. Yes, I would just particularly like to thank 
Dr. Gingrey for the work that he did with me on our amendment 
that was brought up. A concern was brought up last time on 
undergraduate research, and so it is actually very appropriate 
that the students are here that those dollars go for. So I just 
want to thank him for the work on that. I think it makes it a 
better piece of legislation and it accomplishes what we want to 
accomplish by making sure the money is there for that 
undergraduate work.
    Chairman Gordon. Okay. If I might extend on that comment 
just a little bit. We really are trying to develop good 
bipartisan legislation with input from all, and I think that 
was a good example in that we were told--Ms. Hooley had an 
amendment and we were told that Dr. Gingrey was opposed to that 
amendment and, you know, which is perfectly fine. And so we 
told Darlene that and she said, well, he is a friend of mine. 
Let me just go talk to him. And so they went over and talked to 
him and worked it out; and hopefully again, we have a better 
bill. And I hope that we are trying to create that kind of 
dialogue so that folks can talk with each other. We are 
supposed to have differences and we should, but let us get the 
non-real differences aside and talk about the real differences. 
So again, we appreciate you working that out.
    Is there anyone else that has a comment? If not, I ask 
unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read and open 
to amendment at any point and that Members proceed with the 
amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    Chairman Gordon. The first amendment on the roster is 
offered by the gentleman from Washington State, Dr. Baird. Are 
you ready to proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Baird. I am.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R.----
    Chairman Gordon. I will ask unanimous consent. Let me 
just--you know----
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Gordon. I hate to interrupt. Yes, Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Could you at least let the Clerk read the title 
of the amendment of each of them?
    Chairman Gordon. Absolutely. If the Clerk will proceed?
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1867 offered by Mr. Baird of 
Washington.
    Chairman Gordon. And I will ask unanimous consent to 
dispense with the reading, and I say that just to expedite, not 
to be discourteous to our clerk and not to--but that is how the 
procedures go. Anytime someone wants us to go further, it is 
unanimous consent. So without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 1867 makes a 
few technical and clarifying changes to the bill following last 
week's Subcommittee markup. In addition, our amendment contains 
the following substantive changes.
    First, in Section 3D, subparagraph 3 on cost sharing for 
major research instrumentation awards, the amendment adds 
permission for a reduction or waiver of the MRI cost-sharing 
requirement at the discretion of the Director for consortia of 
institutions of higher education that include at least one 
institution that is not a Ph.D. granting institution. This 
provision will help build partnerships between major research 
universities and small undergraduate institutions to increase 
access to state-of-the-art research tools and experiences for 
both faculty and students at the smaller institutions.
    Second, in Section 4 we added eligibility for awards under 
the Centers for Research on Learning and Education Improvement 
Programs for certain non-profit organizations. A number of non-
profit research institutes around the country, including those 
housed at leading science museums, have repeatedly demonstrated 
their ability to take leadership roles and to build 
partnerships with universities in STEM education research. This 
provision would make those non-profits eligible for awards 
under the Centers program provided they meet all the other 
criteria including an ability to attract and support graduate 
students.
    Third, in Section 16 we added a new subsection to increase 
the number of Waterman Awards to three. The annual Waterman 
Award recognizes an outstanding young researcher in any field 
of science or engineering supported by the Foundation. Under 
this new provision, the Director may award up to three Waterman 
Awards per year. It has come to our attention that on at least 
one occasion it literally came down to a coin toss between 
equally outstanding young researchers. At the request of the 
Director of NSF, we increased the number of possible awards to 
avoid a repeat of this unfortunate situation. We are not 
mandating the three be awarded but allowing that in the case of 
outstanding qualifications.
    Finally, Section 18, we clarified the change--the charge to 
National Academy of Sciences for a report on diversity in STEM 
fields by listing specific topics for NAS to address in the 
report, including the role of minority-serving institutions in 
the diversity of America STEM workforce and a means for 
evaluating the effectiveness of diversity programs. Ms. Johnson 
suggested this clarification to improve upon her original 
amendment by providing more specific guidelines to the NAS on 
the issue--to the National Academies on the issues that we 
would like to see addressed in the report. As it turns out, 
some Senators put in a very similar request through a letter to 
the National Academy of Sciences, and NAS is already looking 
for funding to do this exact study. We are happy to support 
their efforts to carry this out and look forward to their 
specific recommendations on the role that NSF and NSF-supported 
institutions can play in increasing opportunities for under-
represented minorities to pursue studies and careers in STEM 
fields.
    I would urge adoption of this amendment and appreciate the 
good work of all those who contributed to it. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Brian Baird
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My amendment to H.R. 1867 makes a few technical and clarifying 
changes to the bill identified following last week's Subcommittee 
markup.
    In addition, my amendment contains the following substantive 
changes:
    First, in Section 3(d)(3), on cost-sharing for Major Research 
Instrumentation awards, the amendment adds permission for a reduction 
or waiver of the MRI cost-sharing requirement, at the discretion of the 
Director, for consortia of institutions of higher education that 
include at least one institution that is not a Ph.D.-granting 
institution. This provision would help build partnerships between major 
research universities and small undergraduate institutions to increase 
access to state-of-the-art research tools and experiences for both 
faculty and students at the smaller institutions.
    Second, in Section 4, we added eligibility for awards under the 
Centers for Research on Learning and Education Improvement program for 
certain nonprofit organizations. A number of nonprofit research 
institutes around the country, including those housed at leading 
science museums, have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to take 
leadership roles and to build partnerships with universities in STEM 
education research. This provision would make those non-profits 
eligible for awards under this Centers program provided they meet all 
of the other criteria, including an ability to attract and support 
graduate students.
    Third, in Section 16, we added a new subsection to increase the 
number of Waterman Awards to three. The annual Waterman Award 
recognizes an outstanding young researcher in any field of science or 
engineering supported by the Foundation. Under this new provision, the 
Director may award up to three Waterman awards per year. It has come to 
our attention that on at least one occasion, it literally came down to 
a coin toss between two equally outstanding young researchers. At the 
request of the Director, we increased the number of possible awards to 
avoid a repeat of this unfortunate situation.
    Finally, in Section 18, we clarified the charge of the National 
Academy of Sciences for a report on diversity in STEM fields by listing 
specific topics for NAS to address in the report, including the role of 
minority-serving institutions in the diversity of America's STEM 
workforce, and means for evaluating the effectiveness of diversity 
programs. Ms. Johnson suggested this clarification to improve upon her 
original amendment by providing more specific guidance to the National 
Academies on the issues that we would like to see addressed in their 
report. As it turns out, some Senators have put in a similar request 
through a letter to the National Academy of Sciences, and NAS is 
already looking for funding to do this exact study. WE are happy to 
support their efforts to carry out this study and look forward to their 
specific recommendations on the role that NSF and NSF-supported 
institutions can play in increasing opportunities for under-represented 
minorities to pursue studies and careers in STEM fields.
    I urge adoption of my amendment.

    Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the 
amendment? If not the vote occurs on the amendment. All in 
favor say aye? Those opposed say no. The ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    The second amendment on the roster is offered by the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall. Are you ready to proceed with 
your amendment?
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment--the 
title of the amendment, anyway.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1867 offered by Mr. Hall of 
Texas.
    Chairman Gordon. You want to----
    Mr. Hall. That is all right.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objections, so ordered. The gentleman is 
recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, thank you. This amendment is fairly 
simple. It makes a maximum single instrument request for major 
research instrumentation $4 million. Currently the cap is at $2 
million. Based on recommendations of the recent National 
Academy of Sciences Report on Advanced Research Instrumentation 
and Facilities, the NSF fiscal year 2008 budget request raised 
this cap from $2 million to $4 million, and I think the 
doubling of the program is reasonable. The bill before us goes 
far beyond that requested, increased the cap to $6 million and 
escalate it I think all the way up to $12 million, depending on 
the level of appropriation.
    My amendment simply sets the cap at $4 million and provides 
for a $2 million additional increase if appropriations grow to 
more than $125 million.
    I appreciate the Chairman for working with me on this very 
fair compromise and encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment. I yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. Let me concur that Mr. Hall has made a 
good bill better, and we thank him for his input on this. Is 
there further discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, I would just echo your compliments 
to Mr. Hall. I appreciate him raising this issue. Our goal has 
been to raise the amount of funds available to institutions for 
this kind of instrumentation. I think he raised a legitimate 
point about the cap, and I appreciate his willingness to adjust 
it as additional funding becomes available and would urge 
passage of this amendment.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion of the 
amendment? If not, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in 
favor say aye? Those opposed say no. The ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    The third amendment on the roster is offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey. Are you ready to proceed 
with your amendment?
    Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, I am.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1867 offered by Mr. Gingrey of 
Georgia.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman is 
recognized for five minutes to explain the amendment.
    Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I want to thank 
my good friend from Oregon, Ms. Hooley, who commented on the 
overall bill just moments ago. Indeed we have worked together 
on my amendment.
    My amendment basically started out with a concern over 
designating a certain amount of funding for the research 
experiences for undergraduate programs, REU. And I know we have 
the students here that Dr. Baird recognized at the outset that 
possibly have been beneficiaries--well, indeed, we are, the 
American people, are beneficiaries of their research work, and 
I hope that they will all have an opportunity to stop by this 
afternoon and see some of that. And I commend them. But I felt 
in wanting to amend the overall bill that came out of the 
Subcommittee, a concern not to get into too much micro-managing 
of the National Science Foundation, particularly in regard to 
research and related activities and the amount of funding for 
that. We want to make sure that they maintain the flexibility 
without too much earmarking if you will. But I really 
appreciate my good friend from Oregon, Ms. Hooley. And we have 
talked about this and she is right. There is this concern that 
the REU Program probably has been neglected within research and 
related activities budget. So I commend her for wanting to make 
sure that that particular line item is properly funded.
    So what we agreed to, and I appreciate her cooperation on 
that, was just to say, well, in proportion to the increased 
amount of overall funding in the National Science Foundation's 
related research activities, as that particular section's 
funding is increased, we would increase in the same percentage 
the amount of funding for the REU Program. Again the REU 
Program, Research Experience Undergraduate Program.
    Mr. Chairman, that in essence is my amendment, and again I 
want to thank Darlene Hooley, my good friend from Oregon. We 
had a great conversation about this on the Floor yesterday as 
we applauded each another on the passage, Mr. Chairman, of 362 
and 363. We are doing great work on this committee, and I am 
proud to be on it and I thank you and I will be glad to yield 
to Ms. Hooley if she has any further comments. But that kind of 
concludes my presentation on the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Hooley. I thank my good friend for yielding, and again, 
it allows this program to expand; and I think when you have 
students that work with students at other schools, other 
institutions, when you have that cross-pollination that occurs 
when you work together, it benefits not only the students, the 
whole schools, and the schools the students return to. So I 
think it is a terrific program. I think we have come up with a 
great compromise, and frankly, it is better than my original 
amendment. I am happy to admit that. So I appreciate again your 
working with me on this, and I yield back my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Okay. I think we got the point though, but 
once again to be sure everybody heard, all in favor say aye. 
All opposed no. The ayes have it. The amendment was agreed to.
    Are there other amendments? Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk, and I appreciate the opportunity to present my 
amendment. Are there copies to disperse? Here, it is in this 
stack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next one.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. I would ask unanimous consent to be listed as a 
co-sponsor of the bill that we are just passing.
    Chairman Gordon. Without objection, that would be a great 
honor. Okay. If there are no more amendments, then the vote 
will be on the bill, H.R. 1867 as amended. All in favor say 
aye. All opposed no. In the opinion of The Chair, the ayes have 
it.
    Now, I recognize Mr. Hall to offer a motion.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably 
report H.R. 1867 as amended to the House with the 
recommendation that the bill as amended do pass. Further, I 
move that staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report 
and make necessary technical and conforming changes and that 
the Chairman take all the necessary steps to bring the bill 
before the House for consideration. I yield back my time.
    Chairman Gordon. The question is on the motion to report 
the bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify 
by saying aye, opposed no. The ayes have it. The bill is 
reported favorably. Without objection the motion to reconsider 
is laid upon the table. I move the Members have two subsequent 
calendar days in which to submit supplemental minority or 
additional views on the measure. I move pursuant to Clause 1 of 
Rule 22 of the Rules of the House of Representatives that the 
Committee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may 
be necessary in the House to adopt and pass H.R. 1867, the 
National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007 as 
amended. Without objection, so ordered.
    And finally, let me look at all of you say thank you for 
being the hard core and staying here as we completed our 
business. We had four good resolutions today, and I want to 
thank all of you again; and this meeting is concluded.
    [Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


Subcommittee Markup Report, H.R. 1867 (as reported from Subcommittee), 
                            Amendment Roster




                  Committee on Science and Technology
               Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
                          SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP
                             APRIL 19, 2007

                H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and

                 Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007

                          Subcommittee Report

I. Purpose

    The purpose of this bill is to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
years 2008, 2009, and 2010 for the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) and to require a triennial planning document for the 
Institute; to establish advisory boards for the Institute's two 
industrial technology programs; to create manufacturing science grant 
programs and research fellowships; to create a new technology 
innovation program; and to make technical corrections to the NIST 
statute.

II. Background and Need for Legislation

    Founded in 1901, the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) has developed and promoted measurement, standards, and 
technology to enhance productivity, facilitate trade, and improve 
quality of life. NIST is a non-regulatory agency of the U.S. Commerce 
Department's Technology Administration.
    NIST operates in two primary locations: Gaithersburg, MD and 
Boulder, CO. It also operates two institutes jointly with other 
organizations: the Center for Advanced Research in Biotechnology in 
Rockville, MD (with the University of Maryland) and JILA in Boulder, CO 
(with the University of Colorado).
    NIST's staff includes approximately 2,700 scientist, engineers, 
technicians, and support personnel. In addition, 1,800 associates 
complement the staff, and NIST partners with about 1,500 manufacturing 
specialists and staff at affiliated centers around the country. Three 
NIST scientists have earned the Nobel Prize in the last 10 years.
    NIST carries out its mission through four cooperative programs:

         The NIST laboratories conduct research supporting U.S. 
        technology infrastructure by developing tools to measure, 
        evaluate, and standardize, enabling U.S. companies to innovate 
        and remain competitive.

          The Baldrige National Quality Program promotes 
        excellence among U.S. manufacturers, service companies, 
        educational institutions, and health care providers; conducts 
        outreach programs; and manages the annual Malcolm Baldrige 
        National Quality Award recognizing performance excellence and 
        quality among businesses, and education, health care and 
        nonprofit organizations.

         The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) offers 
        technical and business assistance services to improve the 
        productivity and competitiveness of small manufacturers through 
        a nationwide network of local centers. The centers are funded 
        by a one-third equal match from federal funds, State funds, and 
        fees charged for services.

          The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) accelerates the 
        development of high-risk, innovative technologies that promise 
        broad benefits for the nation by co-funding R&D partnerships 
        with the private sector, including universities.

    In addition, NIST operates two national research facilities:

         The NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) provides 
        an intense source of neutrons used to probe the molecular and 
        atomic structure and dynamics of a wide range of materials. 
        This facility is used heavily by industry. In 2006, researchers 
        from over 40 national labs, 140 U.S. universities, and 60 U.S. 
        companies conducted research at the facility in collaboration 
        with NIST scientists.

         The Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST) 
        leverages the unique capabilities of the NIST Advanced 
        Measurement Laboratory complex, providing state-of-the-art 
        facilities for nanomanufacturing and nanometrology where 
        industry, universities and other federal laboratories can 
        collaborate in solving critical measurement and fabrication 
        issues necessary to convert nanoscale discoveries into 
        products.

    The Administration's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) 
calls for a 10-year doubling of the funding of the NIST laboratories, 
in recognition of the contribution basic measurement and 
standardization science makes to American innovation. However, in 
recent years the budget requests for both ATP and MEP have recommended 
significant funding cuts to both programs, with Congress generally 
restoring the funding.
    NIST's last comprehensive authorization was by the American 
Technology Preeminence Act of 1991 (P.L. 102 09245, enacted in 1992) 
which authorized all of NIST's programs for fiscal years 1992 and 1993. 
A portion of NIST was most recently authorized by the Technology 
Administration Act of 1998 (P.L. 10509309, enacted in 1998), which 
authorized only the laboratory programs of the Institute for fiscal 
years 1998 and 1999. Since those bills, NIST has submitted legislative 
authorization requests to the Congress (most recently in 2002) and 
completed a major laboratory upgrade at its Gaithersburg, MD campus 
(the Advanced Metrology Laboratory). It has also embarked on laboratory 
upgrades to its Boulder, CO campus and requested funds for upgrades to 
the Center for Neutron Research. In addition, starting in FY07 the NIST 
budget request has included significant increases for its laboratory 
activities.

III. Subcommittee Actions

    The Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation heard testimony in 
the 110th Congress relevant to the programs authorized in H.R. 1868 at 
a hearing held February 15, 2007. The witnesses at that hearing were 
Dr. William Jeffrey, Director of NIST; Dr. Stan Williams, Senior Fellow 
at Hewlett-Packard testifying on behalf of ASTRA, the Alliance for 
Science & Technology Research in America; Mr. Michael Borrus, General 
Partner of X/Seed Capital; Mr. Peter Murray, Vice President of Welch 
Allyn, Inc.; and Mr. Michael Ryan, President and CEO of TUG 
Technologies Corporation.
    On April 17, 2007, Representative David Wu, Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation of the Committee on Science 
and Technology, for himself and Representatives Gingrey, Gordon, Hall 
(TX), Mitchell, and Ehlers, introduced H.R. 1868, the Technology 
Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007, a bill to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 for the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, and for other purposes.
    The Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation met to consider H.R. 
1868 on Thursday, April 19, 2007, and considered the following 
amendments to the bill:

        1. Mr. Wu and Dr. Gingrey offered an amendment to make 
        technical corrections to the bill.

        2. Mr. Matheson offered an amendment to emphasize the need for 
        technology transfer projects to be included in the 
        Manufacturing Extension Center competitive grant program 
        created in Section 203 (c) of the bill.

    By unanimous consent, the amendments were considered en bloc, and 
were agreed to by voice vote. The bill as amended was then adopted by 
voice vote. Dr. Gingrey moved that the Subcommittee favorably report 
H.R. 1868 as amended to the Full Committee, and the motion was agreed 
to by voice vote.

IV. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

    Title I of H.R. 1868 authorizes $2.5 billion for the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology for fiscal years 2008092010, 
including $1.5 billion for scientific and technical research and 
services (STRS), $24 million for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality 
Award Program; $230 million for construction and maintenance; $367 
million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP); and $402 
million for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP), which is 
established in Section 204 of the bill to replace the Advanced 
Technology Program (ATP). Title II requires the Director to submit a 
three-year programmatic planning document and updates concurrent with 
the annual budget request, and requires the Visiting Committee on 
Advanced Technology (VCAT) to comment on this document; creates 
Advisory Boards for the MEP and TIP, which have significant industry 
representation and are required to comment on relevant sections of the 
programmatic planning document and updates; establishes a competitive 
grant program within MEP for MEP Centers or consortia of Centers to 
research manufacturing technologies; repeals the Advanced Technology 
Program and establishes the Technology Innovation Program, which will 
award cost-shared grants to small- and medium-sized businesses and 
joint ventures including universities and other organizations to pursue 
high-risk technologies with potential significant broad benefits to the 
Nation; and establishes a program of research fellowships at NIST in 
manufacturing sciences, and a program of collaborative manufacturing 
grants for industry and non-industry partnerships to pursue innovative, 
multi-disciplinary manufacturing technologies. Title III makes a number 
of technical changes to the NIST statute.

V. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill, as reported by the 
                    Subcommittee

SEC. 1. Short title--The Technology Innovation and Manufacturing 
Stimulation Act of 2007.

TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 101. Scientific and Technical Research and Services--Authorizes 
$470.9 million in FY08, $497.8 million in FY09, and $537.6 million in 
FY10 for the NIST lab activities. Authorizes $7.9 million in FY08, $8.1 
million in FY09, and $8.3 million in FY10 for the Baldrige National 
Quality Award Program. Authorizes $93.9 million in FY08, $86.4 million 
in FY09, and $49.7 million for construction and maintenance of 
facilities.

SEC. 102. Industrial Technology Services--Authorizes $110 million in 
FY08, $141.5 million in FY09, and $150.5 million in FY10 for the 
Technology Innovation Program (TIP), which replaces the existing 
Advanced Technology Program (ATP) (see Section 204). Requires that at 
least $45 million in each year be for new TIP awards. Authorizes $113.0 
million in FY08, $122.0 million in FY09, and $131.8 million in FY10 for 
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). Sets aside up to $1 
million in FY08 and $4 million in FY09 and FY10 from the MEP funds for 
a competitive grant program established in Section 203(c).

TITLE II--INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY REFORMS

SEC. 201. Institute-Wide Planning Report--Requires the Director of NIST 
to submit a three-year programmatic planning document for NIST to the 
Congress concurrent with the budget submission the first year after 
enactment, and then to submit yearly updates with each new budget 
submission.

SEC. 202. Report by Visiting Committee--Changes the reporting 
requirement for the Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT) to 
be due 30 days after the submission of the President's budget to 
Congress, and requires the VCAT to comment on the NIST Director's 
three-year planning document.

SEC. 203. Manufacturing Extension Partnership--Establishes the MEP 
Advisory Board, which consists of 10 members appointed by the NIST 
Director, serving three-year terms. Two members must be employed by or 
on advisory boards of the MEP Centers, and five others must be from 
small manufacturers. None can be federal employees. The board meets no 
less than twice a year, and provides the NIST Director with advice on 
and assessments of MEP. It also comments on the relevant sections of 
the NIST Director's three-year planning document at the same time as 
the VCAT. The Board is governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(FACA). Allows MEP to accept funds from other federal agencies and from 
the private sector. Establishes the MEP competitive grants program for 
MEP Centers or consortia of Centers. The grants are peer reviewed and 
competitively awarded for Center(s) to conduct projects to solve new or 
emerging manufacturing problems. Awardees are not required to provide 
matching funds.

SEC. 204. Technology Innovation Program--Repeals the existing Advanced 
Technology Program (ATP) statute and creates the Technology Innovation 
Program (TIP).

         Establishment--Creates the ``Technology Innovation 
        Program'' with the purpose of assisting businesses and 
        universities to accelerate the development of high-risk 
        technologies that will have a broadly-based economic impact.

         Grants--Provides the Director of NIST with the 
        authority to make grants under this program to either small or 
        medium-sized businesses or joint ventures. For applicants that 
        are single companies, they must be small or medium-sized 
        businesses. Grants are for no more than $3 million over three 
        years, but can be extended at no additional cost provided there 
        is congressional notice. The funding may only be used for 
        direct costs, and can not be more than 50 percent of total 
        costs. Grants may also be made to joint ventures, which must be 
        led by a small or medium business or a university. A joint 
        venture grant may not exceed $9 million over five years and the 
        federal share of the project must be no more than 50 percent.

         Award Criteria--Provides criteria for the selection of 
        grants based upon scientific and technological merit, the 
        project's potential for benefits that extend beyond direct 
        return to the applicant, the inclusion of a technical planning 
        document, the technical competence of the project team and the 
        organizational structure and management plan, and an 
        explanation of why TIP support is necessary.

          External Review of Proposals--Requires the Director 
        to consult with industry or other expert sources with no 
        proprietary or financial interest in the project to review the 
        need for or value of any proposal.

         Intellectual Property Rights Ownership--Addresses 
        allocation of intellectual property developed by a joint 
        venture. Allows IP to vest to any participant as agreed to by 
        the joint venture participants. In accordance with current law 
        allows the Federal Government to retain a license for any IP 
        for U.S. Government use only. Makes clear that joint venture 
        participants can license their IP.

          Program Operation--Requires the Director to issue 
        regulations within nine months of enactment for the operation 
        of the program, including selection criteria, financial and 
        audit procedures and dissemination of results.

         Continuation of ATP Grants--Requires the TIP to 
        continue funding for awards made under the prior Advanced 
        Technology Program.

          Coordination with Other Federal Technology Programs--
        Requires the Director to coordinate with other federal agencies 
        to ensure there is no duplication of effort.

         Acceptance of Funds From Other Federal Agencies--
        Allows NIST to accept funds from other federal agencies to fund 
        TIP awards. Any awards so funded must be selected and carried 
        out as all other TIP awards.

          TIP Advisory Board--Establishes the TIP Advisory 
        Board, which consists of 10 members appointed by the NIST 
        Director, serving three-year terms. Seven members must be from 
        U.S. industry, and none can be federal employees. The board 
        meets no less than twice a year, and provides the NIST Director 
        with advice on and assessments of TIP. It also comments on the 
        relevant sections of the NIST Director's three-year planning 
        document at the same time as the VCAT. The Board is governed by 
        the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

         Definitions--

                 Eligible Company--is majority owned by U.S. citizens 
                or is owned by a parent company incorporated in another 
                country provided that the company's participation is in 
                U.S. economic interests, including R&D investment in 
                the U.S. and increasing U.S. employment. Also, the 
                country of incorporation must afford similar 
                opportunities for U.S. companies, and provide for 
                effective protection of IP rights.

                Joint Venture--includes either two separately owned 
                for-profit companies and the lead must be a small or 
                medium business or at least one small or medium 
                business and one institution of higher education where 
                either can be the lead. Joint ventures may include 
                additional for-profit companies, institutions of higher 
                education or other organizations (such as research 
                institutes).

SEC. 205. Research Fellowships--Raises the amount NIST can spend on 
research fellowships from one percent to 1.5 percent of the total 
appropriations. This will also allow for additional manufacturing 
research fellowships as established in Section 207.

SEC. 206. Collaborative Manufacturing Research Pilot Grants--
Establishes a collaborative manufacturing research pilot grant program 
for partnerships between at least one industry and one non-industry 
partner, with the purpose of fostering collaboration and conducting 
applied research on manufacturing. The award can be no more than one-
third of the cost of the partnership, with no more than an additional 
one-third coming from other federal sources. Selection criteria for the 
awards are based on the breadth of impact of the project, the novelty 
and scientific merit of the proposal, and the demonstrated capability 
of the participants. Awards must be distributed among a range of 
industry sectors and firm sizes. NIST will run one pilot competition 
and awards will be for three years.

SEC. 207. Manufacturing Fellowship Program--Establishes a program of 
postdoctoral and senior research fellowships at NIST in manufacturing 
sciences.

SEC. 208. Meetings of Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology--
Reduces the frequency of meetings for the Visiting Committee on 
Advanced Technology (VCAT) from quarterly to twice annually.

TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 301. Post-Doctoral Fellows--Raises the cap on the number of post-
doctoral fellows that NIST can accept each year from 60 to 120.

SEC. 302. Financial Agreements Clarification--Authorizes NIST to enter 
into grants and cooperative agreements, in addition to its current 
authority to enter into contracts and cooperative research and 
development agreements (CRADAs).

SEC. 303. Working Capital Fund Transfers--Authorizes NIST to transfer 
up to 0.25 percent of its total appropriations, and any funds from 
other agencies given to NIST to produce Standard Reference Materials, 
into the Working Capital Fund.

SEC. 304. Retention of Depreciation Surcharge--Allows NIST to retain 
the building use and depreciation surcharge fees that are charged by 
the General Services Administration.

SEC. 305. Non-Energy Inventions Program--Repeals an outdated statute 
requiring the NIST Director to establish a program to evaluate 
inventions.

SEC. 306. Redefinition of the Metric System--Clarifies in statute that 
the metric system used in the U.S. is the modern system of metric 
measurement units.

SEC. 307. Repeal of Redundant and Obsolete Authority--Eliminates 
archaic, special-case language related to the definition of units of 
electrical and light measurement.

SEC. 308. Clarification of Standard Time and Time Zones--Specifies that 
standard time in the U.S. is Coordinated Universal Time, and fixes 
technical problems in statute with the time zone definitions.


